Chart of Tax Rates since 50s
Comments
-
😂
Have one that shows the effective rates?
-
Looks like a dynamic visual chart of my average erections over time
-
Now chart the deductions allowed. I'll wait.
-
You don’t realize that’s the effective rate? I guess I shouldn’t be surprisedSledog said:Now chart the deductions allowed. I'll wait.
-
Lol. Maybe you are this stupid.Sledog said: -
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said: -
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said: -
Ummmm. No it’s not. It shows statutory rates.GDS said:
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ -
No it doesn’t...look at it again.MikeDamone said:
Ummmm. No it’s not. It shows statutory rates.GDS said:
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ -
So the top 400 paid over 70% of their income in taxes? You’re a god damn idiot. Unless fake candid dung bettle is satireGDS said:
No it doesn’t...look at it again.MikeDamone said:
Ummmm. No it’s not. It shows statutory rates.GDS said:
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ -
That’s what the chart is alleging. That the total effective tax rate including state, local and federal taxes on the richest 400 Americans was 70% in 1950. How could it be statutory when it’s including state, local and federal? You’re a god damn idiot.MikeDamone said:
So the top 400 paid over 70% of their income in taxes? You’re a god damn idiot. Unless fake candid dung bettle is satireGDS said:
No it doesn’t...look at it again.MikeDamone said:
Ummmm. No it’s not. It shows statutory rates.GDS said:
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ -
You think the current statutory rate on the 99.99th percentile income earners in America is 10% higher than the statutory rate charged on the top 400? You’re a god damn idiot.
-
Ummmm. Because the state, local and federal governments have statutes that set the tax rates... Are you this dumb? You are saying that someone who made $10million paid $7 million in taxes. That didn’t happen. Ever. Not even close. I’m thinking you don’t know what an effective tax rate is.GDS said:
That’s what the chart is alleging. That the total effective tax rate including state, local and federal taxes on the richest 400 Americans was 70% in 1950. How could it be statutory when it’s including state, local and federal? You’re a god damn idiot.MikeDamone said:
So the top 400 paid over 70% of their income in taxes? You’re a god damn idiot. Unless fake candid dung bettle is satireGDS said:
No it doesn’t...look at it again.MikeDamone said:
Ummmm. No it’s not. It shows statutory rates.GDS said:
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ -
No, I don’t think that. Because I know what a statutory rate is. Unlike you.GDS said:You think the current statutory rate on the 99.99th percentile income earners in America is 10% higher than the statutory rate charged on the top 400? You’re a god damn idiot.
The highest statutory rate for federal tax current is 37% over $500k. The effective rate is lower because only income over $500k is subject to that and many deductions and credits are available to lower the effective rate. No one is paying 37% of their income in federal taxes. You’re a dumb fuck. You don’t know what an effective tax rate is. Or a statutory rate. That’s pretty funny. Are you a teenager? -
Yes they did according to that data. Again you are talking about the top 400 earners. In 1950 only about 10,000 households fell into the highest tax bracket of 91%. You are seriously so fucking stupid that you think the statutory rate on the 99.99% today is 10% higher then on the top 400? LolMikeDamone said:
Ummmm. Because the state, local ams federal governments have statutes that set the tax rates... Are you this dumb? You are saying that someone who made $10million paid $7 million in taxes. That didn’t happen. Ever. Not even close. I’m thinking you don’t know what an effective tax rate is.GDS said:
That’s what the chart is alleging. That the total effective tax rate including state, local and federal taxes on the richest 400 Americans was 70% in 1950. How could it be statutory when it’s including state, local and federal? You’re a god damn idiot.MikeDamone said:
So the top 400 paid over 70% of their income in taxes? You’re a god damn idiot. Unless fake candid dung bettle is satireGDS said:
No it doesn’t...look at it again.MikeDamone said:
Ummmm. No it’s not. It shows statutory rates.GDS said:
Your question made no sense since the chart is reflecting effective rates. Fuck you are stupidSledog said:
I wasn't the only one with that question. Maybe you should read your own chart. How much more than the government took from your check did you pay? If you don't pay any more than required fuck off.GDS said:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ -
@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.
-
The chart comes from this op-ed in case you want to read more but you already commented the thread about the op-ed. Guess you didn’t read it before you commented...MikeDamone said:@gds. To be clear, if some 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.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html -
Answer the question @gds. So, yes or no. $10 million in income paid $7million in taxes in 1950. Yes or no.GDS said:
The chart comes from this op-ed in case you want to read more but you already commented the thread about the op-ed. Guess you didn’t read it before you commented...MikeDamone said:@gds. To be clear, if some 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.
-
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 @gdsGDS 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%
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.
-
Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%MikeDamone said:
Are you going to answer the question or not @gdsGDS 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% -
W
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?GDS said:
Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%MikeDamone said:
Are you going to answer the question or not @gdsGDS 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% -
Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%MikeDamone said:
Are you going to answer the question or not @gdsGDS 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%
At least you finally admitted it’s not the statutory rate like you previously claimed. It absolutely was the effective rate.MikeDamone said:
Are you going to answer the question or not @gdsGDS 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%
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. -
Why is this so fucking hard for you?MikeDamone said:W
So someone who made $10 million paid $7million in taxes. That’s what your saying, right?GDS said:
Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%MikeDamone said:
Are you going to answer the question or not @gdsGDS 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% -
GDS said:
Yes in 1950 the effective tax rate on the top 400 income earners was 70%MikeDamone said:
Are you going to answer the question or not @gdsGDS 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%
Hey HondoBros, I think GDS belongs to you. Maybe take him out back and have a private conversation. This is embarrassing. @2001400ex @CirrhosisDawg -
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.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/
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.
-
I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.MikeDamone said:
Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.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/
-
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?GDS said:
I didn’t say it was. You really have that hard of a time with reading comprehension? This is really sad. For you.MikeDamone said:
Marginal tax rate is not the effective tax rate, fuck wit.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/
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
