Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,512
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    While the marginal tax rate was very high at its peak, the income bracket was at a much higher level then now so a very small number of people even qualified.

    Im not sure where this Idea is originating...another poster and I debated this for almost a month and i couldnt get a acknowledgement of the information I provided.
    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...2HLd6ZVBAqtzFQ

    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.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,639
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    While the marginal tax rate was very high at its peak, the income bracket was at a much higher level then now so a very small number of people even qualified.
    In 1951, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. This rate applied to those that made over $1.7M in 1951 dollars, which equates to roughly $14M in today's dollars. I have been unable to find to find a percentage of people that qualified for this rate but I was able to find a document that states in 1955, 334,000 made more than $28K. While this isn't exactly apples to apples, it is a safe assumption that less than 334,000 made the $1.7M in 1951 by a wide margin. For an extrapolation, making $14M today would put on into the top 0.01%.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,512
    vCash
    1500
    here you go Bronco:

    this site (or my lack of site directions) has been a point of irritation for me, but In the publications header at the top of the page the drop down will allow you to compile tax data for about 100 different variable.
    In there you can look for personal tax rates from 1913-now.
    1951 lists the 91% cutoff @ 300,000.

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-...usted-brackets

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    I was talking with some coworkers about the tax rates of 50-60-70 years ago and how the rate was up to 90 percent. One of them said this meant if you made a million dollars then the gov took 900K and you kept 100K. Is that right? I was under the impression that we all start at the same percent but once you hit certain thresholds of earnings (like 250K), THEN every dollar after would apply to the much higher rate. If anyone could clarify this for me I'd appreciate it.
    Your coworker is incorrect. You are correct.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Im not sure where this Idea is originating...another poster and I debated this for almost a month and i couldnt get a acknowledgement of the information I provided.
    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...2HLd6ZVBAqtzFQ

    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.
    Was just trying to add some context to the OP's statement. I think the marginal tax rate is generally a bad number to use in these discussions because it can be misleading (sometimes purposefully so). Effective tax rate is a better indicator because it takes the pay brackets and deductions into account.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,639
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    here you go Bronco:

    this site (or my lack of site directions) has been a point of irritation for me, but In the publications header at the top of the page the drop down will allow you to compile tax data for about 100 different variable.
    In there you can look for personal tax rates from 1913-now.
    1951 lists the 91% cutoff @ 300,000.

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-...usted-brackets
    That was where I got the tax bracket for 1951. But it doesn't have any information (unless I missed it) on the number of people who qualified for that bracket. That is the information that I was missing. It lists the top marginal rate (91%) at $1,725,997.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Ending the tax cuts to where the % the rich pay goes from 36%-39% is "socialism" or "communism", yet a tax rate of 90+% in the 50s under a Republican present is perfectly acceptable, and rarely brought up. Makes perfect sense.

    I wasn't around back then...but I don't remember learning that all the rich people and corporations "left" this country b/c taxes were so high.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,512
    vCash
    1500
    Becasue it didnt happen and never really would.
    also tax rates dont effect hiring or buissness creation..it is a Red hairing.
    Now that the fight is over you have Rs coming out of the woodwork EVERYWHERE, saying ehhh, Its cool if we pay a little more(lol).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •