"throughout the 1950's . . . the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent" This statement's math is inaccurate. In the "mid 50s" there were many

"throughout the 1950's . . . the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent" This statement's math is inaccurate. In the "mid 50s" there were many more brackets, and in fact the 90% rate was for incomes in the 2m/yr+ range adjusted for inflation. A more fair comparison is to look at today's top rate bracket which is anything above $373,650. In 1955 that was ~$47,500 inflation adjusted, and the marginal tax rate for that bracket was 72%. Not arguing the point that a greater share of the top earners INCOME went to taxes back in the day, just that 90% is not an accurate representation of the top, or wealthy class tax. Beyond that what bugs me about this line is that he uses it as proof that taxes are lower today than they have been in the past, when in fact that is not accurate. Trends in state taxes, capital gains, property taxes (and values), and sales taxes add to the burden today at every level, so marginal tax is not the best measure. A better measure is total tax revenue against GPD which, shown below, illustrates that the percentage of tax revenue has GROWN since the 1950s: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=195... and the history of marginal tax rates: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20101220.swf http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_histo...