Obama flat out lies for another scare tactic.

Whatevergreen wrote: Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength
http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/tax_letter.pdf

Couple of things you ought to know about that little list of yours. During the Great Depression there was one, that's right one, single taxpayer paying that top rate. A million dollars in 1936 would be the equivalent of over $16 million today. The $1 million in 1963 would be equivalent to $7.4 million today. 1976? Almost 4 million today. A million bucks just ain't what it used to be thanks to the intentional devaluation of the dollar in an attempt to make it easier to pay back the debt we have accumulated trying to make the federal government the central clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of the nation's charity. That's why our currency is now based on debt instruments instead of specie - federal debt accumulation trying to pay for both the "Great Society" and the Vietnam War. It's why Fannie and Freddie became GSE's instead of remaining actual government programs. It is why the post office was made a private company as well. They were all adding too much to the debt that the federal government was accumulating trying to pay for both guns and butter. Ultimately spinning them off wasn't enough when the folks who bought that debt started asking for gold instead of USD when the debt notes came due. Gold was $36 an ounce from the time FDR made all the citizens turn their gold in to the Federal Reserve at $20/ounce before setting the new value (which is where FDR got the money for his "New Deal") until a Congress controlled by Democrats authorized Nixon to put an end to the nation's creditors asking for the nation's gold when the notes came due. Wonder why we had double digit inflation during the Carter administration? There's your answer, right there. The currency was totally removed from specie and fundamentally transformed to being valued by debt instruments instead - all as a result of the federal government spending too much money.

The current tax revenues expressed as a percentage of GDP are not that far off their 70 year average. What is drastically different is the amount of the nation's annual production that the federal government now wants to claim as its own to do with as it wishes from here on out - 25%. When FDR was elected president the tax revenues as a percentage of GDP was under 5%. By taking the gold from the citizens before he set a new value that was almost double what the old one was, FDR was able to double that to 10%. Obama wants 25%. See the problem here? The federal government wants 250% more of our money than it spent during the alphabet soup of make work programs under FDR's New Deal - without the alphabet soup of make work programs, those will cost still more if they are tried again.

The problem isn't tax revenues - the problem is government spending. We don't need to double the current tax burden to satiate the federal appetite for spending, we need to reduce the amount of money the government spends to something approximating the amount of money it has a chance of collecting in tax revenues each and every year, which is less than 18% of GDP, not 25% of GDP. Even during the period of time when the top effective tax rate was as you cited, the federal government was collecting on average a little less than 18% of GDP in revenue. When the privilege to be employed/have employee taxes were half of what they are now and the amount of income subject to the tax was less than half of what it is now (adjusted for inflation), the federal government collected a little less than 18% of GDP on average in taxes each and every year. Know what else we had before the federal government doubled that tax rate and doubled the amount of income subject to the tax? Private companies offering pensions for their workers - which reduced the need for the federal government to provide a larger safety net. Think it is a coincidence that the company pensions disappeared after the federal government quadrupled the amount of taxes businesses had to pay to fund social security? I don't.

You need a broader understanding of history Whatever - if you had it you would quickly understand why the talking points you laid out are mostly laughable and irrelevant.

One other thing regarding your list:

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

In 1979 the income tax burden paid by the top 1% was about 17%, it is now more than double that amount despite the tax rate cuts that have been implemented during that time span. The people who make 20% of the income are paying 40% of the tax burden. How is it that tax rate cuts have resulted in an increase in the tax burden? Isn't this an indication that the tax rate cuts have resulted in the people subject to those rates shouldering their fair share of the burden in light of the fact that their percentage of the burden is double their percentage of the income? One would think that a fair share of the burden would be one which was roughly equal to their percentage of income if one was looking at it from the perspective of reason and logic instead of envy and emotion. A tax burden which is double their percentage of income would seem to be more than their fair share, not less.

I will also stress again that the tax rate cuts resulted in a growth of tax revenues both as a percentage of GDP and in actual dollars of revenue collected. Tax revenue was not cut as a result of the tax rate cuts by any objective measure one cares to employ. Indeed, tax revenue was increased by any objective measure after the tax rates were reduced. The assertion that the tax rate cuts have deprived the treasury of revenue is bottomed on a flawed premise. This reality makes the assertions which rely on the flawed premise fatally flawed as well.