Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
Marginal tax rates, much?
The top bracket used to be 90% during the 1950s and 60s, arguably the best financial times for the U.S. and a time of rapid middle class growth. Whether that happens because of or in spite of the 90% rate is up for a debate, but a high top rate obviously won't destroy America.
It still amazes me the amount of empathy poor folks show the absurdly wealthy. These guys would wipe their ass with your paycheck and not think twice about it.
Tax law was much different then.
In the early part of of the 50's we had very old tax law (Internal Revenue Code of 1939). Then we had the IRC of 1954.
Back then there were TONS of "loopholes" (not really loopholes per se, but all types of intentional ways to reduce taxes due to many exemptions/deductions Congress inserted into tax law). Because of the huge amount of 'loopholes' the wealthy didn't pay taxes, this is way (and when) the Alternative Minimum Tax was created - so at least they'd pay some minimum amount of tax.
That was changed under Reagan and these loopholes were abolished, we now have the IRC of 1986
In effect, we've never had that high a rate of tax.
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
-snip-
The only people that ever paid 90% were retards who didn't know how to do their taxes and people that won large, one-time sums, like lottery winners.
Correct (except for the lottery comment, I'm not sure it existed back then). Tax professionals like myself and others were very busy before the 1986 code doing tax planning to reduce rich peoples' taxes. Essentially, we found every benefit Congress granted and made sure our clients too advantage of them.
To the main point - generally a rate above 50% is considered counter-productive as it encourage non-recognition of income (whether by legal or illegal methods) and results in reduced revenue for the government (compared to what it could have otherwise gotten).
Fern