Remember when the rich paid their fair share?

[Arkansas Granny]

Link to tweet

?s=20

Jeff Tiedrich
@jefftiedrich
Hey kids. I'm in my 60s. You've never lived in an America where the rich paid their fair share. I have. Let me tell you what that was like:
* We built new schools
* We built new highways
* We cut the poverty rate
* We lead the world in technology
* WE WENT TO THE FUCKING MOON
2:26 PM - Apr 6, 2018

You know what else, kids? The rich were still richer than the rest of us.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Yes, I do. I was a single mother and thete was no deduction for child

care and no child credits. I made about $9k and my tax rate was higher than it is today on $65k.

We also paid for the interstate freeway system (No tolls).

[Cryptoad]

14. Did you adjust for inflation

$9000 in mid 50's is the same as $85,000 today?

[sinkingfeeling]

21. 1970s.

[Trailrider1951]

3. Yes, and I also remember what it was like for working families

My dad had a union job at North American Aviation assembling aircraft engines. He earned a bit more than the national average, and could afford:

A 4 bedroom house
A new car every 5 years
Supported himself, a stay-at-home wife, and 4 kids
A boat (used) big enough for the whole family
Health and dental care for the whole family
And other items of a middle-class lifestyle

Without unions, people today have to have two people working to afford the items listed above. So where did all the money go?

To the wealthy 1%ers, of course! They are the ones that deserve all the money!

[Drahthaardogs]

19. We'll both my parents were teachers, and we qualified for

Food Stamps. So I guess some bullshit never changed.

[PSPS]

4. This all started with Reagan's cutting taxes on the top 0.1% by 2/3.

There are trolls/bots right here on DU, even with high post counts, who decry such observations as "income envy" (a term taken directly from RW media.) The inability to support a family on a single paycheck ended in the 80's and things have continually worsened since then.

[Blue_true]

5. Taxes are the wages needed to fund a functioning society.

If the many rich keep insisting on getting fatter, they are going to be plump turkeys when the shit hits the fan.

[Cryptoad]

17. GeeeeeWhizzz,,,,,,

I wonder WTF happen around 1980 that changed our economic future????????

[smirkymonkey]

6. K&R

la guillotine!

[OxQQme]

7. U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

[JHB]

8. And sorting through those numbers deeper, it's not just the rate...

...it's also the number and distribution of brackets.

Borrowing this from a post I made back in 2013:

Most discussion of tax history mentions the top marginal rates of the past (91% in the 50s, 70% in the 60s and 70s, 50% through most of Reagan's presidency, etc.)

I like to highlight a different aspect: leaving aside what the rates were, where did they kick in? We live in times where people argue "are couples who make $250K 'rich'?" "Should we raise taxes on people who make over $250K? Over $500K?"

Where did these sorts of things lie in the past?

Using the inflation adjusted historical tax bracket tables from The Tax Foundation for married couples filing jointly, let's break it down a little and find out the equivalents in 2012 dollars:

1945:
Total number of brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 14
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 9
Top bracket affects income over: $2,551,044

1955:
Total number of brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 16
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 11
Top bracket affects income over: $3,426,776

1965:
Total number of brackets: 25
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 13
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 8
Top bracket affects income over: $1,457,740

1975:
Total number of brackets: 25
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 9
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 5
Top bracket affects income over: $853,509

1985:
Total number of brackets: 15
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $360,650

1995:
Total number of brackets: 5
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $386,423

2005:
Total number of brackets: 6
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $383,773

2013:
Total number of brackets: 7
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 2
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $440,876

Special Bonus Gipper edition numbers:
1988:
Total number of brackets: 2 (No, not a typo. Two brackets)
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 0
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $57,738
(There was a reason why Poppy Bush had to go back on his 'Read My Lips' line -- this rate was so low it was unsustainable (naturally, they crucified him for it). And every RWNJ wants to go back to this, or lower...)

ALL income tax progressivity for very high incomes was eliminated under Reagan, and has stayed that way ever since.

Let me repeat that last part:
ALL income tax progressivity for very high incomes was eliminated under Reagan, and has stayed that way ever since.

Brackets reached up into the equivalent of millions today. (heck, between 1936 and 1941 the top bracket kicked in at (inflation-adjusted) incomes in the ballpark of $80 million). That had been eroded by inflation, but it was cut off at the ankles under Reagan.

There are plenty of details that can be argued, but the basic structure worked for people trying to get ahead. Now it works for those who already are.

[JHB]

11. And the highest number of brackets were pre-computer

The highest number of brackets was nearly a century ago, after WW1:
56 brackets from 1919-1921. Not New Deal, not Great Society, the effing Nineteen Twenties.

Any time someone says to "simplify" the tax code by reducing the number of brackets they're lying, or at least spreading an untruth. No matter how many brackets there are, they are the simplest part of the tax code -- they're straightforward math. It's all the other parts -- is this deductible? does this money count as this type of income or that type of income? which of our assets have depreciated by how much?, etc. -- that make it complex.

The image they conjure when cutting brackets is being able to figure out your taxes on an index card. Newsflash: this is the 21st century. We can make tee shirts with enough computing power to handle the bracket math once all the actual hard parts are done and you have a number for taxable income.

Or, y'know, on the phones and computers tens of millions of people already have today.

[Wounded Bear]

12. Generally those are flat taxers...

who propose a single rate. I don't think I've heard of an economist who thinks that's a good idea. Essentially, it is highly REgressive.

[JHB]

16. The people who speak that way are indeed not economists...

...but they are conservatives and Republicans, who have made a cult of cutting taxes for the wealthy.

And the 1986 tax cuts reduced the income tax to 2 brackets: one for below roughly median income, one (low one) for above, no matter how high.

Reagan, that was. Patron saint of "reasonable" conservatives, not just wild-eyed flat-taxers.

[notdarkyet]

9. We had national parks that were priced to welcome all incomes of people to view

Our national treasures. Like the beaches off our states these were meant to be kept pristine for the American people. Not to be given to oil gas and mining companies to wreak havoc on.

[Cryptoad]

10. If we took and 1954 tax code,,,,

adjusted it for inflation, instantly we would eliminate the National Deficit. and within 6 years eliminate the National Debt, all the while having the $ for our Gubermint truly become "Great" once again. plus the Rich would still be rich.

[JHB]

13. I used to throw around the idea of "55 minus 10"...

Start with the inflation-adjusted 1955 rates, applied to all income.

Lop 10% off the rate in each bracket: 20% becomes 10%, 22% becomes 12%, all the way up.

Using the adjusted rates straight would raise tax rates at the low end too, which would make it a tougher sell.

[Cryptoad]

20. U dont adjust percentage rates.....

a 10% rate in 1950 is still a 10% rate in 2018,,,,,,,,, sory my BSM kicks in everynow and then,,,,,,,

[nature-lover]

15. You can't run a functioning democratic economy by repeatedly cutting the income stream.

[Wounded Bear]

18. If that worked (and to use a favored conserv talking point)...

they should go to their boss and ask for a pay cut.

(The conserv talking point being that the gov't should budget like normal people run their own homes and finances)

[moondust]

22. That may be true but...

back then hardly anybody owned two yachts, four vacation homes, their own Lear jet, and a few members of Congress.

Priorities.