Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.
Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;
Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.
If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?
Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.
Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?
Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.
What deductions?
Back then, "tax shelters" were legal and written in the tax code.
Tax shelters are no longer legal.
The whole tax debate is BS....the democrats in congress know dam well that when we had much higher tax rates, the deductions allowed and tax strategy allowed by law made it no different than the lower tax rates of today without the shelters.