By: DarwinCatholic
Ah, that's a really good point about social security. (And Medicare, which didn't even exist in 1955.) According to <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html" rel="nofollow">this...
View ArticleBy: Aaron B.
And the non-self-employed still pay that 15.3%. Half of it doesn’t show up on their pay stub, but their employer has to pay it, so it comes out of their productivity one way or another. That does far...
View ArticleBy: DarwinCatholic
You slipped a digit there, the 1955 social security taxes would have been $907.10, not $90.71, but the point is dead on. (Actually, it would be a little more than that, because in 1955 the self...
View ArticleBy: RL
There’s more to the story than that. In 1955 they didn’t have the Earned income tax credit. This is particularly helpful for lower income families and making the current tax brackets more progressive...
View ArticleBy: American Knight
There is no question that the able producers and earners (those who can invest and work and do) are paying much higher taxes now than in the 1950s. The ‘poor’ and by that I mean the able unproductive...
View ArticleBy: Doug Olson
Your analysis is interesting, but why do you stop at a mere 1.2 million? All the action in the last half century has been in the stratospheric range. Today’s hedge fund managers would have paid much...
View ArticleBy: DarwinCatholic
In reply to Doug Olson. Doug, The 1.2M figure was semi-arbitrary, but also because the standard tax rates are on salary-type income. As you point out, executives and hedge fund managers and such often...
View Article
