Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Chart of Tax Rates since 50s

2

Comments

  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds

    The only thing we actually know is your cute little animation is devoid of facts. The effective or statutory rates were not 70%. The highest statutory rate was 91%. The effective rate wasn’t much different than today. It was higher, but just by a few %. No one in history who made $10million in income paid $7million in taxes Go to bed. You can be done now.
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds
    Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    W
    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds
    Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%
    So someone who made $10 million paid $7million in taxes, if $10million was in the top 400. . That’s what your saying, right? @gds, final answer?
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds
    Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds

    The only thing we actually know is your cute little animation is devoid of facts. The effective or statutory rates were not 70%. The highest statutory rate was 91%. The effective rate wasn’t much different than today. It was higher, but just by a few %. No one in history who made $10million in income paid $7million in taxes Go to bed. You can be done now.
    At least you finally admitted it’s not the statutory rate like you previously claimed. It absolutely was the effective rate.
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    W

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds
    Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%
    So someone who made $10 million paid $7million in taxes. That’s what your saying, right?
    Why is this so fucking hard for you?
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds
    Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%

    Hey HondoBros, I think GDS belongs to you. Maybe take him out back and have a private conversation. This is embarrassing. @2001400ex @CirrhosisDawg
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470
    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.

    Why won’t you answer yes or no? 10 million in income paid 7 million in taxes. That’s what your saying when you claim a 70% effective rate. Yes or no? @gds

    Your leftist friends here are avoiding this thread like the plague. I wonder why. My guess is even they are embarrassed for you.
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    Yes you did. You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?
    I’m not backtracking at all. Holy fuck you’re an idiot. Yes. The effective tax rate on the top 400 highest income Americans in 1950 was 70%. Your own fucking source showed that the top 0.1% of income earners (a much larger pool than the top 400 earners) was near 60%. When you reduce the pool from the top 0.1% in your source to the top 400 ( a group that is well into the highest marginal tax bracket of 91%) it makes perfect sense that their effective tax rate was 70%. So your own fucking source shows data consistent with the chart in the op. And you thought that chart showed the statutory rate...lol
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470
    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Is this mike dude always this fucktarded? Wow
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Except the reality that no one did.
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Except the reality that no one did.
    Unfortunately your own data is consistent with the fact that it was.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,626

    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Except the reality that no one did.
    That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Except the reality that no one did.
    That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.
    According to @gds it’s known that the top 400 paid 70% of all their income in taxes. So I guess his source has a way to figure it out.
  • GDSGDS Member Posts: 1,470

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Except the reality that no one did.
    That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.
    According to @gds it’s known that the top 400 paid 70% of all their income in taxes. So I guess his source has a way to figure it out.
    Woooooooooooosh!
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    GDS said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    This is from your source you linked to before. If you expand the pool to the top .1% a much larger pool their effective tax was up near 60%. By the time we further reduce that pool to the top 400 it becomes 70% as the marginal or statutory rate at that time was 91%.

    https://taxfoundation.org/income-tax-rich-1950s-not-high/

    Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.
    I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.
    You said the effective tax rate was 70%. Which literally means 70% of all wages earned by a person are paid in taxes. So are you back tracking now and saying the effective tax rate was not 70% and your little cartoon is a lie?

    Yes or no. $10 million earned paid $7 million. Just answer the question. I doubt you will. Because it would show you are completely lost here
    There is no mathematical reason why the richest Americans couldn’t have had an effective tax rate of 70% given their marginal rate of 90%.
    Except the reality that no one did.
    That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.
    According to @gds it’s known that the top 400 paid 70% of all their income in taxes. So I guess his source has a way to figure it out.
    Woooooooooooosh!
    Yet we have no details. Just a cartoon.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    GDS said:

    GDS said:

    @gds. To be clear, if someone in 1950 was in the top 400 and made $10million, they paid $7million in taxes? That’s your assertion? Because that’s what you’re saying.


    It’s obviously not the statutory rate as we know the statutory top rate in 1950 was 91%
    Are you going to answer the question or not @gds
    Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%

    Hey HondoBros, I think GDS belongs to you. Maybe take him out back and have a private conversation. This is embarrassing. @2001400ex @CirrhosisDawg
    Yes you are getting shredded. I would be embarrassed if I were you too.
Sign In or Register to comment.