2 ms·

The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played

The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played shell games to cover the cost, with the net result being huge national debt and the social security fund being low enough that it may not be able to continue full payments through my lifetime. Wars cost money. Taxing the wealthiest the most keeps wealth in investments and productive companies while securing the lower and middle class to provide demand with their lower rates. If you want low taxes on the wealthy, avoid allowing a geopolitical situation in which war occurs, and don't enter into them unnecessarily.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. It went back up above 90% for 1950-1963 after a brief dip into the 80s. > The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played shell games to cover the cost It was never less than 70% during Vietnam; though you are right it wasn't up into the 90%+ range if, as many people wrongly do, you count the US war in Vietnam from the Gulf of Tonkin. Desert Shield/Storm was an extremely brief war without a major post-conflict occupation.