So did FDR raise taxes for the wealthy or not?

[Winterblues]

How about Clinton? Did he raise taxes for the wealthy or not. Rachel had a conservative economist on last night that said you could not raise taxes during a recession and that FDR did not do so. I remember Phil Gramm saying that very thing about Clinton's 1993 Budget and every Republican voted in lock-step against it. Al Gore had to cast the tie breaking vote and passed that Budget and America went on to experience the "Greatest Economic Expansion in History". I am sure the Economic Expansion created by FDR was the greatest of the period as well.

[Stellabella]

1. He sure did.

We've never had a war before when taxes were cut, which is just one small part of the disaster chimpy created.

These uber-wealthy people do NOT need $10, $20, $100 million a year income. They can start paying their fair share.

[Winterblues]

3. Well as intelligent as Rachel appears to be I wonder why she didn't question that.

I can't remember the gals name Rachel had on but she was quite emphatic about it and said something to the effect of FDR Proved you could not raise taxes during a Depression or Recession..I thought the exact opposite was true..

[Stellabella]

5. I've been kind of frustrated with her show.

She has a lot of right wingers on, and the times I've watched she has let them lie and not corrected them. Like Pat Buchanan, for instance.

Don't get me wrong, I think she's fantastic. I just wish she would be more proactive.

[anigbrowl]

10. IT's a bit more complex than that

Tax rates went up in 1932, but so did the threshold - from $100,000 to $1,000,000 - and a million bucks in 1932 was more like $100 million today. Later rates went up further while the threshold fell, but you have to take WW2 into account as a major factor. Huge wars have a severely distorting effect on the economy - something the GOP have been in denial about for the last 5 years, although Iraq isn't huge by historical standards.

Here's a table with some historical data http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Yes. He raised the top marginal bracket from 25% to 63%.

The least that we could do now.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Oh, and he raised it into the 80% area during the war.

[dtotire]

14. It Was Called the "Soak The Rich" Tax Act n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Awww! The Rich need to pony up NOW! They've had their tax cuts, time to pay up.

:nopity:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Tip-O-The-Hat to oldtime propaganda.

:cry:

[FatDave]

6. Top rates through history here:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[Egalitariat]

7. Clinton's tax increase wasn't during a recession. But he did raise taxes on the wealthy***

nm

[Winterblues]

8. Are you sure about that?

I could have sworn that when Clinton took office the US was in recession and that is why everything was keyed on the economy. "It's the Economy stupid" I am fairly certain that Bush 1 put us into recession..

[Egalitariat]

24. Bush definitely put us into recession, but the economy had already started growing again by the 2nd

half of 1992 and continued growing for the next several years.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=1991&LastYear=2002&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no

Of course, measuring economic growth is something you can only do looking backwards so nobody knew the economy was actually growing when "It's the Economy, Stupid" was winning us so many votes. Not that it mattered; Clinton was going to win anyways because he had "IT".

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Yes, yes he did

and the upper tax rate remained at 90% during the Eisenhower years

So there is a precedent, not that many, even in the left, approve of that, as I have found out

[Tracer]

11. Yes, I remember the 90%

Because the few times my parents mentioned economics to me, it was to complain that the tax was "confiscatory". Which, in retrospect, it was.

(My parents were well-to-do, but certainly not "rich").

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. That is why we need a 70%, no exceptions

granted, with the inevitable strategies for wealth protection it will go down to 55%... but it is far more than the 35% that is officially now in the books, more properly 15%

But yes, I have been told round these parts that we really do not need a progressive tax system

[Selatius]

16. That's ridiculous. What do they propose? A flat tax scheme? Or even a regressive tax scheme?

Given the loopholes and tax credits in the current tax system, someone like Warren Buffett has a lower effective tax burden than his freaking secretary. Tell your friends we already have a regressive tax code and that they are tools of the greedy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Don't tell me... it is in HERE that I have been told 70% is too much

and we should not ask the rich to pay THAT MUCH

[Selatius]

19. Congratulations, one DUer who thinks 70 percent is too much just proved your point.

If I'm making 20,000,000/year like these people on Wall Street are making, and the government takes 14,000,000 of that away, I'm going to cry like a big fucking baby because I only got to keep 6,000,000. If I'm lucky and hold my position for just 4 years, I go away with a pittance of 24,000,000. I mean, I can't afford the 30,000,000 fantasy compound I wanted to build! A fucking shame! Shame I tell you! :sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The problem is that thinking is far more widespread than we want to admit

I am to the end of my rope

I've asked people what are they going to do... beyond talking a little revolution, to take advantage of these times

We truly live in revolutionary times, but you'd think it was business as usual... a little screaming et al

And plenty of excuses as to why we are so "powerless"

Reality is that I have come to realize that I am way... and I mean this WAAAAYYYY to the left of the American left

So at this time it might be the time to just hunker down and do what I can to somehow survive this mess

[anigbrowl]

18. Progressive yet, but I'm not in favor of 90% or even 70%.

I really don't think uber_high taxes at the top end are an automatic road to economic nirvana, or even to reducing inequality - to me they're a fall-good for the left in the way that foolishly low tax cuts are a feel-good for the right. Myself, I'm inclined towards a top tax rate of 45-50%.

[bean fidhleir]

13. Relatively speaking, FDR did not raise taxes on the wealthy

Morgenthau, his wealthy "gentleman farmer" neighbor whom he made Treasury Secretary, shifted the tax burden onto working people - and bragged about it.

During the '30s, income taxes were paid only by the wealthiest 5% of the nation. By FDR's death, most working people were paying them, and paying more than their share.

"Even the relatively minor adjustments of 1933-34 loosed a flood of protests against 'soaking the rich'". In early 1935, Sec'y of Commerce Roper spoke for the administration when he stated that tax increases could sometimes be levied on the profits of a healthy economy, but 'it would be very unwise to burden business with additional taxes at this time.'"

At the end of the '20s, 24% of the incomes reported on tax returns were over $50K, but those incomes provided 80% of the taxes collected.

At the end of the war, anyone making over $624/year (no, that's not a typo - six hundred twenty-four dollars a year) had to pay a supplemental "Victory Tax" in addition to the regular income tax.

This is from Leff, M., "The Limits of Symbolic Reform: The New Deal and Taxation, 1933-39"

[bean fidhleir]

15. Another titbit

FDR, in a May 1935 meeting with Moley, Astor, & Coblentz:

"I am fighting Communism, Huey Longism, Coughlinism, Townsendism. I want to save our system, the capitalist system; to save it is to give some heed to world thought of today. I want to equalize the distribution of wealth. Huey Long says that 92 per cent of the wealth of this country is controlled by 8 percent of the population. He would change this situation by giving a $5000 home to each head of a family, $2500/yr, etc. To combat this and similar crackpot ideas, it may be necessary to throw to the wolves the 46 men who are reported to have incomes in excess of $1M a year. This can be accomplished through taxation"

Moley: "the president expressed amazement that capitalists did not understand that he was their savior, the only bulwark between them and revolution."

The 1935 Revenue Act - the so-called "Wealth Tax Bill" was a squib. It was symbolic rather than effective, giving back with the right hand more than it took away with the left.

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. Top bracket was 90% under Ike in the 1950s, and should be again.

There also had always been caps on interest rates at 7%, up until the early 1970s.

Somehow, the market managed to function :sarcasm: and make a profit anyway, and loans were made in a routine way.