Taxing the rich -- then and now

[ilia25]

Shut the fuck up! You are not saying anything useful.

actually the top tax bracket reached 94% in 1944 on incomes over $200 annually, which when adjusted for inflation is $2.54M annually.

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again.. please look at WHAT WAS DEEMED INCOME, what was deductible etc....

Look at the chart in OP -- it shows the average rate that 0.1% was paying then and now. That rate included any deductibles.

And what deductibles people keep talking about anyway?

 

[tooAlive]

WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS SHIT 3X A FUCKING WEEK? NO ONE EVER PAID 70% FUCKING TAXES IN AMEICA, NEVER FUCKING EVER!

Shut the fuck up! You are not saying anything useful.

actually the top tax bracket reached 94% in 1944 on incomes over $200 annually, which when adjusted for inflation is $2.54M annually.

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was the average income back in 1944?

It was about $1200. The top marginal tax rate affected those earning over $200k. Nobody paid anywhere near 94% of any portion of their income back then.

And if you think they did, let me ask you something. Why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Shut the fuck up! You are not saying anything useful.

actually the top tax bracket reached 94% in 1944 on incomes over $200 annually, which when adjusted for inflation is $2.54M annually.

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was the average income back in 1944?

It was about $1200. The top marginal tax rate affected those earning over $200k. Nobody paid anywhere near 94% of any portion of their income back then.

doesnt change the fact that the top rate was still 94%.

 

[tooAlive]

actually the top tax bracket reached 94% in 1944 on incomes over $200 annually, which when adjusted for inflation is $2.54M annually.

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was the average income back in 1944?

It was about $1200. The top marginal tax rate affected those earning over $200k. Nobody paid anywhere near 94% of any portion of their income back then.

doesnt change the fact that the top rate was still 94%.

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

 

[tooAlive]

Why would anyone want to keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

I don't really expect anyone to answer that.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

What was the average income back in 1944?

It was about $1200. The top marginal tax rate affected those earning over $200k. Nobody paid anywhere near 94% of any portion of their income back then.

doesnt change the fact that the top rate was still 94%.

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

 

[tooAlive]

doesnt change the fact that the top rate was still 94%.

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

There's a huge difference between 39.6% and 94%.

You seem to be under the impression that because things were good with a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, they can only get better if it was raised to 94%.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

There's a huge difference between 39.6% and 94%.

You seem to be under the impression that because things were good with a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, they can only get better if it was raised to 94%.

again, go back and read the thread. i have never advocated for returning to a top rate of 94%. i simply dispelled the claim that the top rate was never 70% (or higher). i am pointing out a fact, not advocating a position. get this through your head. but you cannot argue the fact that in 1944 the top tax rate was 94%.

if you want to have an argument on tax rates, then state your position on whether you think the return to the clinton era tax rate is a good thing or a bad? if making capital gains be treated as regular income is good or bad? otherwise just move on

 

[DiamondDave]

doesnt change the fact that the top rate was still 94%.

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

The tech boom was a result of higher taxation??

I would LOVE to hear the reasoning behind this

 

[tooAlive]

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

There's a huge difference between 39.6% and 94%.

You seem to be under the impression that because things were good with a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, they can only get better if it was raised to 94%.

again, go back and read the thread. i have never advocated for returning to a top rate of 94%. i simply dispelled the claim that the top rate was never 70% (or higher). i am pointing out a fact, not advocating a position. get this through your head. but you cannot argue the fact that in 1944 the top tax rate was 94%.

if you want to have an argument on tax rates, then state your position on whether you think the return to the clinton era tax rate is a good thing or a bad? if making capital gains be treated as regular income is good or bad? otherwise just move on

Yes, you're right. Top marginal tax rates were as high as you said they were.

We were simply telling you that nobody actually paid those top marginal tax rates. So it was pointless to use them as an argument for why high tax rates are good.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

The tech boom was a result of higher taxation??

I would LOVE to hear the reasoning behind this

when did i claim the tech boom was a result of higher taxation? i said job growth happened in spite of higher taxation contrary to the claims of the GOP.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

There's a huge difference between 39.6% and 94%.

You seem to be under the impression that because things were good with a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, they can only get better if it was raised to 94%.

again, go back and read the thread. i have never advocated for returning to a top rate of 94%. i simply dispelled the claim that the top rate was never 70% (or higher). i am pointing out a fact, not advocating a position. get this through your head. but you cannot argue the fact that in 1944 the top tax rate was 94%.

if you want to have an argument on tax rates, then state your position on whether you think the return to the clinton era tax rate is a good thing or a bad? if making capital gains be treated as regular income is good or bad? otherwise just move on

Yes, you're right. Top marginal tax rates were as high as you said they were.

We were simply telling you that nobody actually paid those top marginal tax rates. So it was pointless to use them as an argument for why high tax rates are good.

people did pay that rate, however you had to make over $200k annually in 1944. and it was only on a portion of that income as the US uses a graduated tax rate.

 

[DiamondDave]

and tell me why when Clinton raised taxes and the GOP claimed it would push us into a recession we saw one of the greatest periods of job growth and expansion in history? the top rate was 39.6% and capital gains were treated as normal income (which is how Reagan viewed them as well)

The tech boom was a result of higher taxation??

I would LOVE to hear the reasoning behind this

when did i claim the tech boom was a result of higher taxation? i said job growth happened in spite of higher taxation contrary to the claims of the GOP.

The jobs and expansion were a result of the economic boom thanks to the tech boom.. not as a result of higher taxation... The growth in jobs were in no way because of Clinton's tax increases

The growth in these jobs were indeed in SPITE of Clinton's raises.. not because of them

 

[tooAlive]

again, go back and read the thread. i have never advocated for returning to a top rate of 94%. i simply dispelled the claim that the top rate was never 70% (or higher). i am pointing out a fact, not advocating a position. get this through your head. but you cannot argue the fact that in 1944 the top tax rate was 94%.

if you want to have an argument on tax rates, then state your position on whether you think the return to the clinton era tax rate is a good thing or a bad? if making capital gains be treated as regular income is good or bad? otherwise just move on

Yes, you're right. Top marginal tax rates were as high as you said they were.

We were simply telling you that nobody actually paid those top marginal tax rates. So it was pointless to use them as an argument for why high tax rates are good.

people did pay that rate, however you had to make over $200k annually in 1944. and it was only on a portion of that income as the US uses a graduated tax rate.

Okay, show me how many people ended up paying 94% of their income over $200k back in 1944.

Keep in mind, the average income back then was about $1200 a year.

 

[Mr Natural]

The rich get the shit taxed out of them and yet somehow they manage to survive.

 

[DiamondDave]

The rich get the shit taxed out of them and yet somehow they manage to survive.

Many slaves in the 1800's "managed to survive" as well.. does not mean the system that is in place that resulted in their treatment was a good one

 

[Mr Natural]

The rich get the shit taxed out of them and yet somehow they manage to survive.

Many slaves in the 1800's "managed to survive" as well.. does not mean the system that is in place that resulted in their treatment was a good one

Now that's funny

 

[ilia25]

What was the average income back in 1944?

It was about $1200. The top marginal tax rate affected those earning over $200k. Nobody paid anywhere near 94% of any portion of their income back then.

doesnt change the fact that the top rate was still 94%.

It was just there to look pretty. You liberals like to point out how the economy was so great back when top marginal tax rates were that high, when in fact, nobody really paid those taxes.

Again, why would anyone keep working beyond a certain point when they'd only see 6 cents of every dollar earned?

You have to understand that after people reach some level of income, they don't care about 95% taxes. And they don't care because they are not working just to earn additional dollars, not anymore.

Okay, show me how many people ended up paying 94% of their income over $200k back in 1944.

Why does it matter if it was 20 of them, or 20,000? The point is that some people did.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The tech boom was a result of higher taxation??

I would LOVE to hear the reasoning behind this

when did i claim the tech boom was a result of higher taxation? i said job growth happened in spite of higher taxation contrary to the claims of the GOP.

The jobs and expansion were a result of the economic boom thanks to the tech boom.. not as a result of higher taxation... The growth in jobs were in no way because of Clinton's tax increases

The growth in these jobs were indeed in SPITE of Clinton's raises.. not because of them

and the jobs growth and economic expansion happened during a time when taxes increased contrary to the opinion of the GOP. if high taxes really stunt job growth, why oh why did the economy grow so much?

this simple example thoroughly debunks the myth that only low taxes lead to economic growth. point to any time in history when taxes were low and the middle class and economy actually thrived.

 

[DiamondDave]

when did i claim the tech boom was a result of higher taxation? i said job growth happened in spite of higher taxation contrary to the claims of the GOP.

The jobs and expansion were a result of the economic boom thanks to the tech boom.. not as a result of higher taxation... The growth in jobs were in no way because of Clinton's tax increases

The growth in these jobs were indeed in SPITE of Clinton's raises.. not because of them

and the jobs growth and economic expansion happened during a time when taxes increased contrary to the opinion of the GOP. if high taxes really stunt job growth, why oh why did the economy grow so much?

this simple example thoroughly debunks the myth that only low taxes lead to economic growth. point to any time in history when taxes were low and the middle class and economy actually thrived.

And it would have been better with lesser taxation.. as stated, we had gains thanks to the tech bubble IN SPITE OF THE HIGHER TAXES