Soaking The “Rich”
One commenter has made several comments favoring taxing the "rich" at a 90% rate. He speaks glowingly of the tax rates of 90% during the Eisenhower years. Actually, it is just a tad more complicated than the commenter explains it. Using the historical tax rate tables from this site the highest tax bracket was reached in 1952-53. The rate of 92% applied to incomes of $400,000 or more. Here's where the fun starts. Using this official inflation calculator published by the US Federal Reserve, that $400,000 income in 1953 would be $3,105,617.98 in 2007 dollars.
But the latest tax proposal already on the table from Charlie Rangel declares that anyone with an income of $150,000 is "rich" today. That is somewhat less than $20,000 in 1953 dollars.
So that "fair" 90% tax rate would take all but of $15,000 from today's "rich" leaving them with an after tax income close to the poverty line. Actually less than poverty level for a family of four, as mine is. You would literally be better off quitting work and going on welfare.
Fair? Or enslavement to the state?
By martian, Saturday, 16 February , 2008 @ 1:19 pm
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat:
The Republican says we want our citizens to work hard, become prosperous, and live the American Dream.
The Democrat says we want our citizens to work hard and become prosperous - but when you do we’re going to take it away from you - because you need to give back and support those who are less fortunate than you (didn’t work as hard or at all?) and we don’t trust you to spend your money the way we think you should.
In Rangel’s mind, taking so much money from the "rich" folks that it throws them below the poverty line is only just desserts because they didn’t really deserve it in the first place!
By Mwalimu Daudi, Saturday, 16 February , 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Another beautiful idea slain by an ugly fact….
By Gaius, Saturday, 16 February , 2008 @ 9:34 pm
The goal of populist socialism is not egalitarianism. The goal is to punish those who are more successful than the populist socialists.