Top marginal U.S. income tax rate 1913 to 2013
source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430
Leave a comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Using the Theil inequality index to show and analyse increased colonial exploitation
- Global warming and the threat of cheap Chinese EVs
- Econophysics
- USA: The Great Prosperity / The Great Regression : 5 charts
- Lost opportunities?
- Weekend read - A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- 10 Most Popular Posts
- Share of income earned by Top 1 Percent, 1975-2015 - 7 countries
- DSGE models — a total waste of time
- Comments on RWER issue no 107
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- ghholtham on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- marc1seed on Internalizing “externalities”
- Lars Syll on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- ghholtham on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- Farao Tomb on The tools economists use
- George H. Blackford on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- ghholtham on Lost opportunities?
- ghholtham on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- ghholtham on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- David Harold Chester on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- David Harold Chester on Lost opportunities?
- Taco Bottema on Lost opportunities?
- George H. Blackford on DSGE models — a total waste of time
- Stuart.Mac McBurney on Lost opportunities?
- ghholtham on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
It would be interesting to see an approximation of actual rates paid.
Can you post Kindermann and Krueger’s working paper and their information sources?
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/how-have-the-top-and-bottom-income-tax-brackets-changed-over-time
Some detail:https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/
“Despite these limitations, Kindermann and Krueger say that a top marginal tax rate in the range of 90 percent would decrease both income and wealth inequality, bring in more money for the government and increase everyone’s wellbeing — even those subject to the new, much higher income tax rate.”
Kindermann and Krueger have done a great service. But the economists and others who carry the water for “the gospel that tax cuts for the highest income earners are good” are not interested in taxes or rates per se. They are interested in first, destroying democracy, second, destroying any effective government not ruled by the “highest income earners,” and third reducing the wellbeing of all who oppose their program. I’d say quash the poor and middle class, but it sounds so crass.