naomi 361 Posted November 20, 2007 During WW2 the top tax bracket was taxed at as high as 94%, and 91% all the way until 1961. Was there an atmosphere of complaint about that back then? It seems like something that would have historical note. I can't wrap my mind around that, I suppose there were more brackets than there are now, so the percentage of the people taxed at that was lower than what the highest bracket entails now. But it seems like even if you're making incredible amounts of money like that, an official rate of 94% is crazy. Also assume that many people who would have had qualified for the bracket otherwise had their money protected instead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yer mom 2 Posted November 20, 2007 I just wanted to post in your thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gratefulted 14 Posted November 20, 2007 At that time all I had any interest in was baseball cards, I don't think anybody here is old enough to have gone through that. I too just wanted to post in your thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackClouds 24 Posted November 20, 2007 I'd ask my grandparents, but they're all dead. Also, I just wanted to post in your thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted November 20, 2007 They calculated net income differently back then. You could have so many exemptions and shelters that the percentage is somewhat irrelevant. Here is what you need to understand. Throughout time, the rich have always paid a higher amount in taxes, but they have paid a lower percentage of their total income than poorer people. The rich will always have better accounts, lobbyists, and ways to hide their money. That is economical Darwinism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,223 Posted November 20, 2007 They calculated net income differently back then. You could have so many exemptions and shelters that the percentage is somewhat irrelevant. Here is what you need to understand. Throughout time, the rich have always paid a higher amount in taxes, but they have paid a lower percentage of their total income than poorer people. The rich will always have better accounts, lobbyists, and ways to hide their money. That is economical Darwinism. I understand your point but I'm not sure I agree with the way you worded it. For sure the rich will always hide a higher percentage of their income, but I'm not convinced that the tax per income is lower for the rich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted November 21, 2007 I understand your point but I'm not sure I agree with the way you worded it. For sure the rich will always hide a higher percentage of their income, but I'm not convinced that the tax per income is lower for the rich. You don't agree with how I worded it? the rich have always paid a higher amount in taxes, but they have paid a lower percentage of their total income than poorer people" I could have stated the rich have always paid a higher amount in taxes, but they have paid a lower percentage of their total income than middle income people" I believe that through shelters and manipulation of the system, that the wealthy pay a lot of taxes in pure dollars, but they pay a lower percentage of their income. If we had simple tax laws with a graduated tax, then that would not be the case. Instead, we have a very complex tax system. Do you disagree with any backup info or is it just the same hunch that I have? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naomi 361 Posted November 21, 2007 I just wanted to post in your thread Hey Spencer There's a guy in one of my classes that looks so much like him too, it's a little weird. PFB and JK-guessing you're probably right. Having that in legislation seems strange on the surface...to officially mandate that percentage be paid. There's 6 brackets today and in 1979 there were 15. I don't know how many there were during WW2 and through '61 but assume there was probably much more than 6. So my best guess is that the wealthy get around a lot of what they would owe on the surface, but still carry the system, and historically even more so during and after war. You guys might care that- IRS data indicate that the wealthiest 5% of taxpayers (ranked by AGI) paid roughly 60% of all income taxes; the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for 3% of income taxes paid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Savage Beast 1 Posted November 21, 2007 What's income tax? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,223 Posted November 21, 2007 You don't agree with how I worded it? I could have stated I believe that through shelters and manipulation of the system, that the wealthy pay a lot of taxes in pure dollars, but they pay a lower percentage of their income. If we had simple tax laws with a graduated tax, then that would not be the case. Instead, we have a very complex tax system. Do you disagree with any backup info or is it just the same hunch that I have? I think that the rich have loopholes, but in the end they in general pay a higher percentage than the poor. In other words, they can reduce from say 36% to 28%, but that is still a higher percentage vis a vis income than the poor pay. I'm purely speculating here, but that was my point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted November 21, 2007 I think that the rich have loopholes, but in the end they in general pay a higher percentage than the poor. In other words, they can reduce from say 36% to 28%, but that is still a higher percentage vis a vis income than the poor pay. I'm purely speculating here, but that was my point. Yeah, I can agree with that. I was thinking that we need to have a little more description of what "rich" is and what "poor" is. The reality is that the people in the middle get focked pretty hard. The poor don't pay anything (and get the benefits) and the very rich can work the system really well and don't give a rat's ass about 36% of their "net income" because much of that income is sheltered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,223 Posted November 21, 2007 Yeah, I can agree with that. I was thinking that we need to have a little more description of what "rich" is and what "poor" is. The reality is that the people in the middle get focked pretty hard. The poor don't pay anything (and get the benefits) and the very rich can work the system really well and don't give a rat's ass about 36% of their "net income" because much of that income is sheltered. I agree to agree. Also, I agree that the middle class usually gets focked by the tax increase proposed by liberals which are allegedly aimed at the "rich," because the rich have the resources to avoid the consequences. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted November 21, 2007 I agree to agree. Also, I agree that the middle class usually gets focked by the tax increase proposed by liberals which are allegedly aimed at the "rich," because the rich have the resources to avoid the consequences. ... and I agree that the middle class usually gets focked by the tax "cut" proposed by conservatives which are allegedly aimed at the middle class, but are actually more taken advantage of by the rich Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
