3 ms·
Agree or disagree, there's a few things this article left unclear. First, the US has a progressive tax code. So, you wouldn't be taxed 70% on your entire incom
by gkoberger 8y ago
Agree or disagree, there's a few things this article left unclear.
First, the US has a progressive tax code. So, you wouldn't be taxed 70% on your entire income, only the money over a certain amount. Plus, due to deductions and other loopholes, nobody will actually pay this full amount.
Secondly, this rate isn't a new idea. It was 94% under FDR (democrat) and 91% during the Eisenhower (republican) administration, and both resulted in times of prosperity. And it was 70% as recently as the 80s.
- lghh 8y agoThe first point was mentioned in the article.
- gkoberger 8y agoIt does include the quote "That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate", however it wasn't explained for anyone who's unfamiliar with our system.
- adventured 8y ago> and both resulted in times of prosperity Both occurred during (some) times of prosperity. That's an entirely different premise than giving the tax rate credit for the prosperity. FDR never once saw sustained economic prosperity during his tenure in office. That isn't a statement on his policies, rather, his time in office coincided with the great depression and WW2. He died before the post war boom took hold.
- antisthenes 8y agoDid prosperity occur specifically because of the tax rates, or because of unprecedented before scale and use of fossil fuels per capita before the crisis of 1973?