3 ms·
Okay. In that case the cutoff was around $80,000 in today's money, which is certainly not poor (but not rich either).
by woodruffw 4y ago
Okay. In that case the cutoff was around $80,000 in today's money, which is certainly not poor (but not rich either).
- cjbgkagh 4y agoThe difference in the amount of tax has a big effect on post tax money. If it's 45% (city + state + federal + social security etc.) you'd have to make x * (1 - 45%) = $80K * (1 - 3%), solving for x gives $141K which is a big difference.
- leereeves 4y agoTop three percent is fairly rich. > The Revenue Act of 1913 ... established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
- woodruffw 4y agoNot in absolute terms: the fact that 97% of Americans in 1913 made less than $80,000 equivalent per year is more a testament to America (and broadly the world's) staggering poverty relative to our current wealth. Put another way: you can't tax destitute people (at least not for long, and not without losing your head), but can absolutely can tax the average American household in 2021[1]. [1]: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-27...
- bombcar 4y agoWeren't substantial percentages of the US still on subsistence farming/bartering at the time? It's hard to income tax a society without much income.
- carlosjobim 4y agoDestitute people have always been heavily taxed, since the beginning of civilization. It's called interest on farm loans, rent, work duty, soldier duty, etc.