Comments on: Historical Tax Rates by Income Group [NYTimes]

By: Gramatan

Gramatan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:12 +0000

The question that I beleive is where the recent trend of responsability for tax burden is moving. Is the proportional burden proportionate to the proportional income and weather should it be based upon various groups productivity. It is disengenuous to posit about the trend from 1900’s original tax structure was created because it was as we all know only to effect the super rich. However, it highlightes the tax creep that all groups are chafing about.

By: Minor Heresies » Blog Archive » Livable Wage vs. Standard Deduction

Minor Heresies » Blog Archive » Livable Wage vs. Standard Deduction — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:55:25 +0000

[…] Make up the difference by rolling the tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations back up to the levels of the 1950�s and 60�s. Corporations used to pay a quarter of federal income taxes. Now they pay about 8%, and some of the […]

By: jsowers

jsowers — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:57:29 +0000

the newyork times is the aberation

By: P Henry

P Henry — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:20:40 +0000

vs GDP AND starting in 1900.
Now that would tell us something.
Me thinks starting in the 1960s gives the impression that the more modern tax rates are a aberration, whereas I think the 1960 tax rate was the aberration.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:48:43 +0000

If the start of the graph were to be the begining of the 1900’s instead of 1960’s a very different picture would emerge.

By: TJIC

TJIC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:31:48 +0000

It would be interesting to see GDP growth rates plotted in there too, to see if there’s a correlation between marginal tax rates and growth.