The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Rate US tax rates in 1959 (91% top rate)
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 27th, 2022 9:42 AM Author: spruce comical idea he suggested milk Is this what MAGA shits mean when they idealize the 1950's?
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1959 |
Date: January 27th, 2022 9:44 AM Author: Geriatric vibrant faggotry Very few people paid that rate because there were far more ways to take deductions and avoid actually declaring enough income to be in that bracket. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855391) |
 |
Date: January 27th, 2022 9:47 AM Author: charcoal step-uncle's house ……champ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855396) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 9:50 AM Author: spruce comical idea he suggested milk whatever, boomer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855404) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:10 AM Author: soul-stirring fiercely-loyal business firm Better to create an incentive to create more jobs or pay more because you can only keep $90 of every extra $1,000 you earn than the shit show we have with crap like carried interest in my humble opinion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855534) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:12 AM Author: Fear-inspiring dilemma why wouldn't high earner mos just work less? why would they work more to altruistically benefit randos under threat of the govt confiscating their cash if they don't? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855545) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 12:37 PM Author: soul-stirring fiercely-loyal business firm $400,000 in 1959 would be about $4,000,000 today. That’s a lot of income. If you have income in excess of $4m, I’d actually venture to say that you can’t just work “less.” You’re probably getting that income by either not working or by working in a way that’s not particularly scalable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43856653) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 1:27 PM Author: Fear-inspiring dilemma why work at all if i've already got plenty of money and govt is gonna take almost everything i make from now on?
if it's a business i'd just let it crash and burn, let them loot that lol |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 5:43 PM Author: house-broken public bath Lmao do you really think somebody like Elon Musk is going to stop making cars or rockets because his taxes went up? Put down the Atlas Shrugged, brother. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43858376) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 6:04 PM Author: Fear-inspiring dilemma do you think 100% top rate would disincentivize him from working but 91% top rate wouldn't? or do you think he'd keep working even if 100% of the wealth he earned were confiscated? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43858506) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:11 AM Author: Fear-inspiring dilemma (guy who actually knows what he's talking about, unlike other posters ITT) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855542) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:31 AM Author: startling apoplectic hominid multi-billionaire *Ghost of Joe Lewis appears and punches you in the face (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855621) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:32 AM Author: Big-titted telephone affirmative action TT with the low IQ take on tax rates ftw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855627) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:34 AM Author: startled aqua voyeur that's terrible. How would Zuckerberg afford 15 vacation homes with such rates? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43855632) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 1:40 PM Author: startling apoplectic hominid multi-billionaire *screams the blue-haired activist as the IRS buttfucks the UMC (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43857025) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 10:35 AM Author: cordovan forum partner The median income in 1955 was $3400, that person probably payed an effective rate in the mid teens after deductions.
Also I’ll trade the tax regime for the demographics. |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 2:02 PM Author: Vermilion sneaky criminal CR that sounds like heaven (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43857161) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 5:43 PM Author: house-broken public bath (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43858383) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 12:45 PM Author: beta plaza Such a stupid low iq argument. Just look at rates and ignore deductions, at risk and loss rules! It’s apples to apples! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43856699) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 1:45 PM Author: spruce comical idea he suggested milk da deductions he lisped!! without naming any of these mysterious deductions (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43857051) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 1:46 PM Author: trip mother im sorry we dont have 1950s era Title 26 memorized (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43857055) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 1:50 PM Author: Geriatric vibrant faggotry He literally referenced the passive loss rules and at risk rules. Code sections 465 and 469.
Tax reform from the 1980s on broadened the base and lowered the rates.
We used to have a narrow base and high rates. Now we have a broad base and lower rates. This is better for almost anyone other than those who used/abused tax shelters in the 1980s. |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 2:37 PM Author: Saffron wagecucks Correction: as Mitt pointed out we have a narrow base, at least for income tax, and Dems want to make it even narrower (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43857369) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 5:45 PM Author: house-broken public bath Do tell, why should any middle class American support a broad tax base and not a narrow one? The fuck kind of reasoning is this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43858395) |
|
Date: January 29th, 2022 9:31 PM Author: Geriatric vibrant faggotry Generally speaking, it’s better for most people to pay a modest rate than for the headline rate to be high but for those who are supposed to be paying it be highly motivated to pay 50 cents on the dollar to accountants and tax lawyers to avoid it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43871622) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 2:10 PM Author: Motley misanthropic native puppy I don't really care about the details. The end result was clear. There just weren't many super rich people in 1950s America. There was only one billionaire back then supporting the American Jewish Committee. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43857196) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2022 5:46 PM Author: Bearded locus (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43858398) |
|
Date: January 29th, 2022 10:39 PM Author: cerise stimulating menage love of her life The 90% marginal tax rate was an absolute disaster for both the country and the people working. A classic example of how retarded it was is the case of world heavyweight champion boxer Joe Louis. He donated money to the government to help fund the WWII war effort. The government took the money, then told him he had to pay taxes on it because the donations themselves weren’t taxes. So he had to earn $100 for every $10 he had to pay in taxes.
Despite being one of the most successful, responsible, and dominant heavyweight champions ever, the government ran him into bankruptcy and he died a pauper.
https://www.mackinac.org/V1997-22
Ultimately it was easy to shield money from the 90% marginal rate, but the high earners right when the tax got imposed were fucked. Virtually no one paid the 90% rate when it was dropped. |
|
Date: January 30th, 2022 8:09 AM Author: soul-stirring fiercely-loyal business firm It sounds to me like government policies kept this dude working and producing for his whole life instead of becoming a layabout slob. I’d call that a win. 99% tax rates for all Americans earning more than $200,000 in AGI! |
|
Date: January 30th, 2022 8:18 AM Author: beady-eyed brethren Fuck it. Just bring back slavery. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43873016) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2022 8:17 AM Author: beady-eyed brethren I’m sure the FDR/Truman postwar tax schemes are exactly what they have in mind to pay for CRT and do-nothing grift of today (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5017702&forum_id=2#43873014) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2022 8:18 AM Author: Navy hairless indirect expression Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ |