Replies: 23
| visibility 1,064
|
Legend [19913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11191
Joined: 9/23/07
|
Income tax rates in 1955 at the "height of humanity"
Apr 5, 2020, 12:20 PM
|
|
according to Tiggity®
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64822
Joined: 7/13/02
|
That was the start of it.
Apr 5, 2020, 12:21 PM
|
|
And the height of humanity has nothing to do with tax brackets.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56072
Joined: 9/13/04
|
Yeah, I'm not sure of the correlation either***
Apr 5, 2020, 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [635]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1516
Joined: 3/5/20
|
Re: Income tax rates in 1955 at the "height of humanity"
Apr 5, 2020, 12:27 PM
|
|
Do not care what those published rates were because NOBODY paid at those rates in fact. Why? Well the deductions were far greater and if one would care to look the EFFECTIVE rate is roughly the same today as it was in 1955.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24700]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42383
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Do what...? Get back with reality.***
Apr 5, 2020, 12:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [635]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1516
Joined: 3/5/20
|
Re: Do what...? Get back with reality.***
Apr 5, 2020, 1:02 PM
|
|
I like you but the effective rates are roughly the same in Reality. When folks toss these published rates out without checking i chuckle
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56072
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24700]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42383
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I realize that but the higher percentiles DID pay more...
Apr 5, 2020, 12:48 PM
|
|
Your 19% may be a mean but there is a disparity between the highs and the lows percentile-wise...
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56072
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24700]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42383
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I already acknowledged that the 90% was bogus... However,
Apr 5, 2020, 1:00 PM
|
|
the loopholes and havens have been become much more widespread...
There are $Trillion$ of corporate earnings off-shored right now...
Do you think those execs that arranged it didn't do the same...?
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [635]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1516
Joined: 3/5/20
|
Re: I already acknowledged that the 90% was bogus... However,
Apr 5, 2020, 1:03 PM
|
|
These are personal rates
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24700]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42383
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Supposedly, that would apply to those execs...***
Apr 5, 2020, 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Here..I'm not even going to c/p
Apr 5, 2020, 9:32 PM
[ in reply to Here..I'm not even going to c/p ] |
|
|
Ineligible,
I don't understand how that graph jibes with these.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31864]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
26% is the correct eff rate for top 1%...however....
Apr 5, 2020, 10:54 PM
|
|
I think the most telling tax stat in terms of burden is this:
1960- top 1% earned 9% of all income and paid 13% of all fed income tax
2017 (latest data) - top 1% had 21.04% of income and paid 38.47% of all fed income tax
Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/17in01etr.xls
To me, the whole "the rich don't pay their fair share" narrative is utter BS.
I think income distribution is a valid topic, but it should be approached in terms of making sure the playing field is level and working to build up from the bottom and not tear down from the top. The gov shouldn't FORCE income to be redistributed, but rather encourage and support growth in income at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: 26% is the correct eff rate for top 1%...however....
Apr 6, 2020, 3:18 PM
|
|
Yeah, that's a great point and an important distinction. Income distribution is far more out of whack than tax rates. If I'm not mistaken, those numbers mean that, as a percentage of income, the top 1% pay twice the rate of the average income earner. I'd actually be in favor of increasing that percentage. The easiest way to do that would be to increase the standard deduction, which Trump recently did and I'm on board with that. I'd favor doubling it from there.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
It's a marginal rate, so of course.
Apr 5, 2020, 9:40 PM
[ in reply to As I replied below....Hauser's law. ] |
|
If the top marginal rate is 90%, then mathematically no one can pay 90% overall.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56072
Joined: 9/13/04
|
I think that goes without saying.
Apr 6, 2020, 10:11 AM
|
|
In 1956, they're weren't that many people making that much for it to be sizable, at least as a percentage of taxes paid. That, and the loopholes that were available make it an almost un-utilized rate.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
People talk about the numbers but tend not to tell us where
Apr 6, 2020, 2:17 PM
|
|
to find them.
As to your first point: It goes without saying for you and me, but there are people here who don't understand the math.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31864]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56072
Joined: 9/13/04
|
Where do I look for what?***
Apr 6, 2020, 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
The numbers.
Apr 6, 2020, 2:26 PM
|
|
People refer in general to the deductions and "no one paid that much in the '50s," but I don't know where they get their info.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31864]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Top 1% eff rate is down about 5 points since 1955...
Apr 6, 2020, 12:44 PM
[ in reply to Re: Income tax rates in 1955 at the "height of humanity" ] |
|
or roughly 16% change.
Not sure I would say it's roughly the same, but it sure isn't down like many would have you believe.
As posted to another post yesterday, the spread between % of income and % share of taxes is actually increased for the top 1%.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1,064
|
|
|