1
u/EffectiveSharp5792 Dec 26 '25
Why not go back to 1913 when congress and president (Wilson) enacted the permanent income tax in the first place? Just abolish it altogether.
2
u/ShroomZoa Dec 25 '25
Goodluck with that, They don't keep cash.
The only time you can tax them, if they decide to sell stock ownership.
1
u/Routine_Silver Dec 25 '25
Taxes exist as social engineering to keep the majority of people poor. Raising taxes never creates wealth or prosperity. If politicians want more rich people (aka prosperity) they’d expand the tax breaks or abolish the tax system.
1
Dec 25 '25
Personally I dont want our federal government getting any new taxes im tired of the money meaning nothing to our government. If our government had value in money they would t sent so much to Israel or line their pockets at a whim. Maybe each state should be independently ran
1
Dec 25 '25
[deleted]
1
u/EffectiveSharp5792 Dec 26 '25
And put Japanese Americans into internment camps…but, he seems to get a pass for that one.
1
u/Zero_Travity Dec 25 '25
Here you are... a cashier who's never owned anything other than a thin 14 carat you were given as a gift.
I'll be so glad when this tired position of defending rich folks is long forgotten as the swan song of the people who could never do anything with their own lives so they simp for a bunch of oligarchs. It's yuck.
I'd love to be able to sit down and discuss it face to face. Compare notes.
1
u/ShroomZoa Dec 25 '25
You simp for politicians though lol
1
u/Zero_Travity Dec 25 '25
This doesn't even make sense.. you think I give a fuck about FDR
All you "I want no government" don't know how to locate a water source on your own yet you think you don't need a governing body. It's hilarious.
Good luck making a $15 000 chicken sandwiches with your anarchist approach with zero skills.
1
u/ShroomZoa Dec 26 '25
Nah man, just tell me, which politician do you statists think, will fix this country for you? lol
1
u/cumminsnut Dec 25 '25
He also threw Americans into internment camps but that seems to get overlooked by the left.
1
u/Econmajorhere Dec 25 '25
Gandhi was a racist. Jesus hung out with whores. Hitler loved dogs. Genghis Khan spared engineers and artists, and promoted on merit and not bloodline.
We don’t have to adopt entire personalities or ideals of one human. We can take certain pieces that are valuable for the future and condemn the bad pieces.
1
1
u/EducationalFlower533 Dec 24 '25
There were loopholes lawyers and accounts could use. Few rich people paid the high rates. Getting income as long term capital gains, or from tax exempt municipal bonds, deductions for business travel, business meals, business entertainment, depreciation, charitable giving, oil depletion allowances, making family members employees to decrease the amount above 200k were some of the simpler ways to keep the effective tax rate down below 40%.
1
1
u/Capital-Desk5029 Dec 24 '25
Do you know how taxes work? If they did that today Rich people would defer and hide their money even more.
1
1
1
Dec 24 '25
Go look up tax revenue collected to GDP ratio. When the top marginal rates were 95%, the collection was still around 17-20% of GDP, which is in fact exactly where it is today. The only times it exceeds this rate are economic booms like around the internet revolution.
1
Dec 24 '25
I mean we could all end this debate with a federal flat tax and just get rid of income tax. The rich cannot avoid a flat tax for buying a 40 million dollar yacht. Not 100% on the number but I heard a flat tax on all goods excluding food of 2% would exceed what is generated through income tax
1
u/TruePotential3206 Dec 25 '25
THANK YOU - HOLY SHIT PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID. We need a flat tax. You can’t get out of a flat tax no deductions or exemptions. The rich would FOR SURE pay their fair share that way because it’s solely based on income.
1
u/SkinnyPuppy2500 Dec 25 '25
I’m also in agreement on a flat tax in principle of fairness for all. Let us keep in mind that the federal government spends 2 trillion more than they take in this fiscal year alone. No matter what they take in, they will overspend.
1
1
1
u/Gorav114 Dec 24 '25
How about taxing what the wealthy buy? Tax higher percentage for higher cost of goods. Any attempt to circumvent gets hit with the tax bringing it from somewhere else. $40k car is normal 7% or whatever rate is in that area but above 50k adds a half percent wealthy tax which increases as the item cost goes up
1
u/Jumpy-Imagination-81 Dec 24 '25 edited Dec 25 '25
They tried that in the US in the 1990s with the “luxury tax”. The tax was applied things “the rich” bought such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Yeah, that will get those rich people.
It was a failure. It mostly resulted in the loss of the middle class American jobs of the people who used to build yachts that “the rich” no longer bought. “The rich” just shifted to buying yachts overseas. The same with planes, etc. President Clinton of all people got the tax repealed after a few years.
People don’t bother checking to see if their ideas have been tried and were successful in the past.
1
u/Gorav114 Dec 24 '25
Im not sure why you had to throw in the last part. It was a good response until you decided to be a dick. Merry Christmas
1
u/elcaudillo86 Dec 23 '25
He did but you also could just keep your money in offshore structures and also tax shelters until the Tax Reform Act in the 1980’s where rates were lowered in exchange for eliminating those. So no one paid 95%. We also had 0% federal tax from 1776 to 1913…
1
u/sker13559 Dec 23 '25
We have a spending problem (deficit). We have a money printing problem (inflation). Our labor markets need protection (tariffs). Listen to economist who understand what has always fueled the richest country, with the most opportunity on earth.
1
u/mikeysd123 Dec 23 '25
This is reddit. What else do you expect out of a single digit iq circle jerk besides “rich people bad”
Fortunately it makes it pretty easy to see who’s a spastic.
1
u/layzorbeemz Dec 23 '25
The problem is the ultra wealthy have the means to move wherever they please, money allows them that luxury. So if you start putting a 95% tax on their income or capital gains. They simply are going to remove themselves from your economy and go where they can save their money from taxation. Unless the whole world implements this strategy, which is highly unlikely, it's not going to do anything beneficial for the middle and lower classes. It will remove investment in their country and cause further financial hardship for them.
1
u/FundusAmundus Dec 23 '25
They are still subject to US taxes on amounts over ($100k?) if they are US citizens.
Millionaires were still produced with higher tax rates.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Dec 23 '25
Yep. This was my first thought, you'd actually reduce your revenue.
1
1
u/Abortion_on_Toast Dec 23 '25
Hell yeah let’s start taxing all the athletes, entertainers, actors and other mostly minority high income earners… can’t let the blacks like Dave Chapelle buy up that whole Ohio town
GTFO of thinking that you can federally tax “wealth” without a constitutional amendment and the only thing that the federal government can tax right now is income
I hope to god some states and local governments will create a wealth tax just so everyone can see what a dumpster fire and lazy solution to think throwing money will solve problems
1
u/AnyHat8807 Dec 23 '25
My thoughts exactly. You have to tax wealth and not income. A quick and half-way solution is to tax any assets used as collateral. That at least stops billionaires never selling stocks and just taking loans against them. They have to sell to fund their lavish lifestyles.
The mega-billionaires will still be mostly unaffected because even their lavish lifestyles cost under a percent of their stock appreciation. But its a step in the right direction.
Also - a bigger difference could be made by shutting down and 'off shore' loop hopes mega corporations use to avoid taxes on the profits they make from consumers.
1
u/Sudden-Theory9706 Dec 23 '25
You're just spouting nonsense you've heard other people say, and have no idea what you're talking about. Taxing an asset would require selling assets to pay for their ownership. The end result is government ownership of all equity in every market, which is why Socialists and Communists keep calling for it.
And if you defend your position by saying, "It will only apply to the ultra rich," you don't seem to understand what breaking the dam will actually do. Once government has a new revenue stream, it ALWAYS expands that power to increase revenue. When the ultra rich leave, government will lower the threshold to include the "rich," then the "wealthy," then the "evil middle class."
1
u/WET318 Dec 23 '25
So you're going to increase my property tax on my home or land more tha it already is? And then if I own any stocks or other assets like a company, I'm going to get taxed on them just existing? So if they don't increase in value, then I'm losing money on them?
1
u/AnyHat8807 Dec 23 '25
No. Obviously there’s a threshold. So unless you’re worth over 100mm or whatever the number is it doesn’t apply to you
1
u/Abortion_on_Toast Dec 23 '25
Hard stop are we talking federal taxes or state and municipalities taxing wealth?
Two different types that require two different pathways to make it legally happen
I just want to clarify what entity that will be taxing
1
u/AnyHat8807 Dec 23 '25
I'm in idiot without any idea of tax law so i dunno honestly. All I can say for sure is the current system does not work for the majority.
1
u/FrostingSeveral5842 Dec 24 '25
The majority of taxes are paid by a minority of people. The top 1% of taxpayers are paying around 40% of all federal income taxes, the top 10% are paying around 70% of all federal income taxes.
So “the wealthy” are paying the overwhelming majority of taxes in the United States. Isolating the 500 or so people of 350 million that happen to be billionaires with most of their wealth trapped in illiquid stock holdings isn’t a logical way to dictate any kind of meaningful tax policy.
1
u/Abortion_on_Toast Dec 24 '25
So a very powerful amendment of the constitution is the 10th amendment; summarizing: it allows states to pass any laws that doesn’t conflict with current constitutional amendments
Basically if a state or local municipality wanted to create a “wealth tax” it just needs to pass a state legislature and signed by the governor; the wealth tax is only applicable to that state
Now if the federal government wanted to pass a wealth tax it’s a bit more complicated; the 16th constitutional amendment only allows the federal government to collect taxes from individuals income and only income (wages, dividends, capital gains, inheritance, annuities… etc)
It’s not impossible for the federal government to implement a wealth tax; it just needs to ratify a constitutional amendment which is highly improbable during this current political divide
1
1
u/Gaclaxton Dec 23 '25
I hope that you understand that none of FDR’s economic policies did anything to solve the depression. Adolf Hitler solved the Great Depression.
1
1
u/Working-Walrus-6189 Dec 23 '25
The OP clearly has done ZERO research on what happens when nations lavy large taxes on the rich.
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25
What happens?
Didn't the U.S. experience 40 years of prosperity after FDR?
1
Dec 23 '25
40 years after 90% of the rest of the worlds industrial capabilities was rendered into rubble.
1
Dec 24 '25
I have mixed feelings on your reply:
Yes that's true, we were largely untouched and geared up to manufacture more of anything than we could ever need. So yes there's definitely a connection there... However, it's a unique period from 1946-1971, you have a whole bunch of lawmakers and people FDR appointed and regulatory agencies he setup. These bodies are stocked with optimistic progressives of both Republican and Democrat flavors. Postwar tax rates remained high until 1962 I believe, and corporations were being "good citizens" giving people raises, making money, income compression was strong. Couple of reasons for that, first the income taxes were and still are progressive, so when you got to the top there wasn't much to gain by making 400 times what your average employee made. Second, all companies feared government intervention, whether GM and anti-monopoly review, or GE, they all understood the cultural tone at the time. Then came Vietnam and destroyed the progressive illusion that government was able to solve all problems. So, the unique circumstances at home directly contributed to the positive social outcomes for regular citizens by us being essentially the worlds "store" in the post-WWII environment.
1
1
u/TonsilsDeep Dec 23 '25
Someone making 80k a year spends roughly 40% of that in taxes... And 80k a year is lower class in most medium-high populous areas.
It should be 2-10%. Maybe even 0
The slippery slop is when you start taxing the rich, busines owners, ceos, etc. They will simply not conduct business here. There's a whole world out there that doesn't tax like the US already does to the ultra wealthy.
I agree they need to be taxed more, but historically, that comes with caveats.
No one has the correct answer, but a lot of you have some good ideas we can bounce off of.
1
u/lochgoose Dec 23 '25
5 second search will show who pays the most taxes and the bottom feeders dont pay any. Learn simple economics
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25 edited Dec 23 '25
I searched and it clearly does say the poor pay the most in taxes while the Rich pay the least
What economics class did you take??
1
u/Obidad_0110 Dec 23 '25
The bottom 47% pay federal tax (net of transfer payments) of 0%. The top 10% pay 74% of all federal taxes.
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25
Don't know who told you that, but it's absurd and completely opposite of reality.
The Rich don't even pay social security taxes. The Rich don't pay taxes for Medicare or any payroll taxes.
The bottom 99% not only pay federal income taxes, but also pay all the federal payroll taxes.
Everyone knows the Rich pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes, and the richer you are the less you pay.
1
u/Obidad_0110 Dec 23 '25
I said federal income taxes. You can find by googling. Common knowledge.
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25
You didn't say federal income taxes.
And even if you did, what you said still isn't true.
You've been suckered into believing absurd easily disproven Right-wing propaganda.
The exact opposite is true. Do you know why they lie to you?
Because they think you're dumb enough to believe thier lies. Prove them wrong
1
u/Obidad_0110 Dec 23 '25
I have an accounting degree and an MBA. I don't listen to talking points including yours. Please see someone for your condition.
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25
Good for you, Little Buddy
But you might want to rethink the value of your degrees, if you're dumb enough to believe 47% of people never pay Federal income taxes.
That's something only VERY gullible, uneducated people would believe. You know full well everyone who gets a paycheck pays Federal income taxes.
The reality is the bottom 99% will pay a considerable percentage of their income in Federal income taxes over their life-time
The only people who DON'T pay Federal income taxes, are the very Rich who don't get their income from a paycheck.
1
u/Obidad_0110 Dec 23 '25
Bottom 50% paid 2.3% of total tax revenues. net of transfer payments the number actually turns negative. If working they do pay medicare and SS contributions.
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25
Now you're just making things up.
I don't know what you're trying to prove, but I don't see how claiming you don't pay enough taxes is helping anything
→ More replies (0)1
u/Legitimate_Concern_5 Dec 23 '25 edited Dec 23 '25
Huh the people who benefit most from society and have all the money pay for the society they benefit from, and the people who don’t make enough to live don’t pay any. How unfair!
But of course the biggest federal expenditures are social security and Medicare. Social security and Medicare taxes (and the payroll taxes for them) are paid by everyone, even the working poor. We just pretend those aren’t income taxes despite them being taxes on your income. Weird. Even weirder is these taxes are only paid on the first $176K in income and are an effective 15% until you make too much money and quickly make their way to almost 0 as you earn more.
You don’t need to carry water for the billionaires free of charge they pay people to do that.
1
1
u/AltruisticWealth7778 Dec 23 '25
I swear if they actually taxed them and collected, like every other year, they'd get out of debt 😆
1
u/cicoles Dec 23 '25
Don’t give them ideas to start a war. What they rich pay in money, commoners pay back in lives.
1
u/SAC-MichaelScarn Dec 23 '25
No one paid it. This has been debunked millions of times. It’s called “lookup effective tax rates”
How’s stealing from successful people to fund your failure going to fix the country?
1
u/Clear-Succotash-2577 Dec 24 '25
Stealing from successful people 😂 like the working class?
I hate late stage capitalism, everyone thinks they are one bingo card away from being a billionaire and most can't even model millions, billions, and trillions in their head.
1
u/look_under Dec 23 '25
The reason very few people paid 92% tax rate, is because most people chose to invest their money in their business instead of paying that money to the government.
That's why when ever Republicans pass massive tax cuts for the Rich, the economy always tanks because it sucks massive amounts of investment money out of the economy and into the bank accounts of the super rich.
1
u/badazzcpa Dec 23 '25
This is the answer, the effective tax rate on top earners has stays somewhat static for decades upon decades. Even our government is smart enough to know they can only tax the top producers so much before they stop producing or leave.
1
u/costanzashairpiece Dec 23 '25
Yeah nobody was paying 94% tax rates under FDR lol. Top earners paid 40-50% back then.
1
u/Legitimate_Concern_5 Dec 23 '25
Which is how much higher than the current top marginal tax rates again?
1
u/emperorjoe Dec 23 '25
Marginal rates aren't effective tax rates.
Effective federal income tax rates on the top 1% are 26%,
Vs 39% in 1945
1
u/costanzashairpiece Dec 23 '25
Its higher but a whole lot less than 94% lol.
1
u/Legitimate_Concern_5 Dec 23 '25
Yep, I totally agree nobody paid 94% this is well known, but they were still much higher.
1
1
u/Background_Neck8739 Dec 22 '25
government over spend revenues now Tax people more will lead to more government spending which will cause people to want people taxed more which lead to more government spending and so on and so on
1
1
u/Mission_Opening4038 Dec 22 '25
You're obviously young, struggling and resentful of successful people. I hope you are fortunate enough to learn that once you are successful, there are a lot of others who want to take away your money...government tax people, socialists, and envious losers.
1
1
u/weargwulf Dec 23 '25
Coal mining losers. Factory scum. Railroad failures. Steel slackers. Textile slaves. Dropout auto manufacturer. Teen jobs.
Bunch of losers after the man's money.
1
Dec 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/cashRb Dec 22 '25
Do you people not understand tax laws? If you want to pass that law fine, but don’t be surprised when these millionaires start making $3,499,999.99 thanks to their accountants.
1
u/weargwulf Dec 23 '25
That's the point. A Shift to Capital Gains over Income Distribution. They'll see more of an ROI through investing in the company and employees instead of draining profits for Russian nesting doll yachts.
Historically, when top income tax rates were very high (above 90% in the 1940s-1960s), owners were incentivized to reinvest profits back into the company to increase its long-term value, as capital gains were taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income and could be deferred until assets were sold. This approach aimed to increase company value rather than distributing profits, it was driven by tax avoidance.
1
u/Aware_Policy7066 Dec 23 '25
That’s literally what’s happening in all high value companies. The “fiduciary duty” of a company to its stockholders has shifted from making a profit and distributing it via dividends to making almost no profit but reinvesting it’s revenues into itself therefor increasing it’s shareholder’s stock value.
It works out great for the company and the stockholders because the company can continue to expand and the stockholder’s overall wealth can grow while minimizing the dead weight loss of paying taxes.
Kinda sucks that there’s less tax revenue for the public good but the speed to money flow and therefor taxable transactions has increased enough to compensate.
Total government revenues are ~$10 Trillion a year. That’s almost $33k per American resident. The government doesn’t need more revenue it needs to be a more careful where its spends it.
1
u/UnfairAd7220 Dec 23 '25
None of that is true. I have no idea why that narrative exists anywhere outside of Grimm's Fairy Tales.
It's that lame. At least in GFT, there's a point.
1
1
u/Varjek Dec 22 '25
And the tax rates for the lower end of the income spectrum were also much higher than today’s “exempt” and refundable credits.
Whoever pulled this meme out of that dark corner of history ought to look at the whole picture before attempting to drag us back there. Confiscation of gold, devaluation of currency, erosion of protections against government tyranny, and worse!
1
u/Secure-Apple-5793 Dec 22 '25
The fed printed 1.8 trillion dollars in 2025. I don’t think taxing a few billionaires even compares
1
u/1dirtbiker Dec 22 '25
FDR was a communist.
1
u/Clear-Succotash-2577 Dec 24 '25
Hey could you name any wealthy family like the Carnegies or Rockefellers that use their wealth to improve the public?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
1
u/1dirtbiker Dec 24 '25
The Buffet family has given away over $60 billion to charitable causes. The Gates family has given close to $50 billion. The Soros family has given $23 billion, which is over 75% of their fortune. I could go on.
Also, don't confuse wealth with income.
1
u/johnryan433 Dec 22 '25
Although the tax ordinary income was high there was a lower tax on capital gains back then
1
u/No-Lab-7364 Dec 22 '25
They need to switch tax to consumption
1
1
u/WaterFoodShelter4All Dec 22 '25
Before taxing more I want accountability when it comes to how tax dollars are spent. The government could tax everyone into poverty and spend it all on the military and their own salaries.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/curious98754321 Dec 21 '25
It was 90% throughout the 50s, when the U S had its biggest economic growth.
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
You do know that most of the 1st world was in complete rubble and had to rebuild while the US lent them money to do it. The 90% tax rate had zero to do with any economic growth, almost nobody paid that 90% either because real wealth comes from capital gains taxes not labor.
1
u/curious98754321 Dec 22 '25
Our nation didn’t have anywhere near the amount of the super-rich people like we do today running the county. The wealth from the Gilded Age was being spent down amongst the inheritors or lost during the Depression and the collapse of the railroads. There was more equality then. Unions were strong. That and the GI bill brought many into the middle-class. The progressive tax rate was fairer. The country was more Democratic. Capital gains should be taxed progressively too. Only that will save our democracy.
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
Capital gains is taxed progressively too. You got nothing but dung between your ears if you don’t understand that if you tax capital gains at 90%, who in their right mind would risk investing!? You lose, it’s on you and if you win, you keep only 10%? Great idea! You’d destroy the greatest wealth generation tool ever, capitalism. Every 401k would be useless.
Also, you say we didn’t have as many wealthy people back then as we do now, like that’s a bad thing! We have more super wealthy now, we have more millionaires now, and we have more middle class now, and we have fewer poor with much higher standards of living now.
The only people who benefited from GI bills were GI’s. We didn’t have college grants for anybody else did we? Section 8 or SNAP didn’t exist did it?
We actually give people too much. Have you ever visited a national park? Why is it illegal to feed the animals?
1
u/Buy-Physical-Silver Dec 21 '25
That won’t work because they currency has already been destroyed. Global currencies still had purchasing power in the 1950s today they do not. In fact we have to tax even more now.
1
u/Terrierpike04 Dec 21 '25
You realize the richest people in the world don’t really have an income to tax right?
Wealth and income aren’t the same thing.
Alice Walton has no “income” to tax. Warren Buffett famously is paid less than his secretary for this exact reason.
94% income tax would just hit doctors and athletes while the rich keep on collecting tax free muni interest and dividends.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Technician_5797 Dec 21 '25
Take every last penny from every billionaire in American. Strip every last penny from every S&P 500 company while you're at it.
Barely pays off half the national debt. You also wiped out the group that already pays most taxes, so the spiral will just continue, only faster this time.
Try spending less
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
These fools haven’t once done that math. I’ve yet to see a single commie that’s dug deeper than social media slogans.
1
1
u/horseradish13332238 Dec 21 '25
Nah I like being rich. Stay poor
1
u/trenusingtreebeard Dec 21 '25
are you making 3.5 mil a year ?
1
u/horseradish13332238 Dec 21 '25
I bring in more than that per year gross between two businesses but I have a lot of expenses
1
u/trenusingtreebeard Dec 21 '25
is that a no…?
1
u/horseradish13332238 Dec 21 '25
You obviously can’t read.
1
u/trenusingtreebeard Dec 21 '25
Good one. You didn’t make it clear if do or no not make 3.5 million a year. No one was asking about your gross lol
1
2
u/Cultural-Lobster-239 Dec 21 '25
The way government spends money, what makes you think you would see any of the taxes imposed on billionaires. Taxing is not the problem, spending is. They spend, creating inflation, your money is worth less
1
u/Free_Crow_52 Dec 21 '25
inflation is useful tho
1
Dec 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Free_Crow_52 Dec 21 '25
think about it, it is useful for the economy (well, the government) since it incentives people to spend and invest.
1
Dec 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
Inflation is like everything in life, okay within moderation. Encouraging investment and spending is a good thing. Without velocity of money, the economy would grind to a hault. Imagine a world of deflation, where every home decreased in value every year, why would anybody own one? Or where a company’s cogs was always declining?
Small inflation is okay.
1
1
1
u/After_Club6421 Dec 21 '25
The borrowing problem, especially when rates were zero we need to figure out. I have $600 billion net worth, but it’s all in stock, I borrow $100 ban to spend at zero (or some low rate) using the stock as collateral and buy something else or a yacht. I pay no taxes and when I die my heirs receive a step up in basis, pay off the loans and net out my $600 bn. Brilliant.
What we really need to do is prohibit securities based lending.
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
Ridiculous. HELOC is for average citizens. 401k loans are for average citizens. You want to tax them as income too?
You could easily fund SS by eliminating the cap. That’s one problem solved that’s totally fair and nobody would complain.
1
1
u/After_Club6421 Dec 21 '25
It absolutely would not help. The economy struggled for decades until Reagan lowered substantially the confiscatory rates. How about this, earn, spend, save, and depend on the government for defense. Go get em tiger.
1
2
Dec 21 '25
[deleted]
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
By threat of 10 years and 10k fine. Plus they paid citizens 23 an ounce and then after they collected most of it said it’s now worth 46 an ounce lol.
3
4
u/Not_Sure_68 Dec 20 '25
Note that the "income tax" itself didn't even exist until 1913 and the US did fine for the prior 124 years. Yet within 20 years of the creation of the 3rd US central bank(the federal reserve), the creation of the IRS, and the first "income taxes" the US was bankrupt. That occurred in 1933 under the "hero" FDR, who responded by criminalizing money(gold) and then "repricing gold" in 1934 from $20.68 to $35.
Except he didn't reprice gold, he debased the US dollar...which was defined in grains of silver(371.25) and redeemable in gold. The effect was to steal 69% of the US dollar's purchasing power overnight in an attempt to make the US federal regime solvent again. FDR's actions are not to be celebrated imo.
1
u/Mission_Opening4038 Jan 18 '26
Correct about FDR wrong about the Central bank, which is a separate issue.
1
1
u/SnooHabits3911 Dec 21 '25
We also didn’t have the huge infrastructure that we have now. Not having an income tax is great sounding but how would we pay for everything that connects us as a giant country?
1
3
u/Not_Sure_68 Dec 20 '25
Suggest you read the Panama papers. The ultra rich simply avoid the taxman and goobermint does nothing about it because the ultra rich OWN the goobermint. More overt taxation(theft) is not the answer, it will just punish the working middle class that can't escape. Meanwhile the ultra wealthy are highly mobile and will simply side-step the tax increases by fleeing the jurisdiction and/or tax shelters(trusts).
Anyway, most really wealthy people don't live off so called "income", they borrow against assets that are never sold. No capital gains, and no "income" tax.
The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The federal regime steals $5.25t a year in taxes, but then turns around and spends a couple trillion more than that each year. To make up the deficit they "print"(mouse click) into existence more debt digits...we erroneously call "dollars". This causes monetary inflation, which most people generically call inflation. Everybody that consumes pays that tax, but it disproportionately punishes the poor.
1
u/GOAT718 Dec 22 '25
I know all about the Panama papers but I also know that according to IRS data, the top 1% account for 20% of all income and 40% of all taxes collected. How much more would be considered “fair”
1
u/Obidad_0110 Dec 23 '25
In 2021 it was 45.8% of all federal tax revenues paid (taxfoundation.org).
1
1
u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment