BaronVonBigmeat
Senior Member
- Sep 20, 2005
- 1,185
- 163
- 48
Yeah, and that's different now?
No, certainly not. It's irrelevant, it doesn't represent reality.
So why do you keep bringing it up?
On the one hand, you seem to think that it was a part of the american worker's better status in decades past; but then you concede my point, which is that the rate was never truly 90% to begin with. I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to say here.
Apparently, you didn't know that taxes are not levied on "wealth" but on income.
No, I understand that part. That's part of my point. The whole point of high income taxes is to soak the rich. But of course you're really not soaking them at all, their wealth is in assets, exactly as you said. Even if you had a true 90% rate without loopholes, you're not soaking them. You might be soaking some guy who's trying to expand his small business without taking on excessive debt though.
That's why I mentioned the Rockefellers and Fords. You seem to be nostalgic for a mythic age when the rich were heavily burdened for the good of the worker. But the income tax was always full of loopholes, and the rich are rich due to their stock and real estate holdings and so forth anyway.