5 ms·
This is a total BS argument. Nobody ever payed these taxes. Its far more accurate to look at what part of the GDP the government is spending. That number was th
by nickik 9y ago
This is a total BS argument. Nobody ever payed these taxes. Its far more accurate to look at what part of the GDP the government is spending. That number was the further back you go.
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoI'm citing my sources. You could at least show me the courtesy of doing the same.
- snowpanda 9y agoNot OP but he's right, your statement is slightly misleading, not many people actually paid that (fewer than 10,000 households[1]). A good source as you asked for can be found here: [1] https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoThe Tax Foundation has been called a “deliberate fraud” by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation) Also, 10,000 households in the 1950s is roughly equivalent to the top 1% of the top 1%, and exactly who i’d expect to be taxed at a rate of 90%+.
- nickik 9y agoI'm not saying the 90% number did not exist. My point is that overall government was lower then. What part of that are you not understanding?