History of Federal Tax Rates \ stacker news ~charts

3381 sats \ 40 comments \ @davidw 11 Apr charts

🔗 Chart via: Bradford Tax Institute

Related SN discussions:

What do you think is next?

Think they can’t get to ~90% again? Or think we’re closer than this chart suggests already? Would love to know stacker thoughts…

view all related items

96 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 11 Apr

Do you know what happened between 1940 and 1964 to bring rates up to 90%? WW2 ? Are these taxes on each person's income?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Apr

Highest tax bracket in a graduated system vs flat

239 sats \ 20 replies \ @Lux 11 Apr

There is No Law Requiring You to Pay Income Tax

14 sats \ 19 replies \ @JesseJames 11 Apr

You keep saying that and it might or might not be true. 16th amendment gives the government power to levy income tax. Whether that is legal or not that for constitutional lawyers and supreme court to decide. In the meantime If you or me don't file, you will be chased by "the gov gangs" and spend rest of your life locked up trying to prove your innocence. Unless you are lawyer and have time on your hands you can fight this. For an average Joe this is not a good advice. I hate taxes just like the next guy but reality hits harder then that.... sadly.

100 sats \ 14 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 11 Apr

You are incorrect. The 16th amendment allows the federal government to impose an income tax, without apportionment among the states. It does not authorize a direct tax (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad).

The "income tax" must be an excise, aka privilege tax. It applies to foreigners (individuals, companies) earning income in the USA, not US citizens earning income in the USA (which is a right, not a privilege subject to an excise tax.)

How about posting the actual law that says US citizens working for themselves or private companies, are required to pay a tax on income earned in the United States. I'll wait.

52 sats \ 13 replies \ @JesseJames 11 Apr

Again, this is really a legal debate and interpretation. Yours might be correct I'm not arguing that. I didn't see anywhere that "income tax must be an excise" I only saw "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived". (Income include wages apparently). Forget the appropriation to the states for a second, all I see that they can tax your wages legally, that's my interpretation and I see everyone around me doing the same so my I guess is I'm doing this right. I also see people being locked up and property being seized for NOT paying it. So, forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about your interpretation. Let me ask you this: Did you pay your personal taxes for 2023? If not, can you share how did you accomplish this? Asking for a friend :-)

1021 sats \ 11 replies \ @konstantin21 11 Apr

there are two types of tax laid out in the constitution, direct taxes which REQUIRE apportionment (equal tax per person across all states) and excise taxes which are taxes on a privilege (right to property is not a privilege)

The 16th amendment simply overturned the problematic Pollock decision (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/)

but very clearly (according to Supreme Court Chief Justice White) did NOT introduce any new taxes. He reaffirmed that it is an excise tax NOT a direct tax without apportionment (which would be unlawful). Half of the circuit court judges to this day affirm the excise tax status. Once you understand what the privilege being taxed is, you can understand who it applies to and who it doesn't.

you are right to be skeptical as it is one of the largest financial frauds ever perpetrated against normal US citizens by the IRS through slight of hand and omission of facts and then through businesses forcing employees and customers to complete tax forms that dont apply to them.

The income tax CERTAINLY exists--it just simply does not apply to the VAST majority of american citizens.

people get into trouble by identifying themselves to the IRS as taxpayers (through W9's W4's and 1099's) and THEN not paying the taxes that such a taxpayer would owe.

its definitely a rabbithole but we're no stranger to those around here.

110 sats \ 8 replies \ @JesseJames 11 Apr

Thanks. That is the most digestible explanation I heard in a long time. I think you are right on the money by saying that this is so deeply perpetuated into business practices that we are consider this "normal" (myself included). I guess I have more learning to do as this topic is an interest of mine.

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @konstantin21 11 Apr

you can check out Dave Champion on Twitter/Rumble for more details. Don't let his appearance deceive you, he has the most level-headed and source-backed info that I've found to date on this very touchy subject.

He pitches his book at the end of every video which is a bit annoying BUT it is a fantastic book that lays everything out perfectly and saves a lot of arduous legal reading bc he's been down this rabbithole for 40 years. Can get the majority of it from watching a bunch of his vids for free though.

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Lux 11 Apr

I invite you to post more about the subject. Can post small snippets daily in the saloon, long posts, links... Zaps await

view replies

52 sats \ 1 reply \ @JesseJames 11 Apr

Now, I wonder when did this start? Social Security number is the first introduction into this web and perhaps our first declaration as taxpayer. Was it not? I would gladly get rid of one since by the time I'm ready to retire (whatever that means) there will be no money left in the system anyway. I just can imagine how "easy" the life would be without one (e.g. get a job, driver license, a passport or god forbid a bank account :-)) </sarcasm> Silly me, and I thought Bitcoin was a "tulip-mania" or "ponzi-scheme" . It was SSA from the day one.

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @konstantin21 11 Apr

it's unrelated to social security. it's all tied into the W9's and W4's (and embedded W9's in bank account /investment account opening docs).

you can keep your social just dont tell every company you do business with that you are a taxpayer when you are not (under the definitions clearly defined in the tax code, NOT the common laymans definitions)

reply on another page

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lux 11 Apr

people get into trouble by identifying themselves to the IRS as taxpayers (through W9's W4's and 1099's) and THEN not paying the taxes that such a taxpayer would owe.

accepting the terms and then not honoring it is what gets people into trouble, and almost nobody compreheds that

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @konstantin21 11 Apr

exactly

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Apr

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1916

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Apr

Revenue Act 1913

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Apr

This guy isn’t American but considers himself a tax expert

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @konstantin21 11 Apr

no idea where he's from but he's right.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Apr

Serbia

I guess April 15 is a regular day for you

81 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 11 Apr

I don't recall the details, but I've read that the 90% marginal tax rate was largely a fiction. As in, it was there in the statutes, but basically no one would ever have had to pay it.

When you look at what people are actually paying in federal taxes (best measured by spending), I think it's been pretty steadily around 20% of GDP.

260 sats \ 2 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 11 Apr

On top of that, the people making the most money are often doing so via capital gains instead of income, so even without loopholes, they weren't starting at 90%.

81 sats \ 1 reply \ @davidw OP 11 Apr

That is a much more complete chart! Would love to overlay inflation / base money also. But I like yours better 🤠

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 11 Apr

:-) Visualizing Economics is a good site for when you need to find some nifty charts.

169 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 11 Apr

but I've read that the 90% marginal tax rate was largely a fiction

A very big thing in 50s / 60s was "deferred compensation agreements". Basically reclassified salary into capital gains. Typically they would pay you a year later....so a small portion of your 1951 was paid to you then, then the bulk paid to you 12 months later...

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Apr

Reclassifying salary as capital gains

Common in private equity and hedge funds

It’s similar to carried interest

Capital Gains Tax is capped at 20 percent today

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Apr

The keyword is deferral

Capital gains tax kicks in if you hold an asset for at least one year plus one day or 12 months plus 1 day

Otherwise it’s taxed as ordinary income.

Shohei Ohtani is deferring 680 million for at least 10 years lol

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 11 Apr

Interesting. I don't think I had heard of that before.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 11 Apr

I have heard this as well.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 11 Apr

good reminder that taxes have been way higher for multiple decades at the highest income bracket

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SUPERMAX 11 Apr

We can def get to 90% again...

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 11 Apr

They can go to any rates. They have their own ways, they don't care about anything else except what they want to say, be it real or unreal.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 11 Apr

So something that just hit me looking at this chart granted I might also be a slight history nerd, is that the tax rates were highest during our times at war. The spike in the late 1910s through early 1920s corresponded with WWI then you see them go back up gearing up for WWII. They started their fall during the Vietnam War and have remained significantly lower since then.

I don't think it necessarily means anything but I do find it interesting. I could see where the wealthy would be much more willing to pay higher taxes during this period and not fight it so that the US would be on the winning side and so maybe with our recent performance in war that is also a reason it has remained low. The results have been muddy, to say the least, so the rich do not feel as inclined?

What do yall think about this? The chart seems to show increases before the World Wars popped off so if we pop back up to 90% does that mean almost the government knows something we don't?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 12 Apr

Anything above 40 percent is politically infeasible.

Reagan legacy

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 12 Apr

I agree. I mean that amount just sounds crazy compared to now.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @go 11 Apr

They jacked up when the US started going socialist

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 11 Apr

Honestly. I can't understand what this percentage has to do with tax. I mean taxes are maximum upto 30% here in my country.

Do you guys pay upto 90%? If that's true, I would suggest you to revolt against it.

Just beverage your pardon for the mini bump over my head that I can't get 😂

Read More

What do you think is next?