Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

JoeRedskin · 02-10-2016, 11:55 AM

So the whole marginal tax rates of 70 - 90 in the 50's 60's and 70's got me curious. I was aware the rates existed and that these rates really only applied to the very rich. (i.e. multi-millionaires). I was also aware that, unlike today's four tax brackets, back in the day the had 24 tax brackets. In 1969, the marginal rate for those earners making ~$112K (adjusted for inflation) was at 36% as opposed to today where income of $143K is taxed 28%.

So yes, tax rates were much higher the 50's -70's. For everyone.

To me, however, tax rates are only part of the story. Yes, taxes were higher. However, what effect has lowered marginal rates had on the total federal income from taxes.

Also, tax laws change, and while marginal rates were high, without an understanding of allowable exemptions, credits and deductions, marginal tax rates are guidelines but not indicative of the real tax rates.

Here are a couple sites that are useful - they have all sorts of charts for number nerds.

This site shows the historical tax rates in nominal and adjusted income: U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

This is the OMB website with tons of charts and stuff:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I looked at the chart: Table 2.1—Receipts by Source: 1934–2021
It shows income in nominal (unadjusted) dollars.

To really get a sense of tax rates v. income, you would need to correlate the two in 2016 dollars to see where or if marginal rate changes had an effect on actual govt. income.

To me, the question, "should we go back to this model of super-high tax brackets for the super rich?" involves a much more nuanced approach than "taxes bad v. tax the rich." Fundamentally, I oppose taxation as a method of enforced wealth transfer because, in today's economy and as long as the govt. is doing the redistribution, I do not believe it solves the underlying problem of income inequality and is, instead, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

Would we face economic ruin if we reinstituted the 70-90% tax rates on the wealthiest of the superwealthy? No. Would we expand income dependency on the central govt. and, in turn, lessen real economic freedom? Yes.

02-10-2016, 11:55 AM	#2
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Re: Democratic debates So the whole marginal tax rates of 70 - 90 in the 50's 60's and 70's got me curious. I was aware the rates existed and that these rates really only applied to the very rich. (i.e. multi-millionaires). I was also aware that, unlike today's four tax brackets, back in the day the had 24 tax brackets. In 1969, the marginal rate for those earners making ~$112K (adjusted for inflation) was at 36% as opposed to today where income of $143K is taxed 28%. So yes, tax rates were much higher the 50's -70's. For everyone. To me, however, tax rates are only part of the story. Yes, taxes were higher. However, what effect has lowered marginal rates had on the total federal income from taxes. Also, tax laws change, and while marginal rates were high, without an understanding of allowable exemptions, credits and deductions, marginal tax rates are guidelines but not indicative of the real tax rates. Here are a couple sites that are useful - they have all sorts of charts for number nerds. This site shows the historical tax rates in nominal and adjusted income: U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) \| Tax Foundation This is the OMB website with tons of charts and stuff: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals I looked at the chart: Table 2.1—Receipts by Source: 1934–2021 It shows income in nominal (unadjusted) dollars. To really get a sense of tax rates v. income, you would need to correlate the two in 2016 dollars to see where or if marginal rate changes had an effect on actual govt. income. To me, the question, "should we go back to this model of super-high tax brackets for the super rich?" involves a much more nuanced approach than "taxes bad v. tax the rich." Fundamentally, I oppose taxation as a method of enforced wealth transfer because, in today's economy and as long as the govt. is doing the redistribution, I do not believe it solves the underlying problem of income inequality and is, instead, treating the symptom rather than the illness. Would we face economic ruin if we reinstituted the 70-90% tax rates on the wealthiest of the superwealthy? No. Would we expand income dependency on the central govt. and, in turn, lessen real economic freedom? Yes. __________________ Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.