Our reader, who identifies herself as Carolmalaysia, posted this comment:
She writes:
I can understand why Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates need tax breaks. Thank you, Republicans, for making this possible.
……………………….
The world’s 500 wealthiest people got $1 trillion richer in 2017 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The world’s richest people got a whopping $1 trillion richer, according to a new report from Bloomberg News. That’s about four times the gains they made last year.
That data comes courtesy of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which tracks and ranks the world’s 500 richest people. It attributes much of the economic growth to the stock market’s record-high year. (The MSCI World and Standard & Poor’s 500 indexes grew about 20 percent this year.)
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, clocked in as the world’s richest person, gaining $34.2 billion in wealth. (Mr. Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates came in at No. 2. Mr. Bezos is worth about $99.6 billion, according to Bloomberg. Mr. Gates is valued at $91.3 billion…
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think you’re being unfair, Diane. I have it on a very reliable source that rich people are very sensitive. If you touch them, they could break. That’s why it’s important that all the rest of us pull together and give up our deductions so they can have even more money. In fact, when you consider what they’re doing, they may very well have to erect walls and hire full-time security to keep the likes of us away from them. Walls don’t grow on trees, you know.
Arthur, I worked in Bolivia for two years. The wealthy have huge gorgeous mansions with high walls surrounding their homes. These high walls have entrance doors and most are guarded by a man who is holding a large gun. [Unfortunately for the owners, it is a boring job and many looked like they were sleeping.] The wealthy could purchase a journalist to put any story into the paper. Many of the roads outside the city of Santa Cruz, where I worked, would be deep in mud and come up high on the wheels of taxis. Several times muddy water came out of the faucet inside my rented place.
The school where I taught, Santa Cruz Cooperative School, catered to the wealthy. I once visited a regular school. There was nothing there to work with.
We do not want to become a third world country.
Then we ought not to have President Donald Trump. Alas, we do, and I fail to see why our electoral system, in which the person with the fewest votes wins, differentiates us substantively from that of the most outrageous banana republic.
The electoral college system is an 18th century anachronism. The framers felt that there had to be a “buffer” between the electorate (white, property-owning males), and the presidency. The framers felt that the general population could not be trusted to select the president. So, they set up a system where the voters would “chuse” electors. The electors are pledged, but NOT required to vote for the majority winner of their respective states. This raises the possibility of a “renegade elector”, and it happened in 1976, when an elector pledged to Gerald Ford, actually cast his vote for Ronald Reagan, who was not even on the ballot. You see, electors can vote for anyone they “chuse”, even it he/she is not on the ballot!
carolmalaysia,
You accurately describe what I observed while working in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The wealthy have everything, while the others couldn’t even depend on their schools to open on a regular basis.
It was appalling to see this chasm between the wealthy and the vast poor.
You are right, “We do not want to become a third world country.”
This reminds me of a call-in to CSPAN’s Wash Jnl show this a.m. from a disabled vet who noted that while Shulkin (VA head) & his wife aides etc were being squired around to Tivoli, canal tour, Wimbledon etc– whole trip on taxpayer dime due to an hr or two of official mtgs– the free shuttles among the regional VA clinics where he is a patient have been eliminated.
Nice satire, Arthur. The rich can’t do for themselves so they need slaves to build their walls of “fake” protection. Been thinking a lot about various civilizations, which came and went. They seem to have fallen from great inequalities created by the rich.
Hey, I LIKE this post.
Diane,
Analysis from the Tax Policy Center – left leaning observation
The Democrats’ central attack against the GOP tax reform bill is all too familiar: It’s a giveaway to corporations and “the rich” that hurts the middle class. They’ve falsely called the plan a tax increase on the middle class, and demagogued it as a “massive attack” on middle income taxpayers — not to mention the “end of the world.” Throughout this debate, we’ve shared data-driven analyses from three separate nonpartisan organizations: The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which is an official Congressional scorekeeper, the Tax Foundation (which leans to the right), and the Tax Policy Center or TPC, (which leans to the left). In spite of the deceptive rhetoric flying around social media and the airwaves, all three outfits agreed that the GOP proposal would, on average, reduce the tax burdens of every income group in America. We’ve showcased the TPC findings because that group is typically home to Democrats’ preferred experts. Well, TPC is out with their fresh analysis of the finalized tax bill, and guess what? As we’ve been saying for weeks, it will slash taxes for the vast, vast majority of American taxpayers:
The average tax cut will be $1,600, according to TPC’s data (Republicans cite a different statistic: A tax cut of more than $2,000 for a median income family of four). Let those numbers marinate for a moment. We’ve been caught in a blizzard of misinformation claiming that this bill hurts the middle class. But even the Republican-hostile Tax Policy Center couldn’t escape the empirical conclusion that 80 percent of all Americans will see their taxes reduced under the bill — and the “losers” are limited to just five percent (largely upper income filers from high-tax blue states). And no, the “one-percenter” rich do not disproportionately benefit from the cuts:
Riedl further clarified that those percentages apply to all federal taxes, not just income taxes. JCT also confirms that low- to -medium income brackets will disproportionately benefit from the tax cuts. Yet due to a relentless drumbeat of propaganda, a majority of Americans have been bamboozled into believing that their taxes will go up under the GOP bill. A new Monmouth University poll underscores the degree to which these falsehoods have taken root among the general public:
If a majority of people believe they’re facing a tax hike, it’s little wonder that public approval is so low. That misperception has been repeated dishonestly and endlessly by Democrats — who, per usual, can count on the media to uncritically amplify their message. The verifiable reality is that 80 percent (!) of filers will get a tax cut, roughly 15 percent will see no change, and just five percent will get an appreciable tax increase; again, that’s all according to the liberal TPC. By the way, a counterpoint from the Left on these statistics is that the numbers fluctuate a bit over the years, and that the individual and family tax cuts expire later in the budget window. This, they claim, is “proof” that middle class families will face “tax increases” under the GOP plan. This is a bad argument. First, it’s unfair to preemptively frame the end of a tax cut as a future tax increase. And more importantly, the tax cuts (which Democrats incoherently also pretend don’t exist) are highly likely to be extended or made permanent. This is what happened with the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts under Obama in 2012. Yet journalists and leftists who should know better keep citing this unrealistic future scenario as an indictment of the tax bill. An example of this mendacity:
The obvious retort to this misleading spin is that the only way these alleged “tax increases” would ever take place is if Democrats allow them to. Republicans are committed to maintain this level of tax relief for middle class families. Will Democrats promise not to allow the tax cuts to expire? Will Democrats pledge never to permit the hypothetical “tax hike on the middle class” (that they’ve gotten so much mileage out of hyping) to come to fruition? Let’s get them on the record.
Thank you for your factual comment brimming with truth!
I taught ESL in a small suburban NYC school district for many years. My students were mostly poor and came from Haiti, Mexico and Central America as well as a few Asians from India and the Philippines. The major difference between our students and yours is that most of the remaining students were middle class, and in this case trickle down education and opportunity worked, My students benefited a great deal from attending a well resourced public school with classes in the 20-25 student range. ESL classes were even smaller and capped at 20. I also differentiated instruction, but with manageable numbers and student materials. At times it was a three ring circus at times, but it worked.
For many years I took educators on school visitations when International TESOL or the Modern Language Association held their conferences in the city. The difference between the NYC schools and my school was stark. Not only were the classes in the city in the mid-thirties, classrooms were like “East Berlin.” We even saw some classes with students sitting on the heating units because there was no desks for them. There were not even enough books to go around whereas our suburban schools had many books and materials. Whenever our district tried to raise class size, the American parents showed up en masse along with the NAACP to pressure the Board of Education to reduce the numbers. These middle class parents also accepted the fact that their property taxes would be high in order to provide their children with what was needed to achieve. Schools with high numbers of poor students have few vocal advocates for them, particularly when the appointed Board of Education are wealthy friends of the mayor. With some of the highest real estate values in the world, I cannot believe that NYC cannot do better for its young people. Elected boards are more responsive to the needs of the community than mayoral appointees.
The whole charter movement has mostly focused on urban schools, particularly those with large numbers of poor, minority students. Rather than live up to their responsibility to fairly fund schools, our government is abrogating its obligation to our young people with the monetized scheme of privately run charters, a bait a switch marketing ploy, to avoid providing equitable funding to urban schools.
One caveat about differentiated instruction is that Gates and company are waiting in the wings so teachers no longer have fret about differentiated learning. Gates and his marketeers are ready to give their pitch for “personalized learning” to any school district tired of all those pesky teachers that cost money in salary and benefits. Taking humans out of teaching will not yield positive results, especially for young and poor students that require attention from a caring adult. “Personalized learning” is another step for us to devolve into the Banana Republic of the United States.
Sorry, I meant to post this in response to Arthur Goldstein’s article.
I agree with much of what you say, but I was in East Berlin in 1984. I remember very well what it was like. No classroom I’ve ever run has looked like East Berlin, even when I had kids sitting on the windowsills,. Of course I have, and I’ve presided over classes in trailers with ice covered floors, and worse.
As chapter leader I grieve oversized classes twice a year. It’s unconscionable that people who claim to place, “Children First, Always,” muster the audacity to actually fight to retain oversized classes.
Gates has caused a lot of damage and he can’t and won’t see, because he is blinded by his ego, his narrow mind and his money. So are the rest of those who think they are the “high-tech” saviors. These so-called “high-tech” saviors are just insuring their flow of perpetual income at the expense of our young and the rest of us.
New Year’s Update for Trump Voters
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich’s Blog
30 December 17
Almost one year in, it’s time for another update for Trump voters on his election promises:
He told you he’d cut your taxes, and that the super-rich like him would pay more. You bought it. But his new tax law does the opposite. By 2027, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the richest 1 percent will have got 83 percent of the tax cut and the richest 0.1 percent, 60 percent of it. But more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — will pay more in taxes. As Trump told his wealthy friends at Mar-a-Lago just days after the tax bill became law, “You all just got a lot richer.”
He promised to close “special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors but unfair to American workers,” especially the notorious “carried interest” loophole for private-equity, hedge fund, and real estate partners. You bought it. But the new tax law keeps the “carried interest” loophole.
He told you he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “beautiful.” You bought it. But he didn’t repeal and he didn’t replace. (Just as well: His plan would have knocked at least 23 million off health insurance, including many of you.) Instead, he’s doing what he can to cut it back and replace it with nothing. The new tax law will result in 13 million people losing health coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
He told you he’d invest $1 trillion in our nation’ crumbling infrastructure. You bought it. But after his giant tax cut for corporations and millionaires, there’s no money left for infrastructure.
He said he’d clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. But he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses, and he’s filled departments and agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they recently worked for.
He said he’d use his business experience to whip the White House into shape. You bought it. But he has created the most dysfunctional, back-stabbing White House in modern history, and has already fired and replaced so many assistants (one of them hired and fired in a little more than a week) that people there barely know who’s in charge of what.
He told you he’d “bring down drug prices” by making deals with drug companies. You bought it. But now the White House says that promise is “inoperative.”
He promised “a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.” You bought it. But foreign lobbyists are still raising money for American elections.
He told you “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” You bought it. But he and House Speaker Paul Ryan are already planning such cuts in order to deal with the ballooning deficit created, in part, by the new tax law for corporations and the rich.
He promised “six weeks of paid maternity leave to any mother with a newborn child whose employer does not provide the benefit.” You bought it. But the giant tax cut for corporations and the rich doesn’t leave any money for this.
He said that on Day One he’d label China a “currency manipulator.” You bought it. But then he met with China’s president Xi Jinping and declared “China is not a currency manipulator.” Ever since then, Trump has been cozying up to Xi.
He said he wouldn’t bomb Syria. You bought it. But then he bombed Syria.
He said he’d build a “wall” across the southern border. You believed him. But there’s no money for that, either. Chief of staff John Kelly says it is “unlikely that we will build a wall, a physical barrier, from sea to shining sea.”
He promised that the many women who accused him of sexual misconduct “will be sued after the election is over.” You bought it. He hasn’t sued them, presumably because he doesn’t want the truth to come out.
He said he would not be a president who took vacations. “I would not be a president that takes time off,” he promised, and he called Barack Obama “the vacationer-in-Chief.” You bought it. But since becoming President he has spent nearly 25 percent of his days at one of his golf properties for some portion of the day, according to Golf News Network, at a cost to taxpayers of over $77 million. That’s already more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama cost in the first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the world on Trump business.
He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America, and that there would be “consequences” for companies that shipped jobs abroad. You believed him. But despite their promises, Carrier, Ford, GM, and the rest have continued to ship jobs to Mexico and China. Carrier (a division of United Technologies) has moved ahead with plans to send 1,000 jobs at its Indiana plant to Mexico. Notwithstanding, the federal government has rewarded United Technologies with 15 new contracts since Trump’s inauguration. Last year, Microsoft opened a new factory in Wilsonville, Oregon, that was supposed to herald a new era in domestic tech manufacturing. But in July, the company announced it was closing the plant. More than 100 workers and contractors will lose their jobs when production shifts to China. GE is sending jobs to Canada. IBM is sending them to Costa Rica, Egypt, Argentina, and Brazil. There have been no “consequences” for sending all these jobs overseas.
He promised to revive the struggling coal industry and “bring back thousands” of lost mining jobs. You bought it. But coal jobs continue to disappear. Since Trump’s victory, at least 6 plants that relied on coal have closed or announced they will close. Another 40 are projected to close during the president’s four-year term. Utilities continue to switch to natural gas instead of coal.
He promised to protect steel workers. But according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, which tracks shipments, steel imports were 19.4 percent higher in the first 10 months of 2017 than in the same period last year. That import surge has hurt American steel workers, who were already struggling against a glut of cheap Chinese steel. For example, ArcelorMittal just announced it will soon lay off 150 of its 207 steel workers at its plant in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
He said he’d make America safer. You believed him. But according to Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 377 mass shootings so far this year, including 58 people killed and hundreds injured at a concert in Las Vegas, and 26 churchgoers killed and 20 injured at a church in Texas. Trump refuses to consider any gun controls.
He said he’d release his taxes. “I’m under a routine audit and it’ll be released, and as soon as the audit is finished it will be released,“ he promised during the campaign. He hasn’t released his taxes.
Robert Reich’s illustrated cartoons describing policies and/or economics are very informative. He gets his message across in a very entertaining, yet informative way.
A grey haired marine at the VA hospital just told me a joke while everyone else was glued to the bowl game. Want to hear it? Good! Donald Trump and Bill Gates are in a private jet together, and it crashes. Who survives?
America.
You made me LOL
Yeah!
I’m here all week.
Take one second to look at the number of employees at Amazon and Microsoft, please. Amazon in 2016 had 341,000 employees while Microsoft in 2017 has 124,000. The salaries they are providing means a roof overhead, dinner on the table, utilities paid, and other needs for almost half a million families. Damn those billionaires! (www dot statista dot com)
someluckydog,
I still await a response from Diane or carolmalaysia to the question – “what is Fair Share for taxes to be paid by the millionaires/billionaires They love to throw the Greedy card every time
What is the limit one should be able to earn as a wealthy person without being Greedy? Does their charitable contributions count for anything? If Buffet wants to pay more taxes he could easily write a check – as they all can.
To me it is class envy on their part – we as individuals chose the path we took in life – our careers – I know I would not be making millions or billions unless I hit the lottery – I also know that – as Bill Gates – drop out of Harvard and create a business that was unrivaled – till Apple, I didn’t have the idea of the Wallmarts either, or invest in them when they just started. Woulds Coulda weeping.
But I consider I am rich in health, family grandkids and economically stable. And since Trump hit office my 401k and some stocks are doing quite nicely.
I support a tax on income above $1 Million a year of 80%. Does that satisfy you.
almost as high as the Eisenhower tax of 91% a year. Graduated below that and used to build a just society.
Jscheidell: “To me it is class envy on their part”
I can assure you there is no class envy. Get over that belief. How much does one need to live comfortably? 40% of the world’s population doesn’t have decent housing and a huge number don’t have decent drinking water. Their needs are what matter to me. Humanity is doing a terrible job of helping and caring for those who can barely survive. It is sad to see how little most of the super wealthy care about those who are struggling. They live in a bubble and decline to even see the damage their hoarding of wealth is doing.
I’d like to see a graduated tax with the highest earners paying the most. How about 90%? Diane is happy with 80% on over a million. Either sounds good to me.
Diane and carolmalaysia,
After the SALT deduction the highest amt deducted would be charities.
Hillary and Bill set up the a foundation which is a good thing. But you can shield all kinds of money, millions of dollars, from the government by putting it in a foundation.
Yes caol there are many who are poor so how does one become financially capable of saving money and helping the destitute?
According to a 2007 Washington Post article, the Clinton Family Foundation ‘has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001,’ and who knows how many more millions they have saved on their taxes since 2007. And they kept this foundation a secret. Washington Post article: ‘Clinton’s spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator’s position as an officer was an oversight.’ This only came out when Hillary decided she had better ‘amend’ her Senate financial declarations before she ran for president. The Washington Post article also noted Pelosi had a similar family foundation — and she, too, was allowed to amend her declarations without any penalty.
‘Tax records show the Clinton Family Foundation was created during Hillary Clinton’s first year in the Senate, when the couple gave $800,000 to launch the organization in early December 2001. The charity distributed no funds that year.’ Now, here’s the truth. Let’s say you have the kind of wealth the Clintons have. The way these foundations work, you set it up… You can call it anything you want and let’s say I want to put $5 million in it. I can do that, and I get to write off that $5 million. I don’t have to pay taxes to The Government on $5 million. I’m setting up the foundation to make sure somebody else gets the money rather than government. This is the hypocrisy! Mrs. Clinton thinks the government’s getting short-changed when she says, ‘The rich aren’t paying their fair share.’
She is The Rich! Now, it’s a charitable deduction and you get to take it all in one year. If I put $5 million into it for Pennsylvania Working Families this year, then I get to deduct that five million bucks. I only have to pay out a bit. . She didn’t pay anything, and that’s a violation. You have to distribute a small percentage. So to be legal, I could set up a $5 million Foundation for Pennsylvania Working Families, get a $5 million tax deduction, it goes to whatever charity I want to give them.
You don’t have to give the five million away in one year. I can give away $50,000 — and the next year I can put another $5 million in and I only have to give away a hundred thousand. So in two years I’ve shielded $10 million in taxes at whatever my marginal rate is, from the government god. This is what the Clintons are doing. It’s what Nancy Pelosi is doing. So it’s not that they’re pocketing the money.
So, regarding the poor not being taken care of in the world – when do the socialist and communist countries take responsibility? Iran people upset with the Ayatollah, North Korea, etc…Venezuela Cuba
So our rich – no matter what rate you want will legally use the tax code in their benefit – that is not being greedy – they earned it, no one else should tell them how much is correct sum.
How much does one need to live comfortably? That is up to them not you or anyone else. I don’t buy any of this notion from each according to his ability to each according to his need. That’s right out of the communist manifesto.
Some of my charitable contributions beyond church are for animals. And there is a huge humanity that don’t care about their pets – and the pets rely on humanity for their health food shelter care and love.
Jscheidell:
Dwight D. Eisenhower on tax cuts and a balanced budget – Forbes
Eisenhower’s quote is often put in the context of the fact that the top marginal income tax rate in 1953 was 92%. The 92% tax bracket applied to income over $400,000 in 1953, equivalent to an income of $3,439,611 today. Since this tax bracket applied to very very few, the economic destruction was small. It was still a large disincentive for those subject to these rates, but the total effect on the economy was small.
In 1953 total federal tax receipts were just 18.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (17.6% On-Budget and 1.1% Off-Budget) while federal outlays were 20.4% of GDP. We were running a deficit equal to 1.7% of GDP. And the Gross Federal Debt was 71.4% of our GDP.
The top federal tax rate was reduced from 92% to 70% by Johnson in 1964 and the Gross Federal Debt was reduced from 71.4% of GDP down to 35.6% over the next two decades.
Currently the 2013 official White House numbersestimate tax receipts of 17.8% of GDP and Outlays of 23.3% of GDP for a deficit equal to 5.5% of GDP. And the Gross Federal Debt is estimated at 107.4% of GDP.
It used to be that Republicans did not distinguish between the government taxing too much and the government spending too much. They believed that both incentives toward production (low taxes) and a stable currency (low deficits) were equally important. This was the Classic Economic View which later became more nuanced in the New Classic View when distinctions favored supply side economics…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/28/dwight-d-eisenhower-on-tax-cuts-and-a-balanced-budget/#18106fd35047
Diane and caolmalaysia,
Thanks for the 80% figure and the 90% figure.
So I went back in history for Eisenhower tax %
Here is Scott Greenberg is a Senior Analyst with the Center for Federal Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation. His research has been cited by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Politico, and several other publications, and he has appeared on CNBC, Fox Business News, NPR, and BBC.
August 2017 article:
“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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charts referenced
It does not seem the 90% rate was in effect. But there are reasons for this and it would be the same, in all likely hood, today.
The rich might be paying more in Calif, Conn, NJ, etc since the major deduction for this was the SALT taxes and they are now capped at 10,000, and the second largest deduction was charities. I found an interesting thought on this regarding Clinton Foundation – a prime example of how the rich become hypocrites on paying more..
jscheidell: Income tax rates were 90 percent under Eisenhower, Sanders says – Politifact.com
We turned to the Tax Foundation’s federal income tax rates history, which documents figures going all the way back to 1913, when the income tax began with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)
What does it mean, though? For the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals making $200,000 or more per year or couples making $400,000 and above per year.
In 2015 dollars, that’s roughly $1.7 million for an individual and $3.4 million for a couple.
Today the tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, but are exceptionally lower than in Eisenhower’s day. The top rate in 2015 is 39.6 percent, applied to single people making $413,200 or more per year, or married couples filing jointly making $464,850 or more annually. If we went back to 1954, single people making the equivalent of $413,200 would be in a 72 percent tax bracket, while a couple making $464,850 would end up in a 75 percent bracket.
What’s the highest income tax bracket ever put in place? In 1944-45, during World War II, couples making more than $200,000 faced an all-time high of 94 percent.
Income tax rates were 90 percent under Eisenhower, Sanders says – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/