No, see, this makes me think you don't understand the issue again. Inflation is irrelevant when comparing the tax rate.
What you have to show is that, after tax, Americans were on average able to purchase more or at least the same as they are now.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The inflation rate is a separate issue I chose to address.Which I've said repeatedly. And if you are saying the median income in the 50s was around $4,000, that's close to $40,000 in today's dollars.
Here's a handy chart from 1950 to 2000 about the median income in real and adjusted dollar. http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf
It looks like until 2000 the adjusted value had improved (contrary to your claim). I don't have one that goes until today, this may have gotten somewhat worse with the 2000 crisis and financial crisis and such. But there definitely doesn't seem to be a huge difference in favour of the 50s as you claim.
Originally posted by psmith81992
This looks to be until 1990 and honestly doesn't tell me much. The only thing I know for certain is that the dollar has lost 99% of its value since 1950 so you'd have to multiply the median income of 1950 by 10 to even out today's median income.
Okay, that maths is off. If the dollar had lost 99% of its value you'd have to multiply it by a 100. Also this chart goes until 2000. Also adjusted dollars is exactly the measure we are looking for...it compares the loss of value in the dollar and adjusts it, so it is comparable.
Just so we are on the same page, this is the graph I'm referring to:
It shows very clearly that in adjusted dollars the median income in the US was under 25000$ in 1950, while in 2000 it was over 40000$. So considerably more. Meaning that the median household in 2000 was better off than in 1950.
It doesn't exactly answer our initial question, but it's definitely an interesting data point.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Then I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying we had a ridiculously high marginal tax rate in the 50s (91%), but that is because of the strength(purchasing power) of the dollar.
Your "but" statement is largely unrelated to what you're talking about in the first phrase of that sentence. The taxes were higher because it was viewed as being fair to have them that high. It had nothing to do with the purchasing power of the dollar.
The only reason I chose to entertain your purchasing power discussion was to show you that the exact opposite of what you thought was actually true.
Originally posted by psmith81992
If we are to compare proportionally to today's dollar strength, the tax rate should be much lower, no?
No, it would have to be much much higher. I just now figured out why you think so, however. I'll explain my perspective so you can see why. It has to do with proportions: we are using percentages.
Using this site:
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/
I will compare 1950 to 2014.
$10 in 1950 becomes $98.30 (vaguely).
Meaning, you'd have to have $98.30, today, in order to have the same exact purchasing power as the dollar in 1950.
Pretend this is a top tax margin scenario where the 91% applies.
91% of $10 = $9.1
That means that $9.1 are the taxes on that money.
So what would be the equivalent in modern terms?
Well, you think purchasing power is key to showing that the taxes should be lowered, right?
Good. That's a great way to approach this. So what is the purchasing power of the money left over after the 91% taxes?
1950: $10-$9.1 = $0.90
So here's the value of 1950s 90 cents in 2014:
2014: $8.85
But, wait, how did we get there? We did a direct purchasing power comparison, right? So how did we get there? Shouldn't your point be correct? Shouldn't the amount of money left over be greater than only $8.85?
Nope. Because we did a direct comparison with purchasing power. I didn't play around with anything.
The reason this is the case is because this is a multiplicative identity of sorts. There's not ratio magic that happens in this. It is a linear comparison.
You would, however, have a nice case for decreasing taxes if the purchasing power had dropped by 10x since then. I could see an argument being made for wanting to drop the tax rate since money could buy more...but that's still not necessary. As long as the filthy rich can survive on their income, it does not matter what inflation does or the purchasing power does.
If $1 can buy a home, servants of many kinds (from house cleaners to accountants...any accountants out there offended? haha...suck it, you're a bona fide servant if you serve super rich people), and more money (investments), you're filthy rich. The amount doesn't matter. This is why your purchasing power discussion doesn't play a role (at all) in what we are talking about. And since the rich are richer now than in 1950, an argument can be made that an even higher tax could be justified.
The problem is with many of your posts you are just buying into the Fox news neocon narrative. Look at the facts not the rhetoric.
Well, you think purchasing power is key to showing that the taxes should be lowered, right?
The reason this is the case is because this is a multiplicative identity of sorts. There's not ratio magic that happens in this. It is a linear comparison.
That means that $9.1 are the taxes on that money.So what would be the equivalent in modern terms?
Well, you think purchasing power is key to showing that the taxes should be lowered, right?
Good. That's a great way to approach this. So what is the purchasing power of the money left over after the 91% taxes?
1950: $10-$9.1 = $0.90
So here's the value of 1950s 90 cents in 2014:
2014: $8.85
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not reading fox news nor have I quoted it once, and I've been right most of the time regardless. Only a defensive liberal would automatically scream "right wing bias" like what you're doing. I can turn around and scream "left wing bias" and it would have the same effect.
I didn't say you quoted it, I said you bought into its ideas. You couldn't really scream left wing bias because the left do not own the mass media. That would just be silly and against the facts.
I didn't say you quoted it, I said you bought into its ideas. You couldn't really scream left wing bias because the left do not own the mass media. That would just be silly and against the facts.
And to say I brought in fox news ideas would be equivalent to me accusing you of bringing in MSNBC talking points. It's idiotic and a cop out.
Originally posted by psmith81992
It's more like $8.95 but what dollar amount are you comparing this to exactly?
I say right in the part you quoted: 90 cents.
That's the amount left over after a 91% tax on $10 in 1950s money. What that means is in 1950, 90 cents was like 9.85, today (according to that site).
Originally posted by psmith81992
The left do not own the mass media? Oh boy. The "liberal agenda" is a thing for a reason. "Liberal media bias" is also a thing. The mainstream media is predominantly liberal. This is a fact. To scream of right wing bias in the face of facts is pretty silly.
Yes, exactly the left don't and these ideas of yours are ridiculous myths propagated by the right who own and control the media. Face the fact that US Media is Wall Street owned Media. The "Liberal" US media like MSNBC and the Jon Stewart Daily Show behave in a liberal manner about 10% of the time, in contrast to the rest of the US Media that is more like a right-wing lying machine for 99% to 100% of the time. So in comparison to the total right-wing lying machines that are CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, or the ultra lunatic right-wing lying machines that are Fox, Talkradio, etc. then MSNBC, Daily Show, etc. which I suspect you watch, they are liberal.
That's the amount left over after a 91% tax on $10 in 1950s money. What that means is in 1950, 90 cents was like 9.85, today (according to that site).
Yes, exactly the left don't and these ideas of yours are ridiculous myths propagated by the right who own and control the media. Face the fact that US Media is Wall Street owned Media. The "Liberal" US media MSNBC & Jon Stewart Daily Show behave in a liberal manner about 10% of the time, in contrast to the rest of the US Media that is a right-wing lying machine from 99% to 100% of the time. So in comparison to the total right-wing lying machines that are CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, or the ultra lunatic right-wing lying machines that are Fox, Talkradio, etc. then MSNBC, Daily Show, etc. which I suspect you watch.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i do think the media/hollywood is largely left leaning (by american standards) tbhfox news is obviously a republican propaganda machine.. what other parts of the media are right wing?
None. This guy has lost his goddamn mind. I gotta add his post to my quotes. Stupidity at its finest.