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

Chart of Tax Rates since 50s

124

Comments

  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 24,335
    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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%.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 24,335
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    GDS said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    HHusky said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GDS said:

    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter