And the income required to hit that marginal rate was so damn high that almost nobody had a taxable income of 90 percent...
I'd be interested in data to see how many people fell within those brackets and how much revenue that netted.
Liberals seem fixated on raw numbers without any application. They'd rather tax 1 millionaire at 90% and reducing him to only $100,000 instead of taxing 50 men earning $100,000 at 20%. Case in point: Local radio moron David Sirota cries that he doesn't want people to talk about what % of GDP we spend on the military, he only wants to talk about the dollar amount and if that amount is higher than any other nation's (i.e. Luxembourg) we're spending too much.
We already have an idea as receipts have increased despite the fact top marginal rates have fallen even when adjusted for inflation. The part of the argument we're losing is when liberals say Bush's tax cuts cost us $1 trillion we cannot articulate that the money not spent on taxes goes into the economy as consumption and/or investment both of which leads to more economic activity, more wages and more revenue. We can say that all day until we are blue in the face but unless we can encapsulate key data points we will continue to cede the battlefield.
The mushy political middle can understand facts they just won't do the research.