framer
Well-Known Member
It's a great source. So good, it's like I'd seen it before.
Unfortunately, I have seen it before. The sources are credible, but it really isn't illustrating an effective measure of the difference between 1/.1% then and now. Is it? Who had 300M in 1950 compared to now? If there wasn't anyone in the $30M-$300M range in 1950, isn't the sample provided kinda... selective?
It goes by the top percentage of income earners, not by dollar amount. Additionally, there would be a higher number of households contained in 2010. The top tax rates in 1950 was $200,000 with only about 10,000 families getting there. The measured difference is about 6%, which is a difference, but it is not the ridiculous "We taxed at 90%" talking point.