Yes taxes were higher 91%
But for the top 1% there were deductions, etc., making an effective rate of 17% +/-
Next tier still had deductions and so forth to be applied earnings with an effective rate of say 42% +\-
But better than today some corporations paying 0, and highest earners paying little
How should the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes effect how government manages both recessions and periods of growth. If a politician promotes Keynes in a recession then they should also do it in times of growth. https://youtu.be/APolpmqIDKI
Deductions and write-offs were a big deal. The tax code has changed since then. But there should still be a much higher rate on income over $1M, $10M, $100M.
It's much easier to hide now, especially if you own the company. You just take a loan from your company for however many million you want. It isn't income so it isn't taxed. Then when the money has run out you take out a bigger loan and pay your company back.
And it's important to remember that the 91% rate did not kick in except for income above an obscene amount. The first dollars made, in the middle income region, were taxed much lower.
And Ronald Reagan hated that when he was an actor. I do think 91 percent is excessive. Hell, if they just paid the same rates as the rest of us. Zero is unacceptable.
Republican party has been chipping away at it since billionaires were never a thing just leave it to beaver life for the middle class isn't that what trumpers say they want taxing the rich is the only way back common sense
The best Idea I've heard was that at $50 million in personal wealth a person is given a statue proclaiming they won capitalism and everything beyond that is taxed. We can argue about what the amount is, but if you can't live happily for the rest of your life with $50 million, that's a YOU problem.
Ironically, the 1950's is where the wingnuts want to go.
Except REFUSE to do anything that CREATED that economic boom because 1,000 Americans won't get to own 95%
Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91% tax rate on income in the top tax bracket. That top rate had been hovering around 90 percent for the previous two decades. In the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, made no move to knock it down.
I remember that era well, late '50s & early '60s... when one income provided well for an entire family, including sending kids to university. I graduated highschool in '63, university in '66, my sister in '68.
My pater paid 66% every year, complained bitterly each time (as Americans are wont to), but paid that without hesitation and proudly so, as the price of freedom.
Not all patriots serve.
Reagan ended that and taxed Social Security to make up the difference, that started the demise of a healthy and robust middle class 🤬Trickle Down indeed🤮☠️
I have been reminding people for years that the top tax rate was 80% or more from about 1940-1964 then it decreased to at least 70% to 1981. What people are asking now should be considered very reasonable.
The largest growth in the American economy and the largest increase the standard of living happened when the top tax tier was at 91%. Reducing taxes on the rich ONLY really benefited the rich.
I was reading Churchill's book the Gathering Storm, and he referred to billions as 'thousands' of millions - they didn't have a word for it then. Eisenhower would be considered a communist today by the zombie party.
My take is there should be a wealth cap. Elon Musk just made the perfect case for it. Too much wealth concentrated in one person’s hand is bound to invite abuse and is a threat to democracy. All income over $1B needs to be taxed 100%.
And to be clear, that was only the top marginal rate, on income north of some stratospheric number. The gov has never taxed anyone at 91% of everything.
Since this is "Remember when 'Good Republican' wasn't an oxymoron?" thread, I'm obligated to plug the greatest GOP Prez we never had: Thomas Dewey. He should be remembered for so much more than the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline. NYC DA under FDR, allies despite different parties. Just a great guy.
I was born on his birthday. My parents told the White House in 1957 and they sent me a birthday card. I was 7 that year. Isn't he called the last decent republican?
Billionaires have convinced welfare whites they need to be trillionaires. Because they can own the libs and hate POC while there owners fleece there pockets and that is somehow cool for patriotic followers of a pedophiliac man.
True, but misleading. Historical data shows that even though the statutory top rate was 92% during the early 1950s, the actual (effective) tax rates for wealthy individuals tended to be much lower, often in the 40–60% range or thereabouts.
And the asshole attacking the computer systems of our government agencies would take over 1300 years to spend his wealth if he spent a million bucks every single day. SCOTUS doomed our democracy with the Citizens United decision. Big money now controls our institutions and our elections.
And to be clear, lest some chucklehead go screaming into the night about taxation being theft, that was only on every dollar earned ABOVE $400K that year. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $4.2million today.
You might feel that way after having waded successfully through the worst war in human history. Sense of perspective what a privilege it is that we allow Billionaires, and all their nonsense.
They don’t. There are better ways than a progressive tax system which will seem unfair and give motivation to the argument that people shouldn’t work hard.
The problem with a flat tax is that it is a regressive tax. If you make 30,000 dollars a year 20% flat tax leaves you with 24,000 dollars, while that tax on say 100,000 dollars leaves you with 80,000 dollars. That 6K is a whole lot more money than the 20k. & this does not include the other taxes.
Yes it is a problem. If the poverty level was not taxed, it would be totally fair. It would probably not be 20%. Warren buffet says he paid $6B in tax. If the top taxpayers paid that, no one else would pay any income tax.
Comments
But for the top 1% there were deductions, etc., making an effective rate of 17% +/-
Next tier still had deductions and so forth to be applied earnings with an effective rate of say 42% +\-
But better than today some corporations paying 0, and highest earners paying little
It was when you hit a certain high bracket of income then that income and greater was at 91% tax
At different income brackets your tax rate went higher but only for that bracket
Nazis should kill themselves.
So, hey, let everyone pay a modest percentage on their first ten million per annum; 50% from there to $50M; 85% above that.
(And get big money / dark money out of politics.)
Except REFUSE to do anything that CREATED that economic boom because 1,000 Americans won't get to own 95%
Why not tie the dividend taxes to your AGI, and make sure AGI includes monies from stocks/bonds/salary/bonuses?
So if someone making $40k cashes out some stock, it hits differently than someone taking home $5m a year?
:(
Not all patriots serve.
Let’s start with that tax rate and see how it goes!
Back in 1952
But the legislature doesn’t want to give up their power.
I like Ike!