4 ms·

US income taxes are at historically low levels too.

• lettergram 10y ago
  I would disagree - prior to WWI there was no income tax. Further, not every state implanted income taxes (some still don't have any)
  • lloyd-christmas 10y ago
    undefined != 0
    • lkbm 10y ago
      Seems like in the case of tax, it does. They weren't taking a random % of income in income tax based on what was in the memory cell from the previous call stack. They were taking 0%.
  • whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Some states (Texas) don't have income tax but have very high property taxes to offset this. Or they have high sales tax.
• opo 10y ago
  There is a difference between nominal rate and effective rate. The effective rates are fairly close to the past for high wage earners, lower for low wage earners. >...In 1958, approximately two million filers (4.4% of all taxpayers) earned the $12,000 or more for married couples needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans paid about 35% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes. >In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873247051045781516...