Chart of Tax Rates since 50s
Comments
-
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...lolMikeDamone said:
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?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/ -
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
Is this mike dude always this fucktarded? WowHHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
Except the reality that no one did.HHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
Unfortunately your own data is consistent with the fact that it was.MikeDamone said:
Except the reality that no one did.HHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.MikeDamone said:
Except the reality that no one did.HHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
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.HHusky said:
That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.MikeDamone said:
Except the reality that no one did.HHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
Woooooooooooosh!MikeDamone said:
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.HHusky said:
That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.MikeDamone said:
Except the reality that no one did.HHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
Yet we have no details. Just a cartoon.GDS said:
Woooooooooooosh!MikeDamone said:
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.HHusky said:
That’s no way to refer to the 400 best paid Americans.MikeDamone said:
Except the reality that no one did.HHusky said:
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%.MikeDamone said:
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 -
Yes you are getting shredded. I would be embarrassed if I were you too.MikeDamone said: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 -
Where does it days effective rates? It says total tax rate.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: -
You posted a fucking GIF to start this thread. No link. No text. Now show me where it says effective rate you fucking 'tard!GDS 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/ -
Your effective tax rate is your total tax rate. They're synonymous. Read a book or something.Sledog said:
Where does it days effective rates? It says total tax rate.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: -
-
-
I don't think he understands that this also includes State and local taxes.HHusky said:
Your effective tax rate is your total tax rate. They're synonymous. Read a book or something.Sledog said:
Where does it days effective rates? It says total tax rate.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: -
I have accountants.
-
Life’s been good to you so far.Sledog said:I have accountants.
