Shouldn't the top marginal income tax rates be raised significantly?

Wouldn't that solve most of our problems?

This is just a spur of the moment post. I probably should have thought this out more carefully before posting, but I think it is true.

I think the top marginal income tax rate in the fifties and early sixties, all through one of the most prosperous times in American history, was in the ninety-percent range. I think the margin was around income over about $400,000. It didn't hurt the "economy" then.

I'm not proposing a tax rate quite that high, but why wouldn't a marginal rate around 50% be acceptable, for people, making, say over ten million dollars a year?

I haven't run the figures, but it seems to me that we could accomplish a lot of good with such tax policies.

Democracy has been diminished because people have been brainwashed to believe that they are all in the upper brackets, that would be punished to underwrite the lazy and un-prosperous "few."

I know couples with incomes around $200,000 that think they are the "rich people" that the Republicans are looking out for. They truly have no clue.

People, on average, are "lower on the ladder" than they realize. And we need increased revenue to solve the problems that we face.

With somewhat increased taxation, we could provide the necessities for everyone, without harming the lifestyles of the pampered and spoiled. The obscenely wealthy would hardly notice the difference.

We could be a civilized country, like those in Scandinavia and Western Europe.

and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans.

All told, the wealthiest Americans paid 50% in federal taxes back then - now they pay about 18% (while average Americans pay about 30%.

Once again, here's a debate being framed on repugnican terms. I'm in favor of raising tax rates on the upper brackets...meaning those who earn over 100k a year...and either freeze or lower the rates for those below at the current level. The current tax break ends in 2011...and this will become a bigger and bigger issue as the "sunset date" approaches...returning tax rates to what they were prior to 2001. The Democrats have talked about keeping the lower rates at their present level but you rarely hear it over the corporate media noise machine and the non-stop selfish repugnican mantra of "tax cuts"...as if that's the panacea for all that ails the economy.

This country faces some real tough economic choices...thanks to the spendthrift ways of this regime. The Treasury is a disaster...the dollar continues to plummet in value as this regime defecit spends like there's no tomorrow. These are debts that have to be paid...and paid by someone. Soaking the rich won't cover the shortfall. The ultimate answer to help restore fiscal responsibility to this economy is to spur lower and middle class incomes...creating jobs and tax breaks and incentives for American businesses that will help fuel a turn-around in economic production...creating more tax revenues through higher wages.

Democrats should champion tax relief for the lower and middle classes...redefine this issue as one of fiscal responsibility and fairness.

taxing the rich and for some odd reason the idiots still think that some day they too will be one of the rich so they want tax breaks for the rich. Same with the estate tax, they know farmers got family farms taken away by the IRS, I have yet to find one family farm taken by the IRS for estate taxes, though a great number were taken from banks for closing on loans the family didn't know mom or pops took out on the farm and at death became due for collection. But facts don't shake a belief.

Yes, the "American Dream" is that everyone can or will be a millionaire and that once you earn that money, you deserve every penny of it...selfishness personaified. Of course we rarely hear that its the rich who benefit the most from our tax system...not just with breaks but with how the money is spent. Many of these same people rely on corporate welfare...government contracts and special breaks that have helped incrase their wealth...leaving the rest of us with defecits to pay for.

The preception of "rich" also needs to be redefinied. Is this someone who earns a certain amount or is based on assets? I remembered hearing someone claim that "in this economy, you aren't really considered rich unless you have assets of 10 mil or more or an annual income of $250k or higher"...it's not the same metric as it was 7 years ago.

I do favor a capital gains tax cut for those on fixed incomes...drawing money from their pensions and retirement funds. These aren't millionaires and an exemption should be made on gains based on total income...yes lower the rate for those who earn under 100k a year (I'd even say tax free for any retiree) and incrase it for those above...make it a revenue-neutral situation.

There are those who have lost farms and businesses due to problems with estate taxes, but there's almost always other factors involved. A good estate attorney could shelter the business...and many of these situations evolve as family members fight for the assets or years of liens and debts come due. But its easier to blame the tax code than poor planning or family greed.

Cheers...

I agree that 50% would be a good top rate. In fact, I'd place it on income above $1 million. Republicans spend and send the bill to our kids. The wealthy have far more to lose should our country collapse, they should have to pay far and above the lion's share to keep it going.

And gee, they might have to give up one of their 5 vacation homes. Suck it up.

50% on incomes over $1M is about right.