5 ms·

If this were the 50's again we'd have an 84% marginal rate on income over $400,000. Which we would use to fund our infrastructure and energy projects.

bamboozled 6y ago
He he he, it’s the 1950s without the good bits then.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  Its the 80s/90s that the US is stuck in. The Reagan/Thatcher deregulation revolution was the inflection point.
  - minikites 6y ago
    https://twitter.com/wardqnormal/status/1206280031552454656 https://twitter.com/wardqnormal/status/1206280031552454656 >My new hobby is taking graphs of economic data over time and indicating the year that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, in case people find that helpful or informative.
    - TehCorwiz 6y ago
      Whoever that is, is my hero.
Proziam 6y ago
I think you're leaving out a super important point. These tax rates didn't affect people making this amount of money. The capital gains tax was 25% at the time, so business owners and investors were not paying 84% tax. If they had been, the oil tycoons of the 50's (basically the entire fortune list) would never have become so wealthy.
CapriciousCptl 6y ago
It's hard to imagine anyone would keep working for that $400,001th dollar if they only got to keep 16 cents of it. Surgeons, for instance, can literally stop taking patients and go to Aruba when they get near the bend. High-dual income households is another example-- imagine a double-physician household where one of them is taxed at 84%-- they'd save money by one of them not working at all considering daycare expenses. Actual taxes on the 1% in the 50s weren't really that much higher, despite the marginal rates-- https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I would very happily take 16% of an extra $1B.
  - CapriciousCptl 6y ago
    Do any US taxpayers earn $1 billion annually? Even if you use a more realistic number and want to focus on the top 0.0000003%, that's very different than taxing people who earn income as a linear function of their hours worked.

bamboozled 6y ago

He he he, it’s the 1950s without the good bits then.

bart_spoon 6y ago
Its the 80s/90s that the US is stuck in. The Reagan/Thatcher deregulation revolution was the inflection point.
- minikites 6y ago
  https://twitter.com/wardqnormal/status/1206280031552454656 https://twitter.com/wardqnormal/status/1206280031552454656 >My new hobby is taking graphs of economic data over time and indicating the year that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, in case people find that helpful or informative.
  - TehCorwiz 6y ago
    Whoever that is, is my hero.

Proziam 6y ago

I think you're leaving out a super important point. These tax rates didn't affect people making this amount of money. The capital gains tax was 25% at the time, so business owners and investors were not paying 84% tax. If they had been, the oil tycoons of the 50's (basically the entire fortune list) would never have become so wealthy.

CapriciousCptl 6y ago

It's hard to imagine anyone would keep working for that $400,001th dollar if they only got to keep 16 cents of it. Surgeons, for instance, can literally stop taking patients and go to Aruba when they get near the bend. High-dual income households is another example-- imagine a double-physician household where one of them is taxed at 84%-- they'd save money by one of them not working at all considering daycare expenses. Actual taxes on the 1% in the 50s weren't really that much higher, despite the marginal rates-- https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

ceejayoz 6y ago
I would very happily take 16% of an extra $1B.
- CapriciousCptl 6y ago
  Do any US taxpayers earn $1 billion annually? Even if you use a more realistic number and want to focus on the top 0.0000003%, that's very different than taxing people who earn income as a linear function of their hours worked.