http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022524615Oh my.
jonpaulprime (93 posts) Sun Mar 17, 2013, 06:11 PM
No one ever paid 70%?
Sometimes I point out the economy was in better shape when tax rates were higher on the top (up to 70% for most years prior to 1982). But I often get rebuffed with something like this: "That's an invalid fact because no one ever actually paid anywhere close to 70%, thanks to loopholes, shelters, etc, and in many cases their secretaries paid more."
Is that true?* Does that mean pointing to higher tax rates in the past is meaningless?
I'm also told I can't use the Eisenhower era of good economy with high taxes because "the Great Society welfare state didn't exist then". How do I respond to that?
*yes, it's true, very true.
Courtesy Flush (4,196 posts) Sun Mar 17, 2013, 06:15 PM
1. Think about it
Would they be fighting so hard to keep their taxes down if they didn't have to pay them?
It's true that people didn't actually pay 70%. I wouldn't want anybody paying that much. But lordy lordy wouldn't they love to be able to publicly claim that they pay 70% even when they're paying -5%! They'd be martyrs. That would be great PR for them.
hfojvt (30,854 posts) Sun Mar 17, 2013, 06:21 PM
2. if nobody ever paid 70% then why were the rich so adamant about lowering the rates?
And after they lowered the rates, why did revenues go down?
unfortunately, I only have IRS statistics going back to 1986, but even since that time you can see how much the average tax rate went down, particularly for the rich.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/169
^^^the above's the most misleading primitive post of the day, or week, or month, or whatever.
The primitive has no idea.
JaneyVee (3,059 posts)
3. Of course some people paid that rate. If you made over $200K in 1945 it was 94%.
One paid 94% if one just declared income, no deductions, no loopholes, no credits.
Otherwise, one paid about 6%.
