3 ms·
No, it didn't, did it? It always amuses me to reflect that the time that we were most afraid of communism was also the time that we were closest to accepting i
by ScottBurson 12y ago
No, it didn't, did it?
It always amuses me to reflect that the time that we were most afraid of communism was also the time that we were closest to accepting it, at least if the marginal tax rates are any indication.
Anyway I don't think I could support 90% or even 70%, but I could definitely get behind 50%.
- mr_luc 12y agoI agree with the gist of these comments; all I meant by that bit put that bit was to make the argument about the inevitability of inequality's increase a more conservative one. It seems obvious (to me) that redistribution, maybe in the form of basic income, is an inevitable result of this 'natural law' of increasing inequality. That said: people did not pay those rates in the 50s[1]: The Internal Revenue Service reckoned that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent. Or lower. Marc Linder, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has shown that a more comprehensive interpretation of income that includes capital gains suggests the real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953. The effective rate dropped throughout the decade, reaching 31 percent by 1960. That 31 percent is just slightly higher than the 29 percent level a Congressional Budget Office report figures the average effective tax for the top quintile will be in 2014. --- [1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-f...
- ScottBurson 12y agoJust to be clear, lisper and I were talking about marginal tax rates, not overal effective rates. Only for the very highest earners does the effective rate approach the top marginal rate.