There is a solution to this economic disaster!

[olegramps]

Tax rates on the wealthy should be raised to 94% as they were during the WWII. Inheritance taxes should not be lowered but increased significantly for the super rich. A new aristocracy has been created that the Founding Fathers feared would only replace the aristocracy of privileged birth rights. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is just as ruthless as was the divine right of kings in enslaving the masses in perpetual servitude.

The lowering of tax rates on the wealthy made it profitable for them to award themselves ridiculous bonuses that should have been confiscated by higher taxes.

The bull shit that is being peddled to day that tax cuts resulted in increased revenues is a lie. The Kennedy cuts were more than offset by the elimination of the tax loopholes and the wealthy actually ended up paying higher taxes. The Reagan tax cuts were totally supplemented by the inclusion of Social Security taxes in the general revenues. These are analogous to the lies the Republicans are spreading about that the New Deal programs were a failure.

[bemildred]

1. Right on Gramps.

The old ways are best. Banana republics always have crappy economies because the oligarchs take the money and run. Progressive taxation forces re-investment and payment of adequate salaries.

[dkf]

2. Obama believes people should be rewarded for their true accomplishments.

If you wanted a tax policy like this your only hope was probably Kucinich.

I used to laugh at the Repubs calling us socialists, but posts like this kind of scare me.

On the other hand, I don't believe that executives of a company that has done nothing for its owners over a 10 year period (aka shareholders) has accomplished much. Basically they made zilch, nada and should give it back.

But only people who saw false gains should have things taken away from them. If you actually MAKE money, like a rock star or a sports star or the CEO of some stock that still has value, then you should be compensated well as long as you bring in the revenue.

[olegramps]

3. I supported Kucinich, but he didn't have a chance. So we got half a loaf.

[dkf]

4. He didn't have a chance because a tax policy like that doesn't have a chance.

[bemildred]

5. It was the law of the land, for quite some time, and it worked really, really well.

I remember it.

[dkf]

9. Was that the days of Ozzie and Harriet and the Beaver?

No sex before marriage, and stay at home moms with one provider for the family?

Things have changed a lot.

[bemildred]

12. Well, it appears the subject has changed anyway.

But yeah, families could still live comfortably on one man's income.

[olegramps]

7. The people during WWII were willing to share the burden.

It was entirely different from the insanity of the Bush administration that launched a costly war while lowering taxes. Now that is a policy that never has worked except for the very wealthy who stand to gain from the increased government spending and lower taxes. Just for the record, taxes on the wealthy were 75% in 1939. The were raised to 94% throughout the war and only lower in 1964 to 91%. By Kennedy's time the tax code had so many loopholes nobody could master it.

[dkf]

10. I can see doing something special in a time of emergency.

But economic theory doesn't support raising taxes in a recession.

[olegramps]

16. The wealthy are not experiencing a recession. Their millions are safely insured.

[Still Sensible]

6. I can certainly support higher tax rates for the wealthy

but IMO 94% is over the top. It seems to me something in the 50% range would be fair.

[bemildred]

8. It was 90% in the sixties. The economy was great back then.

No problems with "enterpreneurs" leaving for better prospects, no CEOs resigning due to inadequate compensation, nothing. All of that is bullshit.

[Still Sensible]

14. But to paint a complete picture

there were a lot more viable ways for the wealthy to hide and shelter their income back then, too, so the 90% top tax rate didn't really indicate how much the wealthy were paying. The whole USB scandal revealed this week is a modern example, but it was a lot easier back then.

[bemildred]

17. I'm just pointing out that on the evidence high progressive taxation is not bad for the economy.

I realize that much of what passes for economic theory is faith-based ideology, but I still prefer to look at what has actually been done and what effect it had on things.

[dkf]

11. Exactly. Just mentioning 94% will scare the bejeebers out of most people.

[Skink]

13. Those kind of tax rates lead to all sorts of mischief.

[digidigido]

15. That is part of the solution

There is no question that tax rates for the wealthy need to rise. The top rate of 91% would apply in
todays $$$ on people with over 3.5 mil annual income. Yes there were lots of loopholes and the
lowering to 70% by Kennedy is probably closer to where it should actually be, if it closes the
loopholes. There are so many things that need to be re evaluated and reworked that it borders
on being overwhelming.
One could easily make a case for an AMT on corporations, demanding that any corporation doing
business in this country has to pay a minimum profit of a certain % of its gross.
There has a been a massive redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich.
One can argue for days and days why, but one cannot argue that it's true.