I say moderate because this same tax rate is applied in other countries with a much lower threshold, and there were also once rates in the US kicking in at incomes that high, but those were in the range of 91% to 93%.
What's more, that was during the 1950s, a time of unprecedented prosperity in America. So it's not like such high tax rates are inherently detrimental to the economy.
Well, there were recessions, but what I'd have to look into is where the gains of the recoveries went. Because according to the Federal Reserve (have to dig up the link) only the top 10% are better off now (in terms of wealth) than they were in 2007.
I'd also have to look into federal revenues when taxes went down under Kennedy in the early 1960s. You obviously can't raise marginal rates to 100% or you'll get no income from that bracket; you also can't drop them to 0%; and therefore there's a value somewhere in between that maximises revenue.
EDIT:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/shutdown-vote-senate-fail-1.4991658https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00009https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00010There were two bills to fund the US government before the Senate, one advanced by Republicans, the other by Democrats.
Both required 60 votes to invoke cloture; both failed. The Republican proposal received 50 votes for to 47 against, while the Democratic proposal received 52 for, 44 against.
On the Republican proposal, Sens. Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID) and Rosen (D-NV) did not vote; the vote was otherwise along party lines (Sens. Sanders and King voting with the Democrats) except that Sen. Manchin (D-WV) voted for while Sens. Cotton (R-AR) and Lee (R-UT) voted against.
On the Democratic proposal, Sens. Burr (R-NC), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), and Rosen (D-NV) did not vote. Again, the vote was along party lines, except that Republican Sens. Alexander (TN), Collins (ME), Gardner (CO), Isakson (GA), Murkowski (AK) and Romney (UT) voted for.
Meanwhile, Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross urged furloughed workers to seek loans to pay the bills, but also said in an interview with CNBC that he couldn't understand why they were having trouble getting by.
Oh, I don't know, Mr. Ross. Maybe it's because almost 80% of federal workers live paycheque to paycheque?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/29/us-economy-workers-paycheck-robert-reichhttps://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-in-5-us-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.htmlhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/Maybe it's because a disturbingly high percentage of US families would be financially ruined by an unexpected $400, $500, or $700 bill? And keep in mind, while federal
workers have at least been guaranteed back pay (though that does nothing to pay the rent or the mortgage or buy groceries or anything like that now), federal
contractors are fucked.
How fucking out of touch are you, Mr. Ross?
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.
Meanwhile, a Reuters/Ipsos poll last week found that more than half of Americans blame Trump for the shutdown. Trump has been attempting to shift blame to the Democrats, despite saying before the shutdown began that he would be "proud" to shut down the government for border security.