Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Except the information in that link is not accurate. They make a premise of what the top 1% would be making based on current standards instead of what the actual top 1% was in the 50s. The better way to approach this is to use the standard marginal rates and then look at the top one for each era, which the top 1% would be paying.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...come-tax-rates
And yes, they have shifted dramatically.
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Fre...Tax-Rates.aspx
The fact it would impact such a small group, I doubt it equates to economic chaos. That's a great talking point, but so was the concept of trickle down economics, and that proved to be total bull#### as well. |
Why do you think the top 1% pays the top marginal tax rate. That does not appear to be the case at all in the 50s.
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09...enhower-1950s/
Quote:
|
In 1958, only around 10,000 out of 45.6 million tax filers had incomes that put them in the 81 percent bracket or higher, according to The Wall Street Journal. That amounts to about 0.02 percent of filers subject to the 81 percent rate, let alone the 91 percent rate.
|
Quote:
|
The top 1 percent of income earners paid an average effective income tax rate of 16.9 percent in the 1950s, according to data compiled by the Tax Foundation from a 2017 paper by economics professors. That figure includes all federal, state and local income taxes.
|
I do agree that there is room to increase the taxes in the higher brackets and figure out how to tax all income high earners make. But to say that the top 1% was pay a 91% income tax at any time in US history is wrong.