All that shows is growing income inequality- in that the 0.1% make more as a percentage. It doesn't include anything about taxes...
Eisenhower's 92% tax rate
- Thread starter David
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 92% eisenhower rate tax
All that shows is growing income inequality- in that the 0.1% make more as a percentage. It doesn't include anything about taxes...
What is an Adjusted Gross Income?
The graph I found and provided made an effort to capture all of the "big" taxes the rich pay then and now.
Radical Karl would be proud at how much progress the Marxists, the liberals, the progressives have made. With just a little more effort we can become like any of the struggling European socialist states who see constant high unemployment and little to no growth.
Actually, I have made no claim. Even so it is beginning to look like I am essentially right. High marginal rates combined with the tax code of the day meant that most of one's income was sheltered from the government's confiscatory taxes. If one earns a million dollars and is taxed at 50% of the AGI of 500,000 dollars then one's effective tax rate is 25% for that portion of one's income.
The graph I found and provided made an effort to capture all of the "big" taxes the rich pay then and now.
Radical Karl would be proud at how much progress the Marxists, the liberals, the progressives have made. With just a little more effort we can become like any of the struggling European socialist states who see constant high unemployment and little to no growth.
According to tecoyah's figures, for income over 200k most paid in the 30-something percentages through most of those years.
Today, the top 1% according to this http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff285.pdf pay in the mid-20%. It should be noted that the top 1% earns more than 200k and that the definition of AGI has changed from the Eisenhower years to now.
But all in all, I think it is safe to say the top 1% paid more as a percentage back then.
Those are labeled as effective rates based on adjusted gross income. We don't actually know what the gross income was. So it is approaching the truth but it is not the effective rate.
The tax codes contained many shelters. They contain fewer shelters now.
This is the wrong approach. We need to have uniform low rates that take money from a much larger percentage of our population.
No it doesn't. It says that of the total income composition of the country, the rich have gone from about 4% to 12%. It says nothing about taxes. Look at the title (or look it up- this is a pretty popular chart).
This sort of thing makes you look silly and hurts your ethos. So I'll let you keep doing it. You clearly have no idea what the issues in Europe are and you have conveniently ignored the core in your statement about high unemployment and little growth. And you have no idea what my policy positions are anyway...
I believe you would continue to be wrong.
Adjusted gross income is what is subject to taxes after many specific, relevant deductions. In the 1950s there were many of these. Today the list has only a few. If we chose to be honest about taxes we would evaluate the tax rates based on the allowable deductions to gross income then and compare that percentage to allowable deductions to gross income today.
This is hard because there do not appear to be any easily found studies that have done that complicated homework.
This is not an effective use of my time. I will not convince you no matter the anecdotal evidence I provide.
I can only see you as reflected in your writings here.
Why do you believe there is high unemployment and little growth in places where the rich are stolen from? Radical Karl wrote that to destroy capitalism one needed a steeply progressive income tax. No capital. No capitalists. No capitalism. No growth. High unemployment. The evidence is all around you.
In your eyes it makes me look silly only because you cannot handle the truth.
That is your whole issue- you are trying to provide anecdotal evidence (I assume because the real data goes against your political argument). I don't see what your issue here is though. The rates right now are pretty in line with what it was during Bush. Either Bush is going to have lower effective rates of Eisenhower will. They are both Republicans. Who cares? You frame this argument in a dem vs. gop structure when that could not matter less. It is all politics for you, when in reality, it shouldn't matter. Might as well be rooting for sports teams.
No one is talking about communism or socialism here...
There is actually a strong libertarian argument for progressive taxation- go look at the Sumner argument on that for more. A flat tax is a regressive tax- we SHOULD have progressive taxes if you want to tax evenly on a value basis.
Do you have real data? I did not find any. I found anecdotes only. Point to real data.
If we want a growing economy we must begin with thinking the right ways about how economies work. That requires that we move beyond the left's class warfare rhetoric and our progress toward wrecking capitalism by destroying capitalists.
Radical Karl would be proud. One can only destroy capitalism by destroying capitalists. One can only destroy capitalists by stealing their wealth. We have arrived. And that, in my opinion, is why we see little growth. The Soviet Union struggled for about 80 years until it collapsed. They tried and they could not do it. over 20 million perished at the hands of the state. Will we have to go through a similar experience?
Tecoyah's data vs. the one I linked to: http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff285.pdf
Until you can stop being a political agent and stop this left vs. right nonsense in every post, you will not be able to make any progress in this goal. People already do good, scientific work on how economies work- there is tons of data out there and more studies and data coming out everyday. You clearly do not read those things though because you are too busy in this gun fight against liberals.
You don't seem to grasp the first crumb of how to think logically or to draw scientific conclusions. I can't explain it all to you. I suggest you go read about the scientific method, correlation vs. causation, and then some intro economics textbooks. Maybe then we can have a discussion without you rambling on about your communist conspiracy theories.
edit: some statistics reading wouldn't hurt either
There was no data there prior to 1980. Eisenhower was president in the early 1950s.
You have not made the case. The Tax Foundation website policy statements write more like me and believe what I believe far more than they reflect your beliefs.
Until one has a good understanding of the impact of tax shelters on adjusted gross income it will be difficult to establish what the effective tax rates were. When one has data labeled effective tax rates on amended adjusted gross income one can only wonder what value they provide. Those words could mean just about anything and I suspect they do. It reminds me a bit of Alice in Wonderland.
Let's just do a comparison. Go ahead. You show me the size of your...economic understanding. And them I will show you mine.
Do you believe that Radical Karl was a conspiracist?
He so desperately wanted his communist manifesto and works like Capital to appear scientific. It was the rage back then. Until you recognize that your favored positions are prettied up communist dogma how can you have a discussion?
Let's start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Similar threads
