3 ms·

I agree with you. But, while not the same, it seems related that for example, the tax rate in the USA was a times as high as 94% https://www.investopedia.com/a

by nox101 2y ago

I agree with you. But, while not the same, it seems related that for example, the tax rate in the USA was a times as high as 94% https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/10/history-taxes.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/10/history-taxes.a... I don't know how well that was at limiting wealth. Maybe people found ways to hide the money so it didn't get taxed. It also didn't limit wealth. 6% of a trillion is still 60 billion

diggernet 2y ago
The top rate was that high, but nobody was really taxed at 94% because there were a lot more exceptions. When they drastically reduced the top rate, they also eliminated a great many exceptions. Overall, the change was actually revenue-neutral. Which shows that you cannot compare that 94% number to the current rates and say that people used to pay more taxes. "Lowering the rate" was just simplifying things so that the printed rate more closely matched the reality.