Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
15. I'm sure the billionaires would stay here and pay the 90% tax,
Wed Oct 22, 2014, 01:09 PM
Oct 2014

and would not consider relocating to Bermuda, the Caymans, or any other tax haven.

AHhhhh... GummyBearz Oct 2014 #1
Come on! Remember! What was going on during those years? DetlefK Oct 2014 #2
I beg to differ. SheilaT Oct 2014 #3
There's never only one reason The2ndWheel Oct 2014 #6
Oh but there most certainly was competition -- mostly "made in Japan" was a saying loudsue Oct 2014 #100
Japan and Germany, our WW II enemies, The Wizard Oct 2014 #113
spot on hoosierlib Oct 2014 #24
Welcome to DU, hoosierlib! calimary Oct 2014 #51
A few hundred thousand men KIA in a World War had no impact on unemployment? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2014 #69
The impact of those deaths SheilaT Oct 2014 #73
As to Exports, Oil was #1 during WWII and post WWII. happyslug Oct 2014 #86
And it is almost at exactly the same point SheilaT Oct 2014 #88
The biggest correlation has been the huge increase in speculation since the early 1980s happyslug Oct 2014 #94
Yes, you're right on the money. 3rdwaydem Oct 2014 #4
Low tax rates on top earners have meant lots of recessions, lots of economic upheaval. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #19
The wealthy love recessions because they can buy a good company for little or nothing and ride out Jim Beard Oct 2014 #95
+1 nt laundry_queen Oct 2014 #106
Correct. hifiguy Oct 2014 #125
You are so right. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #130
Exports and imports, as a percentage of GDP were pretty low back then MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #31
Very true BobbyBoring Oct 2014 #41
Good point. Trade is a smaller part of our economy (24%) than any other country other than Sudan. pampango Oct 2014 #105
You forget the labor shortage. malthaussen Oct 2014 #42
Everybody did well in those days including the very wealthy. Bandit Oct 2014 #47
You dont think that was a big part of it? We made EVERYTHING. Others made very little. 7962 Oct 2014 #53
People paid the top rate then and would in the Future. happyslug Oct 2014 #67
If you want to increase revenues, get rid of deductions. Al Capones are rare. 7962 Oct 2014 #72
All those groups you mention, rarely cheat on their Income taxes happyslug Oct 2014 #83
Here's the link. And you really think cash earners declare all their income? 7962 Oct 2014 #89
I notice both your cite and my cite rely on the same Government data, and the difference is SS happyslug Oct 2014 #92
Well, usually whenever one mentions "taxes", everyone includes payroll taxes 7962 Oct 2014 #97
Updated 91% Brackets HenryWallace Oct 2014 #117
getting rid of deductions will hurt middle income workers the most noiretextatique Oct 2014 #99
Deductions can be capped. Problem solved. 7962 Oct 2014 #101
personal deductions...possibly noiretextatique Oct 2014 #102
Europe was back on its feet by 1947, and Germany was already the #1 Exporter by the 1960s. happyslug Oct 2014 #63
........ daleanime Oct 2014 #123
I would settle for taxing capital gains on a sliding scale Kelvin Mace Oct 2014 #5
Not a bad idea. ileus Oct 2014 #13
That would help in several respects. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #21
The HF Managers would truly hate it Kelvin Mace Oct 2014 #66
A very good idea. hifiguy Oct 2014 #27
Well, my whole point Kelvin Mace Oct 2014 #64
The rich chipped away at those rates for decades... Orsino Oct 2014 #7
The high rate was incentive to invest money JEB Oct 2014 #8
Because I never miss an opportunity to post these... JHB Oct 2014 #9
Thanks. Great graphs. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #22
Keep posting this at every opportunity! SunSeeker Oct 2014 #57
It, etc., worked before, and very well. America prospered like never before. Hortensis Oct 2014 #10
America prospered... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #18
Ahh, the WWII argument salib Oct 2014 #32
Sorry, but... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #39
Wow, still holding on the WWII obfuscation salib Oct 2014 #48
The growth came about because of full employment (which there wasn't, between 1929 and 1942 or so) Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #50
I'll make it quick, because I gotta get back to work as this is not my job salib Oct 2014 #61
Couldn't you say industry failed to run amok with planned obsolescence back then? RedCloud Oct 2014 #52
Very few actually PAID those high rates. 7962 Oct 2014 #56
And we still did better then. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #76
The Federal budget was about 20% of GDP then. Today its over 35%. 7962 Oct 2014 #81
Yes, but the rates that were ACTUALLY paid by the wealthy and big business were higher then than now stillwaiting Oct 2014 #108
What's the objective source for this allegation? LanternWaste Oct 2014 #37
What's the objective source for the allegation that high tax rates led to general prosperity? Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #45
Few here believe you. I do, because its true. 7962 Oct 2014 #55
"Some of those taxes did pay for things"? OrwellwasRight Oct 2014 #60
I have no problem with taxes as such... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #68
I've been saying that for a long time. I'm glad economists finally agree with me. eom Blanks Oct 2014 #11
The huge increase in the concentration of wealth... Adrahil Oct 2014 #12
Actually, it corresponds with the drop from the 90 percentages to the 70's also salib Oct 2014 #26
You've got to be kidding. nt clarice Oct 2014 #14
Not at all salib Oct 2014 #25
Read the history. Enthusiast Oct 2014 #43
I'm sure the billionaires would stay here and pay the 90% tax, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #15
Most of them probably wouldn't be that fussed anyway Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #16
Oh, changes in capital gains taxation need to happen as well. stillwaiting Oct 2014 #112
If they go, then they go salib Oct 2014 #23
Good riddance. We don't need people buying prime real estate in the US and then not paying JDPriestly Oct 2014 #28
Billionaires have grown wealthy exploiting the natural resources of closeupready Oct 2014 #35
Capital controls can stop that behavior. roamer65 Oct 2014 #79
Good riddance. hunter Oct 2014 #93
Let them go. stillwaiting Oct 2014 #111
I say the uber-wealthy ought to be taxed out of existence. hunter Oct 2014 #17
It's been suggested that one billion in assets and income is enough for Cleita Oct 2014 #30
When you tax at 100%, what incentive is there for them to do anything? Shoulders of Giants Oct 2014 #85
100% of money earned and assets owned over a billion dollars. Cleita Oct 2014 #91
Seems like that would violate the constitution taught_me_patience Oct 2014 #126
With that logic, paying taxes would be a violation, period. Cleita Oct 2014 #127
They should at least have to do something tangible to Enthusiast Oct 2014 #40
yes! wish I could rec your reply 1 billon times Hunter!! undergroundpanther Oct 2014 #59
Hello! hunter Oct 2014 #98
At least salib Oct 2014 #20
We used to have a 90% tax rate. Cleita Oct 2014 #29
Kennedy tried that salib Oct 2014 #44
Eliminate all deductions and loopholes and increase the rate to 55% for the top 1 %. roamer65 Oct 2014 #77
The wisdom of this economic fact is precisely why Hillary is preferred closeupready Oct 2014 #33
Precisely. Enthusiast Oct 2014 #38
That would make them cry, though. malthaussen Oct 2014 #34
K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Oct 2014 #36
Do they also support allowing all the deductions that were allowed back then joeglow3 Oct 2014 #46
Oh, oh...but they are the Job Creators! SoapBox Oct 2014 #49
Policy makers never listen to economists/economic research Taitertots Oct 2014 #54
when will they start undergroundpanther Oct 2014 #58
Gawd dammit to all on this board arguing against this abelenkpe Oct 2014 #62
Agree one hundred percent, abelenkpe! lovemydog Oct 2014 #75
Alas, the people (congress) who could do this have been bought by uber-rich. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #65
If a top marginal rate of 90% would increase everyone's well-being, it could be argued that these indepat Oct 2014 #70
Reagan's intention seemed to be to turn America into a feudalistic nation AZ Progressive Oct 2014 #82
K & R SunSeeker Oct 2014 #71
I think this is the single most effective way to strengthen the middle class. lovemydog Oct 2014 #74
As long as we make the first 25k tax free. roamer65 Oct 2014 #78
I am for 50 K, and threy is support that that would INCREASE revenue to the Government. happyslug Oct 2014 #84
Taxes are social engineering, but that's good AZ Progressive Oct 2014 #80
So then exploit the loopholes! nitpicker Oct 2014 #87
make them invest their money in america. pansypoo53219 Oct 2014 #90
Sadly, Democrats asked the wealthy only to pay a little more, as if a little more would have cured indepat Oct 2014 #96
And I'd like a Federal Department of crisp, lossless, Grateful Dead soundboards. Warren DeMontague Oct 2014 #103
Right Wing: but they are the job creators! LOL B Calm Oct 2014 #104
Yup. Not much to add to that other than saying: Share that graph far and wide. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #107
I would be happy with FDR's 60%-80% top rate from 1933 till WWII started. n/t pampango Oct 2014 #109
I don't think you even need to go that far Prophet 451 Oct 2014 #110
I have been watching this thread melm00se Oct 2014 #114
I support the 90% CJCRANE Oct 2014 #115
$100 million income taxed at 90%: can they survive on just $1 million per year? Martin Eden Oct 2014 #116
You hit it on the head AZ Progressive Oct 2014 #124
That would at least $10 million per year on that income CJCRANE Oct 2014 #128
You are correct ... let's raise that to 99% Martin Eden Oct 2014 #129
Democratic Party isn't strong enough to advocate for working families. Social justice whereisjustice Oct 2014 #118
Shocking that once it fell off a cliff most Americans... EEO Oct 2014 #119
Income just shifts to another form then One_Life_To_Give Oct 2014 #120
I'll agree if the $$ goes towards Social programs and not to more military empire building. Amimnoch Oct 2014 #121
Pointless Man from Pickens Oct 2014 #122
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Economists Say We Should ...»Reply #15