General Discussion

justaddh2o

(69 posts)

23. 1950s tax rates

Thu Jan 28, 2016, 03:07 PM

Jan 2016

Okay, so doesn't this mean that in the 50s, we as a nation thought that 10% of $5M (using the larger number) is enough for a single individual to "take home" per year? In today's dollars, that $500K of 1950's money would come to $5M, interestingly enough.

Does that seem like the right amount to you? I'm curious... not trying to be snarky. I'm really just interested in people's perception of what they think is enough money per year for someone to "earn"/acquire. I think it's interesting to see what people think the real dollar amount should be. Not what policies we should put in place or anything like that. Thanks.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maximum wage [View all] justaddh2o Jan 2016 OP

No, it's not out there. elleng Jan 2016 #1

Why do you think that is? justaddh2o Jan 2016 #26

I believe that there ought to be a maximum wage. SheilaT Jan 2016 #2

I don't think there should be a maximum wage Major Nikon Jan 2016 #4

Yep, and/or an annual 5% WEALTH tax on every nickel hifiguy Jan 2016 #8

Okay, I'll go along with that. SheilaT Jan 2016 #12

Ah here is where a little historical knowledge helps nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #3

In that era land meant money. hifiguy Jan 2016 #9

I know, and this is how they kept the wages down nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #11

Excellent point justaddh2o Jan 2016 #13

Climate change will (imo is starting already) bring the system crashing down nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #15

The Big Short justaddh2o Jan 2016 #21

The activity that human civilization allows isn't compatible with the environment The2ndWheel Jan 2016 #25

I don't think we should have a maximum wage... one_voice Jan 2016 #5

Ridiculous concept. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #6

Yes, excellent point as well justaddh2o Jan 2016 #16

I believe in a regulated version of capitalism, but a maximum wage is something I don't believe in Victor_c3 Jan 2016 #7

How would you govern it? jmowreader Jan 2016 #10

Poor? justaddh2o Jan 2016 #14

I just read your post. Oh god. jmowreader Jan 2016 #19

I don't want to improve the lot of the poor... justaddh2o Jan 2016 #20

There should be no limits on the amount you can "have" jmowreader Jan 2016 #32

Some thoughts justaddh2o Jan 2016 #55

In essence, we used to have one.... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #17

1950s tax rates justaddh2o Jan 2016 #23

Wait a minute... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #28

Kennedy championed a "perfect storm" tax cut jmowreader Jan 2016 #37

Okay justaddh2o Jan 2016 #56

I understand... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #57

We used to have something close WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2016 #18

Yeah, see my post #28 Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #30

That would be like capping human progress The2ndWheel Jan 2016 #22

Floor but no ceiling justaddh2o Jan 2016 #24

Humans don't do well with limits The2ndWheel Jan 2016 #27

Good idea. We should criminalize greed. frizzled Jan 2016 #29

We should probably criminalize hyperbole, too... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #31

'the death penalty for spending over $100,000 on a car" EX500rider Jan 2016 #41

Obama's car isn't his, it's State property. frizzled Jan 2016 #47

Ban guns like they are banned in Mexico & Jamaica? EX500rider Jan 2016 #48

Failed states can't effectively ban guns, obviously. frizzled Jan 2016 #50

I know of no country on the planet where criminals can't get guns. EX500rider Jan 2016 #53

If we can take care of the people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum, hughee99 Jan 2016 #33

Because infinitely wealthy people will always buy the political system. frizzled Jan 2016 #34

So flat out wealth redistribution is what you're looking for? hughee99 Jan 2016 #35

Everything is "wealth redistribution". The Republicans want wealth redistribution. frizzled Jan 2016 #36

No, but you CAN limit the hell out of it jmowreader Jan 2016 #38

So you don't think you can stop people from buying influence, but you believe you can hughee99 Jan 2016 #39

Yes. If the infinitely wealthy exist, they will always buy the government and market. frizzled Jan 2016 #40

So then we'd have a underground gangster class of super rich buying the system? EX500rider Jan 2016 #42

It's hard to be an underground gangster if you're in jail. frizzled Jan 2016 #43

Right....'cause no ever hid or laundered money successfully...lol EX500rider Jan 2016 #45

I'm good with that. Let's find out how much influence the Kochs have from San Quentin. frizzled Jan 2016 #46

Kochbros maximum wage... Dont call me Shirley Jan 2016 #44

Nobody should be wealthy enough to buy the political process. hunter Jan 2016 #49

I think it's being discussed quietly as a multiple of the average non executive wage in a company Warpy Jan 2016 #51

My own feeling is: Depends on how you make your money. BlueJazz Jan 2016 #52

I have a thought on this GummyBearz Jan 2016 #54

Actually, that would make a lot of sense. BlueJazz Jan 2016 #58