the tax rate was still progressive,and there were still loopholes, so the 300,000 highest rate threshold, has been estimated to need to be exceeded to the tune of 2.3 million dollars before they would ACTUALLY pay 90% of earnings to taxes, but that doesnt change the fact that teh percentage of people in the highest tax rate was only low in comparison to todays highest tax rate which is ony 34.9%.
Several people fell into the 90% tax rate and you can do the math yourself by following the progressivity of the code to find what their ultimate tax burden was,but it was clearly not 90%.
Now heres where it gets tricky,in so far as determining effect.
Our tax base has actually slowly grown as a percentage of GDP, but that comparitive stability has drawn the conclusion from some that increasing revenue on the wealthy will have a negative effect on the economy.
if you need a 100 dollar sign at the public park, how much is being provided by whom DEFINETLY EFFECTS the economy.
If the wealthiest people are providing 70 dollars of the cost,that loss doesnt really prevent them from buying any staple or high volume consumable.
They will not go without Milk, eggs, OJ, toothpaste,gas due to that increased burden.
But if you flip that cost matrix,then there is economic downturn, becasue the poor then need to make choices,maybe I get a quart of milk instead of a gallon, maybe instead of ham and eggs I have a doughnut for breakfast.
The cost of these decisions trickles down in a way supply side economists only WISH they had proof supporting their prefered Model(lol).
When you are eating a doughnut everyday becasue its only a quarter,I would imagine that health concerns are somewhat secondary.
In low income neighborhoods ALL they sell in markets are inexpensive unhealthy foods, so then we get the added plus of higher healthcare costs associated with unhealthy diets!
Understanding how the plutocrasy has shifted costs onto the masses is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of this country.