Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If I were running the country my secretaries of state and treasury would be negotiating corporate tax rates with some of our foreign trading partners, or partners where multinational corporate headquarters relocate to due to low corporate rates (Ireland) and add consequences for those foreign countries. We cannot compete on an unlevel playing surface. That said, this is a very small part of our national debt problem.

the idea that if it's a very small part, it's not worth fixing doesn't help.
hundreds of very small parts can add up to something.
and anything being done to help the issue should be done.


“Watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves”

as you've all noted, there's no silver bullet, "just cut defense spending" or whatever
It needs to be across the board

So, what if somehow we tax wealth in addition to income?  A true "billionaire tax"?  So, how much money is out there?  According to this, $4.5 trillion, a tidy sum indeed.  Let's assume it's legal to tax it at say 10% each year, that would obviously raise (in theory) $450 billion a year.  And that looks pretty good in terms of "making a dent" in the nearly $2 trillion deficit.  Europe has tried this, and most countries stopped the attempt, for obvious reasons.  (And it may be unconstitutional.)

So, raising tax rates may generate more revenue, to an extent, if the economy doesn't tank as a result.  But, it's clear that alone won't and can't make much of a dent.  Pennies, fine with me, it's a small start.  Spending is what has to be cut, and you can only cut nonmandatory spending, which the main part is for defense.  But if you cut defense spending to zero, somehow, you still run a massive deficit.  

The only "quasi-solution" is to raise and cut both moderately and HOPE the debt as a percent of GDP starts to drop meaningfully, and that our economy, which is massively dependent on DEBT won't collapse.

I just searched this thread. Words with "spend" appear in this thread 8x. Words with the term "tax" appears, "zero" times. If Americans cannot speak on both sides of the issue deficits will continue to be unsolvable - at least until deficits and national debt end in an existential crisis.
We had corporate tax decreases during the Trump Administration that carried forward into the current administration. I am not a fan of high taxation on the means of production. That said there is a good argument that the corporate tax rate decreases were at least somewhat excessive.
If I were running the country my secretaries of state and treasury would be negotiating corporate tax rates with some of our foreign trading partners, or partners where multinational corporate headquarters relocate to due to low corporate rates (Ireland) and add consequences for those foreign countries. We cannot compete on an unlevel playing surface. That said, this is a very small part of our national debt problem.
The U.S. has the 81st highest state and federal effective corporate income tax rate of 25.81% per Corporate Tax Rates by Country | Corporate Tax Trends | Tax Foundation. We could raise a bit more corporate tax, but should not raise it by much.
We are leaking tax money by an underfunded IRS, too.
Individual income taxes are the United States' biggest income tax issue. While spending is an issue, part of what has gotten us into our present deficit and debt situations is the dramatic decrease in the top federal marginal income tax rate. From 1936 through 1980 the top marginal income tax rate was 70% or higher. Fifteen of those years the highest marginal tax rate was 90% or higher. I am a moderate. Ninety percent (90%) or higher is too high (except perhaps during WW II). Since 1981 the wealthiest Americans have paid politicians to lower the highest marginal tax rate to as low as 35%. It is now 37%. If we are to solve our debt problem that rate has to increase and the tax deductions have to decrease.
There are two sides to the ledger. We cannot solve debt issues by controlling expenditures, alone. The absence of the term "tax" appearing in this discussion should tell everyone why we run deficits. The political class as a group is placating American oligarchs for their campaign contributions.

If you think we have a revenue problem rather than a spending problem then you don't understand the problem.  

To the extent that we do have a revenue problem, "tax the rich" is political sloganeering not an actual solution.  The fundamental problem with it is that "the rich" have the greatest ability to rearrange their financial situations in response to tax incentives.  

From CBO for 2023, Federal Revenues:

• $2.2 Trillion, Individual Income Taxes
• $1.6 Trillion, Payroll Taxes (this is SS and Medicare)
• $420 Billion, Corporate Income Taxes
• $229 Billion, Other

Within your post you admitted that raising corporate rates would be "a very small part of our national debt problem".  Your discussion of State and Treasury negotiating with foreign governments also acknowledges that Corporations can move so anything but a miniscule increase here isn't practical anyway.  Considering that Corporate Income Taxes are <10% of Federal Revenues and <1/3 of the 2023 deficit any adjustment there is going to be a rounding error in comparison to the overall situation.  

You noted that the top marginal rate was 70%+ from 1936-1980.  How did that impact revenues?  Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve of Federal Revenues as a percentage of GDP from 1929-2023.  Highest years on record:

• 19.8%, 1945
• 19.8%, 2000
• 19.5%, 1944
• 19.0%, 2022
• 19.0%, 1998
• 19.0%, 1999
• 18.8%, 2001
• 18.7%, 1981
• 18.5%, 1982
• 18.4%, 1997
• 18.4%, 1969
• 18.1%, 1980
• 18.0%, 1952
• 18.0%, 1996
• 18.0%, 1970
• 17.9%, 1953
• 17.9%, 1954
• 17.8%, 2015
• 17.7%, 2007
• 17.7%, 1995
• 17.7%, 1979
• 17.6%, 1987
• 17.6%, 1989

The years outside of the 1936-1980 window that you cited are in bold.  Note that the second highest and eight of the ten highest occurred when the top marginal rate was NOT 70%+.  

Way back before WWII and before the New Deal we had a Constitutionally limited Federal Government and Federal Revenues were <5% of GDP.  In 1943 Federal Revenues were 11.8% of GDP and they've never been lower than that since.  For the 80 years from 1944-2023 Federal Revenues have been between a low of 13.2% of GDP in 1950 and highs (see above) of just under 20%.  

Above I listed all of the years from 1929-2023 in which Federal Revenues exceeded 17.5% of GDP.  Here are all the years since WWII in which Federal Revenues were less than 15% of GDP:

• 13.2%, 1950
• 14.4%, 2010
• 14.5%, 1949
• 14.5%, 2009
• 14.8%, 2011
• 14.9%, 1951

So there are two three-year dips below 15%.  The first was 1949-1951 when a substantial portion of the Country favored a return to pre-war "normalcy".  The second was 2009-2011 when tax rebates were used as stimulus in a Keynesian effort to prop up the economy.  

Note that in 2022 Federal Revenues were 19.0% of GDP.  This is the fourth-highest year ever and the second-highest post-war year.  Despite that, the Federal Government ran a deficit in excess of 5% of GDP and added $2.5 Trillion to the National Debt.  

Increasing taxes on someone else is always good politics.

Explain marginal rate.  Like when you throw out "top marginal rate was 70%", I don't quite know what that means.  I kind of think it means that income above a certain level is taxed at 70%, but it seems really high no matter what.  

Explain marginal rate.  Like when you throw out "top marginal rate was 70%", I don't quite know what that means.  I kind of think it means that income above a certain level is taxed at 70%, but it seems really high no matter what. 

That's what it means.  But when the top marginal rates were 70% or 90%, there were a LOT of deductions we don't have today. 


Marginal Tax Rates for 2024

Tax Rate	Single Filers	Married Filing Jointly	Heads of Households
10%	≤ $11,600	≤ $23,200	≤ $16,550
12%	> $11,600	> $23,200	> $16,550
22%	> $47,150	> $94,300	> $63,100
24%	> $100,525	> $201,050	> $100,500
32%	> $191,950	> $383,900	> $191,950
35%	> $243,725	> $487,450	> $243,700
37%	> $609,350	> $731,200	> $609,350