6 ms·
I see this kind of comment an awful lot, and I have two immediate reactions: The first is a sort of dumb and dumber "we landed on the moon!" feeling where I ac
by jeremyt 11y ago
I see this kind of comment an awful lot, and I have two immediate reactions:
The first is a sort of dumb and dumber "we landed on the moon!" feeling where I actually can't believe that someone didn't know that there used to be a 90% marginal tax rate. Perhaps you live outside of the United States?
The second is that the 90% tax rate is completely misleading, as there were so many deductions and loopholes that hardly anybody ever paid it.
Every time somebody brings up the 90% rate, it's always someone on the left attempting a "We could raise tax rates a whole lot more; just look at how high they used to be". It's one of the most disingenuous arguments in politics.
- bmmayer1 11y agoThere's also the point pg brought up in his most recent essay[1]: "To some extent this was an illusion. Much of the de facto pay of executives never showed up on their income tax returns, because it took the form of perks. The higher the rate of income tax, the more pressure there was to pay employees upstream of it." [1] http://paulgraham.com/re.html http://paulgraham.com/re.html
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]