Live data from Hacker News

US Historical Income Tax Rates

taxfoundation.org

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#61
post #46

1950 Tax Rate - 91.0% > $400,000 The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more purchasing power than at the beginning. Inflation was minimal, in part because of Eisenhower's efforts to balance the federal budget. Unemployment remained low, about 4.5%.

No one paid that tax rate. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ Average rate paid by the 1% back then was around 41%

Apples, meet oranges.

"The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years"

But regardless, it was higher in 1950, almost 6 points higher.

And look at al the caveats...

1] Some of the distributional assumptions in the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman paper are questionable. In particular, the authors assume that the full burden of the corporate income tax falls on owners of capital, which may not be correct. However, the authors note that they “have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects.”

[3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

[4] The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with tax brackets?

In 1862, marginal tax rates were 3.0% for income over $600 and 5.0% for income over $10,000.

Okay, but is there a point you are trying to make? Honest question.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Venmo will happily send you a 1099 form if it's above the 600 dollar threshold. We have Joe Biden to thank for that. It used to be higher.

A form doesn’t mean a tax is due It means a transaction was reported and that you better have a good story about why the tax isn’t due and why you didn’t report it on your own forms The people that are worried about the venmo 1099 are the people that have not been doing a lot more under the table (Not to invalidate the rest of the population that is just irrationally afraid of tax collectors)

I'm not sure that's true. They are only supposed to report on a 1099 if they know it's earned income, not just a transfer. If they're reporting mere transfers to the IRS, then that's a problem.

That said, based on personal experience, I don't think Venmo is sending 1099s to everyone above that cumulative amount. I do believe they categorize transfers based on personal or commercial use. I expect a 1099 to be issued only for the commercial transfers.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#64
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea if this is how they do it, but I imagine they somehow "mortgage" their shares, then use the money as their own. Any interest you pay on investments is tax deductible, so that would reduce their tax burden. Not to mention, most of it isn't taxed since they aren't realizing those gains. Again, just me brainstorming loopholes.

The interest is only tax deductible if you reinvest the money, which essentially means you can't use it. If you use it for living expenses, to buy a lambo, etc, then no deduction for you. Also, the loan must eventually be repaid, which means selling the assets and paying the taxes. Only if you carry the loan and pay the non-tax-deductible interest all the way until you die, then the capital gains taxes get erased by…

"The people complaining about these loans have no idea how it actually works."

Not that I'm one complaining about the loans, but so you have a link to how it works?

I didn't mean they directly use it like that, which is why I mortgage in quotes. I thought there's a specific type of small corp the wealthy use to avoid/reduce taxes by going through a sort of conversion.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#65
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interest is only tax deductible if you reinvest the money, which essentially means you can't use it. If you use it for living expenses, to buy a lambo, etc, then no deduction for you. Also, the loan must eventually be repaid, which means selling the assets and paying the taxes. Only if you carry the loan and pay the non-tax-deductible interest all the way until you die, then the capital gains taxes get erased by…

"The people complaining about these loans have no idea how it actually works." Not that I'm one complaining about the loans, but so you have a link to how it works? I didn't mean they directly use it like that, which is why I mortgage in quotes. I thought there's a specific type of small corp the wealthy use to avoid/reduce taxes by going through a sort of conversion.

I explained how it works. Which part is unclear? How you get the loans? At the asset levels where you might consider the "buy, borrow, die" strategy, like $100m+, you can simply ask your banker or more likely your family office will do it for you.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1862, marginal tax rates were 3.0% for income over $600 and 5.0% for income over $10,000.

Okay, but is there a point you are trying to make? Honest question.

Maybe he’s making the point that income tax brackets are rarely adjusted for inflation.

The $250k (single) and $400k (couple) brackets haven’t changed - except for 11 years out of the past 25 - but you can buy a heck of a lot less with that sum of money now.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#67

Honestly kinda worthless without knowing the average marginal rate that people in each income brackets payed. People always hype up the 90% tax bracket but tax deductions and credits were so plentiful that the raw rates are very misleading.

Not to mention it was still a society where one could legitimately hide income from the government with ease.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#68
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

How is it deceptive when it clearly states that is what it is doing?

Charts can be deceptive even if the axes are clearly labeled. It's deceptive exactly for the reasons I stated. It excludes the majority of the data from the chart.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#69
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A form doesn’t mean a tax is due It means a transaction was reported and that you better have a good story about why the tax isn’t due and why you didn’t report it on your own forms The people that are worried about the venmo 1099 are the people that have not been doing a lot more under the table (Not to invalidate the rest of the population that is just irrationally afraid of tax collectors)

I'm not sure that's true. They are only supposed to report on a 1099 if they know it's earned income, not just a transfer. If they're reporting mere transfers to the IRS, then that's a problem. That said, based on personal experience, I don't think Venmo is sending 1099s to everyone above that cumulative amount. I do believe they categorize transfers based on personal or commercial use. I expect a 1099 to be issued o…

Transaction is the word I use, not transfer, just in case you mentioned transfer for some other reason. My reason is deliberate. Some kinds of transactions are tax events, others aren’t. Venmo has no way of knowing. Anybody doing automated 1099s has no way of knowing.

1099s just tell the IRS to look for a tax filing from the same tax ID that matches.

Re: US Historical Income Tax Rates

#70
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it deceptive when it clearly states that is what it is doing?

Charts can be deceptive even if the axes are clearly labeled. It's deceptive exactly for the reasons I stated. It excludes the majority of the data from the chart.

The chart isn't deceptive. It clearly states what it is. You can USE it deceptively. But that didn't mean the chart itself is deceptive. In this particular case the idea is to compare the top earners to the lowest earners. The middle isn't important.
Post reply on HN