Hacker News Reader

Comment by senordevnyc | Hacker News Reader

This is such a tired talking point. Effective tax rates were nowhere near that high.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich...

I found this footnote particularly interesting:

It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

Note that those percentages include Federal, state, and local taxes.

View on HN

I did not say "effective tax" you are moving the goal post.

It is no surprise to me that an organization originally founded by the chairman of General Motors, the president of Standard Oil and their like [0] is able to conclude:

>"The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards."

Which is a wild claim to make.

Nice that you find the somewhat honest footnote, but you're citing what is essentially an opinion piece from a conservative think tank.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation

They're quoting a paper by respected economists, but feel free to discard it because it doesn't fit your priors.

And no, you didn't specifically say effective tax rate, but you did say that western countries effectively had a cap on how much you could earn (presumably that's what you meant, even though we're talking about a wealth tax here, not an income tax, but I digress), given a top marginal rate near 100%, but that's simply false, given that the effective tax rate even for the absolute most wealthy Americans was closer to 50%.

It's a little like complaining that university has gotten so expensive by just looking at the sticker price, while ignoring the fact that few people actually pay that, and the median price actually paid is much lower. That doesn't mean the effective price is where it should be either, but you do your position no favors with falsehoods.

My statement is corroborated by the source I linked. If you found it ambiguous, the precise statement I am referring to is illustrated in Figure 2 of my source.

You called the fact I raised a "tired talking point" and referenced a contentious source. While they do cite serious academics, they seem to draw their own conclusions in the text; unburdened by their references.

Your statement that America used to have a ceiling on wealth is false, full stop. Your nominal tax rate isn’t even about wealth lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com