Effective tax rates on the top 1% for 100 years

[Truthmatters]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Tell me if you see a pattern here?

 

[Truthmatters]

Look at the chart and soak it in.

When you have gotten a feel for what the top 1% have paid during our history think about the years everyone thinks were the Glory years...the 50s.... then think of the years that lead to horrible economic messes.....Right before the 1929 crash.......the years right before this mess............... Now go look at the tax rates in each of those periods.


See the pattern?

 

[Truthmatters]

Tax year Top marginal
tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1> Taxable
income over--
1913......... 7..... 500,000
1914......... 7 ..... 500,000
1915......... 7 ..... 500,000
1916......... 15 ..... 2,000,000
1917......... 67..... 2,000,000
1918......... 77..... 1,000,000
1919......... 73 ..... 1,000,000
1920......... 73..... 1,000,000
1921......... 73..... 1,000,000
1922......... 58..... 200,000
1923......... 43.5..... 200,000
1924......... 46..... 500,000
1925......... 25..... 100,000
1926......... 25..... 100,000
1927......... 25..... 100,000
1928......... 25..... 100,000
1929......... 24..... 100,000
1930......... 25..... 100,000
1931......... 25..... 100,000
1932......... 63..... 1,000,000
1933......... 63..... 1,000,000
1934......... 63..... 1,000,000
1935......... 63..... 1,000,000
1936......... 79..... 5,000,000
1937......... 79..... 5,000,000
1938......... 79..... 5,000,000
1939......... 79..... 5,000,000
1940......... 81.1..... 5,000,000
1941......... 81..... 5,000,000
1942......... 88..... 200,000
1943......... 88..... 200,000
1944......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1945......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1946......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1947......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1948......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1949......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1950......... 84.36..... 400,000
1951......... 91..... <5> 400,000
1952......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1953......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1954......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1955......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1956......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1957......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1958......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1959......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1960......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1961......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1962......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1963......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1964......... 77..... 400,000
1965......... 70..... 200,000
1966......... 70..... 200,000
1967......... 70..... 200,000
1968......... 75.25..... 200,000
1969......... 77..... 200,000
1970......... 71.75 ..... 200,000
1971......... 70..... 60 200,000
1972......... 70..... 50 200,000
1973......... 70..... 50 200,000
1974......... 70..... 50 200,000
1975......... 70..... 50 200,000
1976......... 70..... 50 200,000
1977......... 70..... 50 203,200
1978......... 70..... 50 203,200
1979......... 70..... 50 215,400
1980......... 70..... 50 215,400
1981......... 69.125..... 50 215,400
1982......... 50..... 85,600
1983......... 50 ..... 109,400
1984.......... 50..... 162,400
1985.......... 50..... 169,020
1986......... 50..... 175,250
1987 .........38.5..... 90,000
1988......... 28..... <8> 29,750 <8>
1989......... 28..... <8> 30,950 <8>
1990......... 28..... <8> 32,450 <8>
1991......... 31..... 82,150
1992......... 31..... 86,500
1993......... 39.6..... 89,150
1994......... 39.6..... 250,000
1995......... 39.6..... 256,500
1996......... 39.6..... 263,750
1997......... 39.6..... 271,050
1998......... 39.6..... 278,450
1999......... 39.6..... 283,150
2000......... 39.6..... 288,350
2001......... 39.1..... 297,350
2002......... 38.6..... 307,050
2003......... 35..... 311,950

 

[bigdaddygtr]

are you telling me that Trickle down Economics is complete and utter Bullshit???????? And you're saying that the last 3 major Recessions/Depressions we've had in this country are preceded by 8 years of the wealthiest people doubling and tripling their wealth????????

No way! Actually, makes complete sense to me but the Cons will somehow find a way to spin it

 

[Mad Scientist]

Look at the chart and soak it in.
See the pattern?

Oh OK! I see it now!
Before 1913 we had no Federal Income Tax. After 1913, with help from the Income Tax we participated in Two World Wars as well as numerous conflicts around the globe. We had a major depression followed by many up and down economic cycles.
It looks to me that the Fed has far too much power and money given to them by our taxes. If we could somehow eliminate Federal taxes, we would diminish their power. Right?
I mean think about it: Ford Motor Company didn't declare war on Germany and Japan, the Government did! IBM didn't get us into Vietnam, the Government did! OMG, they are the evil ones!
We have to diminish our Governments power by reducing their supply of power: Money.

Wow, thanks for posting that TM.

 

[Againsheila]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)


Tell me if you see a pattern here?

Like I said, the first gilded age led to the first great depression, now we have another gilded age leading to another great depression, no surprise here.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

 

[manu1959]

rich people are evil....they need to have all their money taken from them.....

and given to the government because as we all know government runs things better than anyone.....

just look at the recent senate hearings with the big three and aig.....

isn't it obvious....

 

[Truthmatters]

How well did those corporations do at running them before we had to bail them out?

 

[Yurt]

to claim that the tax rate is responsible for the success in the country is complete naivety. there are numerous factors other than taxes. had taxes been less, it is entirely probably the country would have prospered even more.

this country obviously was not founded on taxing the wealthy moor than the poor regarding income.

 

[GHook93]

There were many many many factors that lead to the Great Depression and to the current problems now! I could probably pull up some other liberal/democratic trend and conclude that was the sole cause of both crisises, but I will refrain from wasting everyone (including my own).

I mean if you thing that lowering taxes on the wealthy is the sole cause of the current crisis, then your a fool.

There are many causes of this: such as lax lending regulations, lender's being forced to give bad loans, increasing oil and food prices, consumer confidence and purchasing power down, so less people buying things, the CDOs, the mortgage insurance blunders (what is currently killing AIG), 9/11, the expensive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on Terror, skyrocketing healthcare and health insurance costs, STATED LOAN MORTGAGES, artificial demand in housing shooting up home values to INSANE levels coupled with the MORTGAGES FOR EVERYONE POLICY, record foreclosure rates, the LEFT'S increased ignorance with impeading every effort to stop illegal immigration, unfair free trade agreements, the vast increases in college education that puts the educated in unsustainable debt coming out of college, the share cost of welfare (when an easy way to help make up the storage is INCREASE the AGE OF RETIREMENT, the reason for the storage is people are living longer, so fucking increase the age minimum!), The MORTGAGE MELTDOWN etc.

 

[auditor0007]

I get tired of hearing these dumb arguments. The bottom 50% of income earners don't pay federal taxes. In fact, many of them actually get money from the government despite not paying any taxes. From there, those who fall into the 50 to 75 percent bracket only pay around 15% of total taxes. The top 25% pays the rest, with the top 1% paying around 35% of all federal taxes.

I know the idea of making the top 1% pay 75% of all taxes is enticing to you liberal freaktards, but it's really not a good economic idea. Raising taxes 3 or 4 percent temporarily, maybe. But this rant against the rich gets old. I have a better idea though, if you want to increase revenues. Get rid of some of the loopholes for the wealthy. Despite the total percentage paid by the rich, most don't pay the top rate to begin with because there are so many ways to hide their money. Reduce the marginal rates a little, and cut out the loopholes.

 

[GHook93]

I get tired of hearing these dumb arguments. The bottom 50% of income earners don't pay federal taxes. In fact, many of them actually get money from the government despite not paying any taxes. From there, those who fall into the 50 to 75 percent bracket only pay around 15% of total taxes. The top 25% pays the rest, with the top 1% paying around 35% of all federal taxes.

I know the idea of making the top 1% pay 75% of all taxes is enticing to you liberal freaktards, but it's really not a good economic idea. Raising taxes 3 or 4 percent temporarily, maybe. But this rant against the rich gets old. I have a better idea though, if you want to increase revenues. Get rid of some of the loopholes for the wealthy. Despite the total percentage paid by the rich, most don't pay the top rate to begin with because there are so many ways to hide their money. Reduce the marginal rates a little, and cut out the loopholes.

Its especially a horrible economic decision in this age. Communication can take place in seconds and cheaply via the internet. Shipping, info sharing, conference calling, virtual offices and speed traveling have all made the world a much smaller place. If you hit the top too hard, they can move to a friendlier place very easy! Maybe you should look the rise of the corporate tax to the 2nd highest rate in the world as a leading cause of corporations going over-seas!

 

[driveby]

I get tired of hearing these dumb arguments. The bottom 50% of income earners don't pay federal taxes. In fact, many of them actually get money from the government despite not paying any taxes. From there, those who fall into the 50 to 75 percent bracket only pay around 15% of total taxes. The top 25% pays the rest, with the top 1% paying around 35% of all federal taxes.

I know the idea of making the top 1% pay 75% of all taxes is enticing to you liberal freaktards, but it's really not a good economic idea. Raising taxes 3 or 4 percent temporarily, maybe. But this rant against the rich gets old. I have a better idea though, if you want to increase revenues. Get rid of some of the loopholes for the wealthy. Despite the total percentage paid by the rich, most don't pay the top rate to begin with because there are so many ways to hide their money. Reduce the marginal rates a little, and cut out the loopholes.

Agreed and i'd like to add that the rich are not the only tax cheats.....

 

[rayboyusmc]

rich people are evil....they need to have all their money taken from them.....

This is a typical bullshit reply that doesn't address anything in the thread. More of the "wealth envy" soundbites.

Trickle down doesn't benefit anyone but those trickling. Remember this isn't the first time that this lie was put out and bought by many on the right.

The horse and the sparrow. I guess some people are happy being the sparrow picking through the horse's crap for any undigested oats.

Reagan started his war on the middle class and some of those middle class conservatives don't even realize they are the enemy.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

Best under Regan and Clinton, what was the tax rate then?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Uh, America has never had the best schools. We've slipped from 15th to around 27th among industrialized nations since WWII even though we spend most per student.

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country? The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

Liberals never said the 50's were the best of times, in fact you guys only talk about how the evil white man was oppressing the black man via segregation.

I'm only pointing this out because as you know, the truth matters.

 

[Sinatra]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

Really?

The 50's were great for everyone?

Perhaps you wish to revise that overly-broad generalization...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

how many people were actually earning over 500K when the top rate was 90%?

adjust those dollars for inflation and you'll see that not much has changed.

 

[DiveCon]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

Really?

The 50's were great for everyone?

Perhaps you wish to revise that overly-broad generalization...

shes too fucking stupid to understand how fucking stupid she is

 

[Sinatra]

Do you remember the growth of the post WWII times?

do you remember the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD?

Do you remember the times everyone thought were the perfect times for family and country?


The 50s was a great time according to all.......what was the tax rate on the top 1% at the time?

Really?

The 50's were great for everyone?

Perhaps you wish to revise that overly-broad generalization...

shes too fucking stupid to understand how fucking stupid she is

LOL - so how do you really feel about her?