AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

Quote:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003

Introduction
This is a table of the top marginal tax rate faced by married couples for most of the last century in the US.

Note that these are top marginal rates only, not average effective rates. That is,

the rate is not an average rate (total tax paid divided by total income), but a marginal rate (the rate paid on dollars of income over the "top bracket," listed below as "Taxable income over--");
the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate.
The table is limited to married couples merely to make the presentation simpler.

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table
Tax year Top marginal
tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1> Taxable
income over--
1913 7 500,000
1914 7 500,000
1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000
1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000
1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000
1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000
1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000
1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000
1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000
1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000
1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000
1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000
1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000
1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000
1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000
1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000
1943 88 200,000
1944 94 <2> 200,000
1945 94 <2> 200,000
1946 86.45 <3> 200,000
1947 86.45 <3> 200,000
1948 82.13 <4> 400,000
1949 82.13 <4> 400,000
1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 <5> 400,000
1952 92 <6> 400,000
1953 92 <6> 400,000
1954 91 <7> 400,000
1955 91 <7> 400,000
1956 91 <7> 400,000
1957 91 <7> 400,000
1958 91 <7> 400,000
1959 91 <7> 400,000
1960 91 <7> 400,000
1961 91 <7> 400,000
1962 91 <7> 400,000
1963 91 <7> 400,000
1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000
1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000
1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000
1970 71.75 200,000
1971 70 60 200,000
1972 70 50 200,000
1973 70 50 200,000
1974 70 50 200,000
1975 70 50 200,000
1976 70 50 200,000
1977 70 50 203,200
1978 70 50 203,200
1979 70 50 215,400
1980 70 50 215,400
1981 69.125 50 215,400
1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400
1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020
1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000
1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 31 82,150
1992 31 86,500
1993 39.6 89,150
1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500
1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050
1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150
2000 39.6 288,350
2001 39.1 297,350
2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950

Graph
This graph is a plot of year (first column in the table) against the corresponding top marginal rate (second column in the table) (in blue). Where the top marginal rate on earned income differs (1971--1981), it is also plotted (in red).

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Fact, the federal government only collected about 18 % of GDP from 1965 to 1980. Wages make up about 80% or more of GDP. Your statement is so false it is funny how you would even make such an outrageous claim.

I suggest you study a basic book on economics to understand that my statement is not "outrageous," and instead yours is. I recommend Thomas Sewell's BASIC ECONOMICS, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.

What you need to understand is that a huge number of wage earners make private investments in private businesses, large and small, one or more times per year each and every year. Those investments are used by private businesses to expand their businesses which in turn increases the GPD. A great many of these wage earner investors earn salaries in the top 50% of incomes.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

I particularly recommend the Third Edition of Thomas Sewell's BASIC ECONOMICS, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, It doesn't matter that the majority "invests" in our capitalistic economy. That's what capitalism is all about. It still doesn't change the simple fact that the federal tax revenue still amounts to 18% of GDP from 1965 to 1980.

Your straw man claims proves nothing.

1 Reply

Right now, our nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. Conservative estimates have that at: The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns slightly over 34% of the nation's net worth, the top 10 percent of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40 percent of the population owns way less than 1%.

I get the feeling that the conservatives of our country would not be bothered if the wealthiest 1 percent of families owned 75% of the nation's net worth...and the top 10 percent owned 99%...with the bottom 90 percent of the families owning but 1% of the wealth.

It is absolutely amazing how absurd the conservative philosophy can take these folks.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, That's not the only problem with the conservative meme; they don't want the wealthy to pay more taxes by claiming it's a transfer of wealth to the poor while we transfer our deficit to our children and grandchildren.

They have lost all common sense with their conservative rhetoric; they still want to reduce taxes while increasing debt for our children.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It is amazing, ci.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That would be a model Stalin would be proud of.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

the simple fact [IS] that the federal tax revenue still amounts to 18% of GDP from 1965 to 1980.

I agree, but that simple fact has nothing to do with the simple fact that tax rates determine how much money is left for employees to buy or invest. Both contribute to the size of the GDP, but private investment contributes a greater percentage to the GDP per dollar than do net after tax wages. Federal tax revenues contribute the least per dollar to the GDP.

To repeat: a huge number of wage earners WITH AFTER TAX INCOME make private investments in private businesses, large and small, one or more times per year, each and every year. Those investments are used by private businesses to expand their businesses which in turn increases the GPD. A great many of these wage earner investors earn salaries in the top 50% of incomes. THE MORE PEOPLE WHO EARN SALARIES IN THE TOP 50% OF INCOMES, THE MERRIER! A GROWING GDP HELPS INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO EARN SALARIES IN THE TOP 50% OF INCOMES, WHILE REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT.

I provide the following to help you folks make more rational arguments.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product GDP 1965 to 2008

In Trillions of Dollars:
Year ------------------------------------------------ 1965 --------- 2006 ------ 2008
GDP = ------------------------------------------- 0. 7191 ----- 13.1784 ---- 14.2807
Personal Consumption expenditures = ---- 0.4438 ------- 9.2072 ----- 10.0585
Gross domestic investment = ---------------- 0.1182 ------- 2.2204 ------ 2.0041
Net exports of goods and services = -------- 0.0056 ------ -0.7573 ----- -0.6651
Government consumption expenditures
and gross investment = ----------------------- 0.1515 ------- 2.5081 ------ 2.8832

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

You are only describing capitalism; that's given. The GDP is made up 100% by capitalism.

What are you trying to say?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Generally, lowering taxes promotes growth in GPD and the consequent growth of jobs.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. You don't even learn from what happened after Bush's tax cuts. You are hopeless.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Generally, lowering taxes promotes growth in GPD and the consequent growth of jobs.

As taxes can be considered a cost of doing business, for businesses, lowering tax rates do spur productivity, whether they always produce more tax revenue depends upon where we are on the Laffer curve.

As a stimulus package, lowering taxes will lower overhead for businesses, thus it can stimulate the economy better and longer for all businesses than for example, giving money to the Smithsonian or even building roads, because that only helps the particular contractors that do that work, and the people they hire, etc., but once the work is done, its over. It does nothing to lower overhead to make the businesses more profitable and competitive long term. Most of the stuff in Obama's stimulus package do nothing to improve the business climate long term. And giving one time checks to low income people only stimulate the economy short term, once its spent, its over. Unless the business climate is improved in terms of employment regulations, unions, removing burdensome and costly regulations, tax structure, and other factors that would help us compete in a global economy, the longer term health of doing business will not improve.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Lowering taxes does not spur productivity. Demand spurs productivity.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Lowering taxes to people frees up more money to spur demand. And making businesses more competitive here helps that demand go for domestic output rather than stuff made in China.

1 Reply

@okie,

No, lowering taxes does not do such a thing. You are confused; some countries have tax rates over 50%, but their demand for goods and services remains very competitive in the world marketplace.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

But are their corporate or business taxes lower than ours? Identify which taxes you are talking about.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Explain to us why these countries with much higher tax rates do not have a weaker economy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

the conservative meme; they don't want the wealthy to pay more taxes by claiming it's a transfer of wealth to the poor while we transfer our deficit to our children and grandchildren.

What I want is a flat tax: a tax rate that is the same/uniform tax for every dollar of gross income, regardless of how many dollars are earned or accumulated: no deductions, no exemptions, no refunds, with no business, estate, or death taxes--no exceptions.

$s ANNUAL GROSS INCOME ..... $s OFANNUAL TAX FOR A 10% TAX RATE
10 .......................................................................... 1
100 ...................................................................... 10
1,000 ................................................................ 100
10,000 ........................................................... 1,000
100,000 ...................................................... 10,000
1,000,000 ................................................ 100,000
1,000,000,000 ................................. 100,000,000

Both wealthy and poor will pay more taxes with a uniform tax on gross income per dollar. Currently, the wealthy have numerous ways of escaping some or all income taxes, because of special--not well known or well understood--provisions that exist in the current tax laws.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Before the Fanny & Freddy caused USA recession after 2006, other countries that have higher tax rates did have weaker economies (e.g., France and Engl;and).

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know