Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
And you have failed to read your own sources too:
"In the same year [1958], roughly 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of 81% or higher."
lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in. I dont know believe what ever you want. but they were scam artist back then as they are today.
But those who take advantage of whatever loopholes, deductions, and credits the law allows are not scam artists. Nobody refuses to pay a sale price just because others elsewhere are paying the full retail price. Those with a clue in how the law is written and structured will use the law to their maximum benefit, and I don't care WHO they are, liberal, conservative, or little green men from Mars.
So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income. Except for a very rare possible exception, no American is going to go to work when they are allowed to keep only 14% of what they earn.
So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.
70% was good enough for President Kennedy
So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.
Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
And can [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?
United States Government Revenue History - Charts
I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.
And can [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?
United States Government Revenue History - Charts
I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.
Waiting for your reply.
So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.
Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's. American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's. American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.
Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's. American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.
The teachings of Dr. Deming affected a quality revolution of gargantuan significance on American manufacturers and consumers. Through his ideas, product quality improved and, thus, popular satisfaction. His influential work in Japan-- instructing top executives and engineers in quality management--was a driving force behind that nation's economic rise. Dr. Deming contributed directly to Japan's phenomenal export-led growth and its current technological leadership in automobiles, shipbuilding and electronics. The Union of Japanese Science and Engineering (JUSE)
fDont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's. American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.
So what are you saying I am wrong about manufacturing in the U.S. compared till today then the 50's and 60's???
YES THEY DID!
A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.
You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.
For those math challenged and who can't google.
1) $1,000,000 in 1963 dollars was $135,000
DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator
Tax brackets in 1963:
$0 - $4,000 20.00%
$4,000 - $8,000 22.00%
$8,000 - $12,000 26.00%
$12,000 - $16,000 30.00%
$16,000 - $20,000 34.00%
$20,000 - $24,000 38.00%
$24,000 - $28,000 43.00%
$28,000 - $32,000 47.00%
$32,000 - $36,000 50.00%
$36,000 - $40,000 53.00%
$40,000 - $44,000 56.00%
$44,000 - $52,000 59.00%
$52,000 - $64,000 62.00%
$64,000 - $76,000 65.00%
$76,000 - $88,000 69.00%
$88,000 - $100,000 72.00%
$100,000 - $120,000 75.00%
$120,000 - $140,000 78.00%
$140,000 - $160,000 81.00%
$160,000 - $180,000 84.00%
$180,000 - $200,000 87.00%
$200,000 - $300,000 89.00%
$300,000 - $400,000 90.00%
$400,000 - and over 91.0%
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf
According to this table, a person making $140,000 would pay $84240 in taxes, or 60% (I was a bit off, but not by much).
And can [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?
United States Government Revenue History - Charts
I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.
Waiting for your reply.
Google "payroll taxes".
You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.
For those math challenged and who can't google.
1) $1,000,000 in 1963 dollars was $135,000
DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator
Tax brackets in 1963:
$0 -$4,000 20.00%
$4,000 -$8,000 22.00%
$8,000 -$12,000 26.00%
$12,000 -$16,000 30.00%
$16,000 -$20,000 34.00%
$20,000 -$24,000 38.00%
$24,000 -$28,000 43.00%
$28,000 -$32,000 47.00%
$32,000 -$36,000 50.00%
$36,000 -$40,000 53.00%
$40,000 -$44,000 56.00%
$44,000 -$52,000 59.00%
$52,000 -$64,000 62.00%
$64,000 -$76,000 65.00%
$76,000 -$88,000 69.00%
$88,000 -$100,000 72.00%
$100,000 -$120,000 75.00%
$120,000 -$140,000 78.00%
$140,000 -$160,000 81.00%
$160,000 -$180,000 84.00%
$180,000 -$200,000 87.00%
$200,000 -$300,000 89.00%
$300,000 -$400,000 90.00%
$400,000 -andover91.0%
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf
According to this table, a person making $140,000 would pay $84240 in taxes, or 60% (I was a bit off, but not by much).
Anyone can google the marginal tax rates of the time. Now how about you google what people actually PAID..Have fun.
If you can find someone who made a million and was forced to surrender $910,000, you win the argument.
Waiting for your reply.
Google "payroll taxes".
Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?
Google "payroll taxes".
Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
One answer is that taxes in the 50s werent really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.
Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
No, they didn't.
In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
One answer is that taxes in the 50s werent really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15369.pdf
