I got curious about this and found this summary: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html Initial top bracket was 7% in 1913 Highest was 92% in 1952 2011 was 35% What kind of animal is that?
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6x8ZOL4iQHM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The kind that ends Reichs and SSRs, splits atoms, integrates schools, builds the internet, and sends back data from Jupiter on 30 year old equipment.
Taxes are so confusing: capital income tax, labor income tax, marginal tax rate, average tax rate, total tax rate, net tax rate, etc. Commodore, as for the Heritage Plan, I don't like flat tax (consumption) rates. How can Heritage propose their plan as a saviour for family savings when many families struggle to save because their consumption rate (bills) leave very little disposable income? I don't agree with people who say tax rates on capital income (dividends, interest, capital gains) discourage and prevent entrepreneurism. Guys like Larry Page and Paul Allen did not start their respective business because capital income tax rates were at historic lows. I've never heard of such a thing. Entrepreneurism comes from ideas not ideology. As for making a case to increase capital income tax, the primary beneficiaries of such income are wealthy or retired. The elderly want Medicare and Medicaid, well, then they need to be cooperative. Tax cuts, if given at all, should be given to those individuals earning less than ~$60,000, under 35 years of age (those still have the entrepreneurial zeal), and who rent (because ownership builds equity not savings). That way these individuals will have more freedom to grow the economy.
Yeah, 1913 was radically different than now. Defense budget was lower (if you recall we were more of an isolationist and running on a conscription army, albeit with some contractors in WWI). We didn't have any of the welfare programs, social security, interstate highway, NASA etc. Such programs and services are expected nowadays- so cutting them would be, at the very least, politicial suicide. Although, I do think 92% is too high. I don't the government should have the right to take more than 50% of your income.
I believe that the top tax was that high because it was only intended to tax Rockefeller (or whoever was the richest at the time) check the income bracket on the 92%
The taxable income threshold numbers are like a roller-coaster ride: 1915 > 500,000 1916 > 2,000,000 1918 < 1,000,000 1922 < 200,000 1924 > 500,000 1925 < 100,000 1932 > 1,000,000 1936 > 5,000,000 1942 < 200,000 and a couple of interesting alterations (anyone have any explanation?) 1982 (Reagan Years) the top marginal tax rate went down from 69% to 50% but the income threshold also dropped from 212,000 to 106,000... [getting less from more people?] 1993 (Clinton Years) the top marginal tax rate went up to 40% from 31% and the income threshold went up from 87,000 to 250,000 [getting more from fewer people?]
