Tax rates from Eisenhower to Obama

[Clarke]

Dwight D. Eisenhower Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25% John F. Kennedy Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 91% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25% Lyndon B. Johnson Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $400,000: 91% - Over $200,000: 75.25% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25% - 26.9% Richard M. Nixon Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000: 77% - 70% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 27.5% - 36.5% Gerald R. Ford Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over 200,000: 70% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 36.5% - 39.875% Jimmy Carter Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $203,200 - $215,400: 70% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 39.875% - 28% Ronald Reagan Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $215,400: 69.125% - over $29,750: 28% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 20% - 28% George H.W. Bush Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $30,950: 28% - Over $86,500: 31% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 28% - 28.93% Bill Clinton Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19% George W. Bush Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $297,350: 39.1% - Over $357,700: 35% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 21.17% - 15.35% Barack Obama Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15% ===================== Some questions: - Why is Eisenhower the Communist considered a national hero ? How would the current cult leader Grover Norquist stand up next to him ? - Why is Obama a socialist if he's giving some of the lowest tax rates in decades ? - Where are the jobs the tax cuts are supposed to orgasmically create ? - What happens when the next recession comes ? How far do the crazies pursue the tax cuts, until what rate ? - Why should i care who the **** is John Galt unless he actually invents an engine that runs on thin air ? Even Pakis claim to run cars on water these days, should that mean we hold them in high regard ?

[ravishingravi]

Awaiting the answers.

[Silva]

You cant compare pre 1980s tax rate to tax rates today, taxs around the world have been going down since then. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html#lfHendersonCEE2-105_table_032

[Brainfade]

To provide context, would you also provide numbers for the income tax for the lowest earners? I am not challenging you; this is an interesting perspective and I'd like to see the entire landscape.

[Clarke]

To provide context' date=' would you also provide numbers for the income tax for the lowest earners? I am not challenging you; this is an interesting perspective and I'd like to see the entire landscape.[/quote'] But that's not the discussion here, that's just your thread about who should contribute what on a 'fair' basis. All i want to know is how much tax rate on the John Galts should classify a govt as leftist, socialist, communist, marxist and whatever else that's evil on earth. That, and the other related questions put forward. Same thing, not the discussion. All i want to know is the answers.

[seedhi]

Why is Eisenhower the Communist considered a national hero ?

Simple, because Eisenhower was not a communist by the mores of his times. Contexts, societies and economies change. USA could afford such high tax rates since there were no other places to invest, there was no China, India, Japan to absorb capital. Raising rates to those levels today would result in a massive flight of capital. As an example, by today's standards many of US's founding fathers were racists and owned slaves, but they are/were heroes for the country. Heck, even some of the things Gandhi wrote would be racist by today's standards.

[Clarke]

Simple, because Eisenhower was not a communist by the mores of his times. Contexts, societies and economies change. USA could afford such high tax rates since there were no other places to invest, there was no China, India, Japan to absorb capital. Raising rates to those levels today would result in a massive flight of capital.

Forget transfer of capital based on personal choice of the investor, the Eisenhower administration was just gobbling up ninety percent of whatever you made for a certain bracket, NINETY PERCENT! How is that not close to communism if 35-40% is considered socialism and 25% or lesser (for now, it'll get even lower in the next recession) is what's suggested by so many lawmakers and their followers.

[seedhi]

Forget transfer of capital based on personal choice of the investor' date=' the Eisenhower administration was just gobbling up ninety percent of whatever you made for a certain bracket, NINETY PERCENT! How is that not close to communism if 35-40% is considered socialism and 25% or lesser (for now, it'll get even lower in the next recession) is what's suggested by so many lawmakers and their followers.[/quote']I am not justifying the use of pejoratives like socialist or communist. I am just trying to make the point that comparing tax rates to those 60 yrs ago is disingenuous given the worldwide changes that have taken place since then.

[Clarke]

^ Your point's valid. Maybe the smart ones can then explain to the lefties of this forum what's the definition of Communism & Socialism in practice then vs now.

[Silva]

^ Your point's valid. Maybe the smart ones can then explain to the lefties of this forum what's the definition of Communism & Socialism in practice then vs now.

Their is no such thing as a socialist or capitalist country IMO, their is no country thats 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. Its all in a persons opinion weather or not a country is capitalist or socialist. For example I have even been called a socialist because I think that fiat currency is not a bad thing. Also I would argue that a tax raising Bill Clinton is more Capitalist than tax cutting George bush because Bush added more regulation, and spent more money on entitlements. Bill Clinton expanded Free trade, George bush put restriction and tariffs on it. Their is a lot more to free markets than just tax rates.

[Clarke]

Some more liberal nonsense from Socialist Obama lovers and the crushing tax rates on the job creators:

As Republicans head toward next week’s convention something extraordinary has come into view now that their ticket is complete. Mitt Romney came from wealth and went on to build his own quarter-of-a-billion dollar fortune. Paul Ryan, who has never worked a day in the private sector (outside a few months in the family firm) reports a net worth of as much as $7 million, thanks to trusts and inheritances from his and his wife’s family. Wealthy political candidates are nothing new, of course. But we’ve never had two wealthy candidates on a national ticket whose top priority is to reduce already low taxes on the well-to-do while raising taxes on everyone else — even as they propose to slash programs that serve the poor, or that (like college aid) create chances for the lowly born to rise. Call them the Drawbridge Republicans. As the moniker implies, these are wealthy Republicans who have no qualms about pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Such sentiments used to be reserved for the political fringe. The most prominent example was Steve Forbes, whose twin obsessions during his vanity presidential runs in 1996 and 2000 — marginal tax rates and inflation — were precisely what you’d expect from an heir in a cocoon. (In case you were wondering, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a Drawbridge because he entered office when marginal rates, at 70 percent, were truly damaging to the economy. But as GOP business leaders now tell me privately, the Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent, let alone today’s 35 percent, are hardly a barrier to work or investment). Most rich Republicans who champion regressive tax plans find it necessary to at least pretend they’re doing something to help average folks. John McCain, who’s lived large for decades thanks to his wife’s inheritance, famously had trouble keeping track of how many homes he owned — but McCain also tried bravely to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. George W. Bush campaigned as a “compassionate conservative,” and touted education initiatives that made this claim plausible. Today’s Drawbridge Republicans can’t be bothered. Yes, when their political back is to the wall — as Romney’s increasingly is — they’ll slap together a page of bullet points and dub it “a plan for the middle class.” But this is only under duress. The rest of the time they seem blissfully unaware of how off-key they sound. As the humorist Andy Borowitz tweeted the other day, “As a general matter, it’s a bad idea to talk about austerity if you just had a horse lose in the Olympics.” Contrast conservative Prime Minister (and heir) David Cameron’s decision to defer his plans to lower the top 50 percent marginal rate in the UK. “When you’re taking the country through difficult times and difficult decisions,” Cameron said, “you’ve got to take the country with you. That means permanently trying to make the argument that what you’re doing is fair and seen to be fair.” As his spokesman added: “We need to ask those with the broadest shoulders to contribute the most.” Now that’s a conservative ruling class with a conscience! Can anyone imagine Romney and Ryan saying the same? The interesting question concerns psychology. Drawbridge Republicans are flesh and blood human beings peddling indefensible priorities. How do they manage it and still feel good about themselves? One possibility is that they’re simply missing the genes for empathy and self-awareness. (Steve Forbes always did seem a bit like a bubble boy whose inheritance left him impervious). But for today’s GOP ticket that explanation feels off. Romney, for all his awkwardness, campaigned and governed in a liberal state, and he enacted a pioneering universal health care law that’s helped many of modest means achieve health security. Ryan is equally mysterious — the boy-next-door who pays lip service to “upward mobility” yet seems to have no notion his plans would likely produce what liberal analyst Robert Greenstein calls “the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history.” My hunch is that extreme forms of rationalization and other defense mechanisms help Drawbridge Republicans cope with the cognitive dissonance. The growth of partisan media makes it easy to tune out disquieting dissenting views. Whatever lies behind it, the rise of the Drawbridge Republicans makes the stakes of this election even higher. If Romney and Ryan actually win on their Drawbridge agenda, the United States will have crossed a scary new Rubicon for a supposedly advanced democracy. For years, whenever I’ve heard people criticize “limousine liberals,” I’ve always thought, well, at least that’s better than being a “limousine jerk.” Now it turns out that’s exactly what a Drawbridge Republican is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-rise-of-the-drawbridge-republicans/2012/08/20/d426c7f8-eb16-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html?tid=pm_pop

[Crookbond]

8 Countries with Zero Income Tax http://www.siliconindia.com/finance/news/8-Countries-with-Zero-Income-Tax-nid-126983.html :vroam: