I'm pretty sure the '32-'35 tax rates were Hoover's since FDR came to office in '33 so HH started that mess; FDR just exacerbated.
15% is ruthless? Just looks like we were headed toward a flat tax (by definition "fairer") to me.
For the record, I've got no problem with reasonably progressive rates, but fairer they are not.
Great graph, btw.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Oh, yep, you're right about Hoover.
The ruthless part was taking money (via taxes) from the poorest at a disproportionate rate to give to the most wealthy (via tax breaks).
To me, progressive is fairer.
Graph is OK, but inadequate because it doesn't convey what income level is subject to the high/low tax rates (and everything in between). That's an important part of the picture, too, but it's beyond my imagination/skills/time to represent it in a graph.
Yeah, but...
You have the ability to create the graph. I don't.
I know you know but my point for our reader was that the same rate for all is by definition fair. Maybe fair isn't exactly the right term; maybe the term is equitable in its purest sense. To take more from some than from others, whatever the motivation does not treat people the same way. The progressive system, which I've said is ok when reasonable, compulsorily takes from some to give to others.
If you make minimum wage, you're making a little under $12,500/yr. 15% on that is a bit over $1800. That's a big, painful chunk that leaves very little. Until the 40's we didn't ask for such a large chunk out of these small paychecks. We asked for more to pay for the war, but then didn't reduce that burden until the late 70s.
It dawns on me now, though, that my graph may be incomplete/misleading for super low incomes. I'm not sure, but I think that today if you make that little you may not be paying the purported (by the graph) 10%, given credits. You may instead be paying $0.
Post a Comment