I've been sleeping on AOC. She has the establishment shook.
- Thread starter Calmye
- Start date
Ezekiel 25:17
Veteran
Y'all gotta read some more. Im just now knowing this, but no one has ever paid over 70% tax rate and never will. Go read about it, the information is right there in your hard. A 70% tax rate will not work whatsoever. We're being played.
Look up marginal tax rate and effective tax rate. Look all of that up. This broad don't know what she's talking about
Feel free to prove me wrong
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation
Last edited:
You have no clue what you are talking about.
We are talking a 70 percent tax rate on people making over 10 mil per year.
You need to shut the fukk up asap.
We had a 90 percent tax rate in the 1950s
A poster already outlined this on the first page yet you multimillionaire fun guzzling ass is here spewing bullshyt
Ezekiel 25:17
Veteran
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1]However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]
The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.
All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.
All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards
- The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
- Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
- Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.
The Fade
I don’t argue with niqqas on the Internet anymore
Yo this shyt sounds so horribly corny and scripted. They all sound SO FAKE?? You can see the fear tactics in the air
Holy shyt, they have the people who watch this shyt in fear mode 24/7. But it sounds like someone is trying to brainwash me
They know what comes next
Bloodbath!!!
I Really Mean It
Veteran
I wish there were more young black politicians who were as savvy, knowledgeable, forthright, and courageous as her. She seems very genuine, which is a refreshing change from the typical Democrat. 
Ok
There are a few obvious reasons why the taxes the rich actually paid in the 1950s were so much lower than the confiscatory top rates that sat on the books. For one, the max tax rates on investment income were far lower than on wages and salaries, which gave a lot of wealthy individuals some relief. Tax avoidance may have also been a big problem. Moreover, there simply weren’t that many extraordinarily rich households. Those fabled 90 percent tax rates only bit at incomes over $200,000, the equivalent of more than $2 million in today’s dollars. As Greenberg notes, the tax may have only applied to 10,000 families. To Greenberg, the takeaway from this is simple: Progressives should stop fixating on the tax rates from 60 years ago. “All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.”
I’m not convinced. Effective tax rates on 1 percenters may not have fallen by half, as some on the left might be tempted to imagine. But they are down by about 6 percentage points at a time when the wealthy earn a vastly larger share of the national income. That drop represents a lot of money. Moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights. That rather severely undercuts the idea that taxes on the wealthy haven’t fallen “much.”
Moreover, there may be reasons to support higher taxes beyond their ability to raise revenue. One popular theory among left-leaning intellectualsright now—advanced by Piketty, Saez, and their protegée Stefanie Stantcheva—is that high tax rates actually ease income inequality by discouraging CEOs and professionals from demanding exorbitantly high pay for their services.*
In other words, thanks to high tax rates, people didn’t bother trying to get as rich. After all, there’s no point in bargaining for a giant bonus if the government is going to clip off most of it. I wouldn’t say the theory has been accepted as a consensus fact at this point, but it’s certainly alive and being taken seriously.
So the real tax rates rich Americans paid in the 1950s may not have been so stratospherically high as some progressives assume. But they also may have helped create a more egalitarian society. That seems worth considering.
Slate’s Use of Your Data
How do you know he's not a conservative cac?. I wouldn't be surprised given how many undercover and some not so covert cac there are on this forum.
Sometimes it feels like reading citydata forum politics section
ultraflexed
Superstar
AOC is AADOS approved
ultraflexed
Superstar
Lv99 Slacker
Pro
I'll admit that when I found out that she's a bit of a gamer, I couldn't deny it anymore. I was all aboard the AOC hype train.
And then she crashes a marathon Twitch stream (by Hbomberguy) as "AOC Gang" and talks policy for about 10min:
Extended video clip:
And then she crashes a marathon Twitch stream (by Hbomberguy) as "AOC Gang" and talks policy for about 10min:
Extended video clip:
