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

Chart of Tax Rates since 50s

135

Comments

  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    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

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    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%
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    W
    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%
    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?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    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%
    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

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

    W

    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%
    So someone who made $10 million paid $7million in taxes. That’s what your saying, right?
    Why is this so fucking hard for you?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS 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/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited October 2019
    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter