Ok James explain to me how tax rates were lower in the 50s than they are now
i wont bother to re-read my post but if i said tax RATES were lower in the 50's then they are now, i take it back. Tax RATES have been up and down over the last 50-60 years so i wont get into an argument about which period had the lowest rate, i am sure it would be easy to google that one and find out if you wanted. The point i am trying to make is you need to look at the revenue collected from tax (which would be a lot harder to get true figures) - that's what matters. the tax rates, even the effective tax rates don't give a true reflection. Higher tax rates don't result in more tax revenue, not in the long run. go back even further, in 1929 the highest tax rate was 25%, the number of people who reported high incomes in that period was 10 times higher (adjusted for cpi and population) then there was in the 70's, when the highest marginal rate was significantly higher - and you surely cant make the argument that income distribution had improved that much. When tax rates are higher than the costs of tax minimization strategies, tax shelters, deciding to spend a certain way over another etc, there will likely be less revenue from taxation, yet you impose an unnecessary burden on business. But you know what, i'm an accountant so i should be on your side - the only people that win when taxes go beyond a certain point and become more complex are the accountants.