The GOP Tax Cut and Rising Wages....or not.

[wing2000]

Remember the GOP promise of rising wages with the December 2017 tax cut given to corporations?

U.S. companies are putting savings from the corporate tax cut to use, but only a fraction of it is flowing to employees’ wallets, new data show.

A new survey of 152 companies by executive-recruitment firm Korn Ferry International revealed 14% were putting part of their tax-cut savings into base salary increases. A poll of 1,500 companies by consulting firm Mercer LLC showed 4% are redirecting tax savings to budgets for bigger paychecks in the coming year. And in a survey of more than 1,000 companies published by human-resources consulting firm Aon PLC, 99% said the tax cuts weren’t prompting them to increase minimum wages.

Tax Cuts Provide Limited Boost to Workers’ Wages

 

[HTacianas]

Remember the GOP promise of rising wages with the December 2017 tax cut given to corporations?

U.S. companies are putting savings from the corporate tax cut to use, but only a fraction of it is flowing to employees’ wallets, new data show.

A new survey of 152 companies by executive-recruitment firm Korn Ferry International revealed 14% were putting part of their tax-cut savings into base salary increases. A poll of 1,500 companies by consulting firm Mercer LLC showed 4% are redirecting tax savings to budgets for bigger paychecks in the coming year. And in a survey of more than 1,000 companies published by human-resources consulting firm Aon PLC, 99% said the tax cuts weren’t prompting them to increase minimum wages.

Tax Cuts Provide Limited Boost to Workers’ Wages

Why don't we abolish the tax cuts and all those people who have jobs now because of them can go back to being unemployed.

If you make nothing because you don't have a job, then you get a job making something, how much of a percentage has your salary increased?

 

[Arcangl86]

Why don't we abolish the tax cuts and all those people who have jobs now because of them can go back to being unemployed.

If you make nothing because you don't have a job, then you get a job making something, how much of a percentage has your salary increased?

How many jobs were created as a result of the tax cuts?

 

[mark46]

First, I'm a yellow dog Democrat.
==========
Trump's corporate tax cut were an excellent idea, especially since he was considering a trade war with China (supported by a vast majority of politicians on both sides). He has almost maintained the job creation numbers of 2015 and 2016 under Obama. Our companies are more competitive. There should have been cuts to a couple of obvious loopholes (to hedge fund and real estate folks, as I recall), but overall the reduction was long needed.

It was the reductions in the personal tax rates that were outrageous, simply a gift to the rich, and an unneeded stimulus to the economy. The money could have been much better used for roads and bridges (or even a wall), creating lots and lots of jobs.

Remember the GOP promise of rising wages with the December 2017 tax cut given to corporations?

U.S. companies are putting savings from the corporate tax cut to use, but only a fraction of it is flowing to employees’ wallets, new data show.

A new survey of 152 companies by executive-recruitment firm Korn Ferry International revealed 14% were putting part of their tax-cut savings into base salary increases. A poll of 1,500 companies by consulting firm Mercer LLC showed 4% are redirecting tax savings to budgets for bigger paychecks in the coming year. And in a survey of more than 1,000 companies published by human-resources consulting firm Aon PLC, 99% said the tax cuts weren’t prompting them to increase minimum wages.

Tax Cuts Provide Limited Boost to Workers’ Wages

 

[Andrew77]

Remember the GOP promise of rising wages with the December 2017 tax cut given to corporations?

U.S. companies are putting savings from the corporate tax cut to use, but only a fraction of it is flowing to employees’ wallets, new data show.

A new survey of 152 companies by executive-recruitment firm Korn Ferry International revealed 14% were putting part of their tax-cut savings into base salary increases. A poll of 1,500 companies by consulting firm Mercer LLC showed 4% are redirecting tax savings to budgets for bigger paychecks in the coming year. And in a survey of more than 1,000 companies published by human-resources consulting firm Aon PLC, 99% said the tax cuts weren’t prompting them to increase minimum wages.

Tax Cuts Provide Limited Boost to Workers’ Wages

And yet, even a limited boost to wages is better than none. Are you honestly suggesting it would be better if there was no boost to wages?

Beside, no matter what the company does with the money, it's still better than giving it to government. Everything someone does with their money, is a boost to the economy in general.

What if instead of giving wage increases, it causes 50 new jobs to be created? In effect, even though no person is getting a direct pay increase, people are moving from lower paying jobs to higher paying jobs, because the tax cuts allowed the company to offer new jobs.

If my company offers more tech positions, and someone quits a job at McDonald's to get a higher paying job as a tech, that's a pay raise to them, isn't it?

So I don't care what the company uses the money for, it's a benefit to the entire country.

 

[Andrew77]

How many jobs were created as a result of the tax cuts?

That's impossible to calculate. What is for sure, is that increasing taxes does not create jobs. How does a company pay an employee a wage, with money stolen by the government?

The question you should be asking is, in which situation is a company more likely, or less likely, to increase wages, or create jobs:
1. When government is taking 33% of their profits.
2. When government is taking 20% of their profits.

Under which system is a company more likely to increase wages or jobs?

1. When they have more money, because taxes are lower.
2. When they have less money, because taxes are higher.

It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics, with a $200 million dollar grant from the government, to figure out that if you have no money because the government taxed your money away, that you are less likely to higher someone to mow your lawn.

Businesses are no different. If they don't have money, they are less likely to give raises, or hire more people. If they do have money, then they are more likely to give raises and hire more people.

I could figure that out when I was in elementary school, shoveling snow. I didn't go to the poor people's house to see if they'll pay me to shovel snow. I went to the doctor, or lawyers house. They had the money to pay me to do that work. I don't need some government union statistician to figure out the numbers on this. It's pretty basic common sense.

 

[mark46]

I supported the reduction in the corporate tax rate. [As an aside, I strongly opposed the tax rate decrease for individual tax payers].

HOWEVER, I strongly reject your arguments. It is NOT always better for corporations to have the money, or for rich individuals to have the money. Yes, there could have been some closing of loopholes in the corporate tax reduction (on hedge fund traders and real estate folk). There are indeed GOVERNMENT expenditures that could help the people more (and yes, even help business even more).

I believe that EVERY PENNY of the tax decrease on individuals should have been spent on infrastructure or not at all. US business and US people would greatly benefit from fixing and building bridges, tunnels, roads, railroads, and airports. This would create tens of thousands of jobs, and would result in wage increases since there are so few workers. Curiously, we would be begging the government to allow more foreign workers into the country with green cards.

Giving the money to the rich through tax reduction IS SPENDING the money. We have a deficit each year, so the money could be NOT spent and reduce our deficit.
======
And yes, more tax money could be spent on health care, but that is another discussion. Having the very worst health care for the middle and lower classes in the industrial world is indeed a travesty. However, there is strong argument that this can and should be handled at the state level. This is probably true for the large states who have economies as large as most countries. It is the small and rural states that need federal spending for medical care. There are two answers. One is Medicare for all, which would undoubtedly reduce total health cost by many, many billions. Alternatively, more money could be put into Medicaid, with fewer federal constraints. This would allow the states and their voters to decide who health care monies should be spent. Both decisions are good ones.

 

[mark46]

Let's shorten your argument to its core. You think it is right to hand a trillion dollars to business because they will spend a PORTION of that money on more jobs, and that any new jobs is better then none.

So, the status quo is to give a trillion dollars to business and see what happens. Yes, give! Because, this will create deficits each year.

My position is that more jobs would be created by spending the tax money on infrastructure than by giving it back to businesses and rich individuals. This too is COMMON SENSE.

That's impossible to calculate. What is for sure, is that increasing taxes does not create jobs. How does a company pay an employee a wage, with money stolen by the government?

The question you should be asking is, in which situation is a company more likely, or less likely, to increase wages, or create jobs:
1. When government is taking 33% of their profits.
2. When government is taking 20% of their profits.

Under which system is a company more likely to increase wages or jobs?

1. When they have more money, because taxes are lower.
2. When they have less money, because taxes are higher.

It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics, with a $200 million dollar grant from the government, to figure out that if you have no money because the government taxed your money away, that you are less likely to higher someone to mow your lawn.

Businesses are no different. If they don't have money, they are less likely to give raises, or hire more people. If they do have money, then they are more likely to give raises and hire more people.

I could figure that out when I was in elementary school, shoveling snow. I didn't go to the poor people's house to see if they'll pay me to shovel snow. I went to the doctor, or lawyers house. They had the money to pay me to do that work. I don't need some government union statistician to figure out the numbers on this. It's pretty basic common sense.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's impossible to calculate. What is for sure, is that increasing taxes does not create jobs. How does a company pay an employee a wage, with money stolen by the government?

The question you should be asking is, in which situation is a company more likely, or less likely, to increase wages, or create jobs:
1. When government is taking 33% of their profits.
2. When government is taking 20% of their profits.

Under which system is a company more likely to increase wages or jobs?

1. When they have more money, because taxes are lower.
2. When they have less money, because taxes are higher.

It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics, with a $200 million dollar grant from the government, to figure out that if you have no money because the government taxed your money away, that you are less likely to higher someone to mow your lawn.

Businesses are no different. If they don't have money, they are less likely to give raises, or hire more people. If they do have money, then they are more likely to give raises and hire more people.

I could figure that out when I was in elementary school, shoveling snow. I didn't go to the poor people's house to see if they'll pay me to shovel snow. I went to the doctor, or lawyers house. They had the money to pay me to do that work. I don't need some government union statistician to figure out the numbers on this. It's pretty basic common sense.

Corporations have been flush with cash for a long time; they’ve had the money to pay more, but until recently, there hasn’t been market pressure pushing them to do so.

Pre and post tax cut, corporations are using more and more of their free cash for stock buybacks.

And the idea that increasing taxes can’t create jobs is absurd. I challenge you to go into any town with a military base and make that argument. The defense sector is entirely funded by taxes. Pharmaceutical research is largely funded by taxes. Renewable energy is being propped up with government incentives until it’s viable on its own. Many of the technological underpinnings of our economy are built on technologies developed with government funding.

 

[Andrew77]

Corporations have been flush with cash for a long time; they’ve had the money to pay more, but until recently, there hasn’t been market pressure pushing them to do so.

Pre and post tax cut, corporations are using more and more of their free cash for stock buybacks.

And the idea that increasing taxes can’t create jobs is absurd. I challenge you to go into any town with a military base and make that argument. The defense sector is entirely funded by taxes. Pharmaceutical research is largely funded by taxes. Renewable energy is being propped up with government incentives until it’s viable on its own. Many of the technological underpinnings of our economy are built on technologies developed with government funding.

Do you not know who benefits from stock buybacks? Namely everyone with a 401k, which includes me. Pension funds, 401Ks, all benefit from stock buybacks.

Besides, that's a false argument anyway. Companies are not buying back stock with all the money saved from taxes. That's ridiculous. Even if you could point to a company which did that, they couldn't do that forever, because they would run out of stock to buy back, and then what would they do with the money? Something beneficial.

You think prosperity is created by the military? Ok, let's test that theory. Raise taxes to 100%, and employ everyone in the military. No homes, no food, no products. The country implodes.

Jobs are not created by taxes. And quite frankly, for every low-paying job created by the military, a higher paying job must cease to exist in the private economy. Where do you think that money comes from? Money has to be removed from the private economy, to create a low paying job in the government.

 

[mark46]

The idea that government spending cannot create jobs is one of the least informed positions I have seen since I have have followed politics (over 60 years).

Infrastructure and military spending have always created jobs. We need to build and maintain bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, military equipment and military facilities. We can argue about the effects of other government spending and how much of this spending needs to federal. But there is no doubt that this kind of spending creates jobs. Also, federal government aid to local governments retains jobs for police, fire, early responders, teachers, and rural hospital workers.

There is no question that government spending can create and maintain local jobs. The question is how much to spend, and who should make the decisions.
=========
I have not include other areas of spending that can create jobs, although much is in the future. Government spending on Research and Development is does this, especially space related research and development.

Corporations have been flush with cash for a long time; they’ve had the money to pay more, but until recently, there hasn’t been market pressure pushing them to do so.

Pre and post tax cut, corporations are using more and more of their free cash for stock buybacks.

And the idea that increasing taxes can’t create jobs is absurd. I challenge you to go into any town with a military base and make that argument. The defense sector is entirely funded by taxes. Pharmaceutical research is largely funded by taxes. Renewable energy is being propped up with government incentives until it’s viable on its own. Many of the technological underpinnings of our economy are built on technologies developed with government funding.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Do you not know who benefits from stock buybacks? Namely everyone with a 401k, which includes me. Pension funds, 401Ks, all benefit from stock buybacks.

Sure, but it’s not wages, and it only benefits the affluent. (myself included)

Besides, that's a false argument anyway. Companies are not buying back stock with all the money saved from taxes. That's ridiculous. Even if you could point to a company which did that, they couldn't do that forever, because they would run out of stock to buy back, and then what would they do with the money? Something beneficial.

Come on, man. Do a little homework.

Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks

You think prosperity is created by the military? Ok, let's test that theory. Raise taxes to 100%, and employ everyone in the military. No homes, no food, no products. The country implodes.

Who said anything about 100%?

but hooray for strawmen, eh?

Jobs are not created by taxes. And quite frankly, for every low-paying job created by the military, a higher paying job must cease to exist in the private economy. Where do you think that money comes from? Money has to be removed from the private economy, to create a low paying job in the government.

The jobs in the defense, pharmaceutical, and tech industries are not low-paying. Neither are construction jobs for infrastructure.

Seriously, do some homework about how economic stimulus works.

 

[JackRT]

Trickle down economics is based on the theory that, if the poor are starving, give more food to the rich in the hope that the poor will subsist on the extra crumbs that fall from the tables of the rich.

 

[childeye 2]

I believe it's probably the stupidest form of socialism ever in history that was sold to the American people; When taxes borrowed from the future are given to private corporations with the expectation that they will hire enough tax paying citizens, to create enough productivity and wages, to pay the taxes back that were borrowed to hire them. Particularly when the profits of the productivity gained by the corporation are exempt from paying back a huge percentage of the taxes because of the tax cut. It's like paying someone to hire me to work for them so I can earn back what I paid them.

The wages and jobs gained will never pay back the 1.5 trillion that was borrowed from the future. It will only end up stealing from the labor of every individual through an increase in the rate of inflation.

 

[Belk]

Do you not know who benefits from stock buybacks? Namely everyone with a 401k, which includes me. Pension funds, 401Ks, all benefit from stock buybacks.

Besides, that's a false argument anyway. Companies are not buying back stock with all the money saved from taxes. That's ridiculous. Even if you could point to a company which did that, they couldn't do that forever, because they would run out of stock to buy back, and then what would they do with the money? Something beneficial.

You think prosperity is created by the military? Ok, let's test that theory. Raise taxes to 100%, and employ everyone in the military. No homes, no food, no products. The country implodes.

The highest marginal tax rate between 1932 to 1982 fluctuated between 66% to 94%. The country managed just fine.

CCH INCORPORATED

Jobs are not created by taxes. And quite frankly, for every low-paying job created by the military, a higher paying job must cease to exist in the private economy. Where do you think that money comes from? Money has to be removed from the private economy, to create a low paying job in the government.

As a government employee I would disagree with that statement. Do you have the data to back up your claim that every low paying government job results in the sacrifice of a higher paying job in the private sector?

 

[Andrew77]

Let's shorten your argument to its core. You think it is right to hand a trillion dollars to business because they will spend a PORTION of that money on more jobs, and that any new jobs is better then none.

So, the status quo is to give a trillion dollars to business and see what happens. Yes, give! Because, this will create deficits each year.

My position is that more jobs would be created by spending the tax money on infrastructure than by giving it back to businesses and rich individuals. This too is COMMON SENSE.

"right to hand a trillion dollars to business"....

What? No one is handing money to business. Cutting taxes, isn't handing money to people.

When Bush cut taxes on you, or Trump cut taxes on you (which both did, that's a fact), did you feel like the government was handing you money? Or were they simply not taking as much of your money from you?

The business is who earned the money. It was THEIR money, not yours. When you cut taxes, you are not 'handing them' anything. IT IS THEIR MONEY. Not your money. You can't 'hand them' money that was theirs to begin with.

If I came and mugged you, and stole from your pocket $10... and then I turned around and gave you back $5... would you conclude I was "handing you $5".... how generous of me! I am so kind and compassionate in giving you $5 of your own money! I am such a charitable person!

Do you see how that argument makes no sense whatsoever? no one is "handing business" money.

Second, if you are worried about infrastructure, would could fund all the infrastructure in the entire country, and cut taxes in half. Infrastructure spending is a joke. You can't blow literally trillions of dollars on welfare programs every year, and then cry about that

Sure, but it’s not wages, and it only benefits the affluent. (myself included)



Come on, man. Do a little homework.

Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks



Who said anything about 100%? but hooray for strawmen, eh?



The jobs in the defense, pharmaceutical, and tech industries are not low-paying. Neither are construction jobs for infrastructure.

Seriously, do some homework about how economic stimulus works.

Stock buyback programs benefits nearly everyone, unless they choose to not save money for retirement. Walmart has a employee stock purchase program that any employee, no matter how low their income, can invest in. I had a woman friend who worked as a floor associate, and accumulated thousands of dollars in Walmart stock. Using that money, plus their tuition reimbursement program, got a degree in civil engineering.

She benefited from stock buybacks, and where do you think the money came from to fund tuition reimbursement? It came from profits that were not taxed away.

Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks

Right. And how much have they saved from taxes? A ton more.

How many companies out there, compared to the number buying back stock? You realize that Apple computer is $100 Billion of that $437, right? One company, out of hundreds of thousands of companies.

And again, you can't buy back stock forever, because the amount of stock is limited. So what happens when they stop buying back stock? What are they going to do with the money then? Invest? Hire people? Pay raises? Whatever they do, will be a benefit to working people.

Who said anything about 100%? but hooray for strawmen, eh?

It didn't seem that complicated, but apparently you still missed the point.

You claimed that taxes creates jobs. That's impossible. If really think that, then we can test the theory. Just increase taxes to 100%. After all, in 'your world', taxes create jobs. So let's tax ourselves into opulent prosperity.

You know that wouldn't work, and so do I.

Every single dollar given to someone in a government job, has to come from someone else in the private sector, plus more.

Paying a military E-5 person that massive $2,000 a month wage, you have to take that from someone in the private sector.... PLUS more. Because every dollar to a military person, isn't one dollar from a private person, because everyone in the chain has to be paid as well. The IRS has to be paid. The union government workers have to be paid. The military offices have to be paid, all to pass that $1 to the enlisted man.

So someone in a higher paying private sector job, has to lose their income, for an enlisted man earning less money can get his job.

In short.... taxes do not create jobs. More jobs are lost, than created.

The jobs in the defense, pharmaceutical, and tech industries are not low-paying. Neither are construction jobs for infrastructure.

Again... relative to whatever the pay is.... you still lose a higher paying job, to create a lower paying one.

If you have a government job that pays $100K a year.... still doesn't matter. Because the amount of taxes against the private sector will have to be higher, than the amount paid out in the public sector. You have to tax $100K plus more, to pay for a $100K a year government job.

This is exactly what happened in Greece, and almost what happened in France. France they imposed a wealth tax, and all the wealthy people started running away. They had to cut taxes, and impose reforms on government employee pay, or face a national implosion.

Venezuela did the same thing. Endless government benefits and government jobs, and the entire economy crashed under the weight of the taxes and regulations.

Taxes do not create jobs, or Greece would be the dominate economy over the entire European Union. Taxes do not create jobs, or Venezuela should be the leading economy in south America.

If taxes created jobs, then the 1970s should have been a gold age in the US, and the 1980s should have been the malaise of stagflation.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As a government employee I would disagree with that statement. Do you have the data to back up your claim that every low paying government job results in the sacrifice of a higher paying job in the private sector?

Not only is there direct employment from government agencies, and somewhat less direct employment via private firms working under government funding, but there are also the jobs enabled by the better business environment created by the stability and security of a nation with a robust system of laws and enforcement.

 

[Andrew77]

I believe it's probably the stupidest form of socialism ever in history that was sold to the American people; When taxes borrowed from the future are given to private corporations with the expectation that they will hire enough tax paying citizens, to create enough productivity and wages, to pay the taxes back that were borrowed to hire them. Particularly when the profits of the productivity gained by the corporation are exempt from paying back a huge percentage of the taxes because of the tax cut. It's like paying someone to hire me to work for them so I can earn back what I paid them.

The wages and jobs gained will never pay back the 1.5 trillion that was borrowed from the future. It will only end up stealing from the labor of every individual through an increase in the rate of inflation.

Again... no one is "giving money to corporations".

Where do people come up with this nonsense?

If I rob you, and take $10 out of your wallet, and then turn around and give you $5..... am I being generous? Am I 'giving you $5'?

Would you go around saying "That guy Andy, gave me money!", after I removed $10 from your wallet at gun point?

This is crazy.

Allowing people to keep THEIR OWN MONEY... is not 'giving them money'. Allowing corporations to keep their own money, that they rightfully earned, is not 'giving them money'.

And the problem with borrowed money, has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with spending. When you over spend..... it does not matter how much money you are given.

I can't count the number of people who get a pay raise, and end up just as poor, or poorer than before they got the pay raise. Why? Because they increase spending.

You can't over-spend non-stop and then complain about tax cuts. Stop over spending. Government needs to stop spending money it doesn't have.

You don't mow someone's lawn, and then tell them "I decided to buy a new car, and the car payment is due, so I need you to pay me $500 for mowing this lawn".

That's not how life works. You don't blow money buying stuff, and then demand other people pay you how much you need to pay for your incompetence. Instead, you determine how much money is coming in, spend based on how much you make.

Similarly, the government doesn't determine "oh hey, everyone wants $2 trillion dollars in stuff, so now we need all of you to pay for it, after we already bought it!".

No, you look at how much money is coming in, and then spend less than that. You don't blow $800 billion in an Obama stimulus package that mostly went to political supporters, and then tell the American Public we need to raise taxes or we'll have to borrow $1.3 Trillion for 5 years.

No, you cut your spending. We can't afford universal health care. We can't afford public housing. We can't afford endless retirement pensions. You need to cut your spending. That's the solution. Not whine about how everyone should pay more taxes, because you want free stuff.

 

[childeye 2]

"right to hand a trillion dollars to business"....

It's 1.5 trillion.

What? No one is handing money to business. Cutting taxes, isn't handing money to people.

Let's be honest and let's be factual. Less taxes equates to more profits in capital gains. True or false? There were no cuts in government services to match the tax cuts, which means a greater budget deficit due to loss of revenue. True or false? The money seen in the greater profits for corporations is therefore paid for by taxpayers who have to make up the difference in revenue. True or false?

 

[Andrew77]

The highest marginal tax rate between 1932 to 1982 fluctuated between 66% to 94%. The country managed just fine.

CCH INCORPORATED

As a government employee I would disagree with that statement. Do you have the data to back up your claim that every low paying government job results in the sacrifice of a higher paying job in the private sector?

Yeah, I do.... its called "math".
Where do you think that money comes from?

If it is taken from companies or employees.... (that would mean everyone), then without needing a Ph.D from Harvard, I can figure out that money can't go to a job in the private sector.

This isn't hard. If I have less money (because you taxed it from me), then I can't buy stuff. If I can't buy stuff, then no one can be hired to provide that stuff.

Right now, I have a door that needs replaced on my house. I can't hire someone to replace it, or purchased the door itself, because I don't have the money. If I did not lose 20% of my income in taxes, I could hire someone to replace the door.

Now you would be right to point out, that no one would gain a full time job, because one person in the country had money to hire him. Yeah, I agree. But taxes affect everyone.

In a nations of 300 Million plus, lowering taxes on everyone, and every company, would result in a ton of people being able to afford more things, which would result in more people hired.

Again... this is basic logic. I don't need a Ph.D to figure this out. All I need is a calculator to see that if my taxes were lower, I could afford a ton more.

The highest marginal tax rate between 1932 to 1982 fluctuated between 66% to 94%.

The highest marginal tax rate is almost irrelevant. It's more of a joke by politicians to dupe stupid voters.

Just being honest. It's a joke.

Let's raise the highest marginal tax rate to 94% right now. Today. Do you know who would be affected by that? Warren Buffet? Nope. He makes $100K a year. Mark Zuckerberg? Nope, he earns $1 a year.

The rich can avoid taxes, without blinking an eye. That's why high top marginal rates had little effect on the economy, because no one was paying them.

This is also why, high top marginal tax rates didn't improve the governments budget much. There were deficits in the 50s, 60s, and the 1970s. If top marginal rates being high resulting large tax revenue, why were there deficits back then?

By the way, during that time, taxes were being increased on the middle class, because those high marginal rates were not producing tax revenue. There's a reason why the social security tax went from 1% to 15% during the time period we had 70%+ top marginal tax rates. And who pays the majority of social security taxes? The lower and middle class.

So during the time you point to high tax rates, the real result was higher taxes on the lower and middle class.