Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHB

(38,389 posts)
11. Yes I do, because I'm comparing progressivity, not the rates themselves
Thu Jan 2, 2020, 10:06 AM
Jan 2020

I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I remember them well enough from when I was making the graph in #7 and others like it.

In the mid- to late-1920s the top marginal tax rate was 25% over 23 tax brackets: each bracket bumped the rate by 1% except for two of them, were it went up 1.5%. IIRC, adjusted for inflation, the top rate kicked in around $1.3 million.

So yes, that income tax structure was much more progressive than the one we have today. It's inadequate for modern needs, but it stands as a refutation of the idea that progressive taxation is some "socialist" notion (as Republicans are wont to do these days).


Speaking of 100 years ago, from 1919 to 1921 (in the wake of WW1) the income tax had its highest number of brackets: 56. Compare that to the 24 there were for most of the post-WW2/pre-Reagan prosperity, the 7 we have now, or the Republicans' Holy Grail of 1.

In an era where the most advanced mechanical calculator could do double duty as a workout machine, they managed to have 56 brackets. Lay that on the next person who complains that it's brackets that make the tax code complicated. The complexity is in all the other stuff. Brackets are just straight math. These days we can make tee shirts that can handle the calculation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The IRS Just Released New...»Reply #11