http://usa-wethepeople.

com/2011/07/phony-tax-comparison-between-the-1950s-and-today-exposed/

Phony Tax Comparison Between the 1950s and Today Exposed

July 16, 2011 Posted by Economics9698 @ 13:59 PM The leftist like to lie. We know it, they know it, but still the lies persist. The latest malarkey is the lie that taxes are at an all-time low. The left bases this on the top tax rate in the 1950s of 84% to 91% and todays top rate of 35%. This is like comparing a picture of the late Elizabeth Taylor from the 1950s to the reality of living with her in the 2000s. One would assume there would be a large chasm between the image portrayed and the reality of a woman who had eight marriages with seven husbands. So it is with the left, they throw up an old image of pure innocent America where everyone rowed in a socialist boat together for the good of our comrade masters in Washington DC. This subject has been explored by others and proven to be a myth but let us dispense with a few numbers just to arrive at some truth in this matter.

First, the lowest tax rate in 1950 was $4,000 or $38,421 in todays dollars. In 2011 lowest tax bracket is $17,000. A $21,421 difference in those eligible to be taxed. This is more than 20% of the population eligible to be taxed today that were not subject to federal taxes in 1950. In 2009 the lowest fth of American households made $20,453 and the next fth made $38,555. To put it bluntly the government is taking resources from millions more people in the poorest 40% of wage earners. Second, in 1950 the top tax rate was $400,000 or $3,842,000 in todays dollars. The top 5% today made $180,001 in 2009. The top 1% earned $380,354. I guess there is someone out there who makes $3.8 million a year but they certainly are a rare species. The point being the top tax rate was 84% in 1950. Does anyone think someone, anyone, paid 84% of their marginal income to the IRS back then? Do we have any records of this occurring? Maybe a handful of Hollywood stars? Most likely if anyone was close to that tax bracket they would take generous vacation, medical, real estate, business travel, and other deductions to get in a lower bracket. One assumes the select few who had that type of earning ability in the 1950s were talented enough to avoid the tax man. Third, if you take Obamas denition of rich to be $250,000 in todays dollars that would translate to about $26,027 1950 dollars. The tax rate in 1950 for $24,000 to $28,000 was 39.13% with zero deductions. The average total deduction reported as a percentage of adjusted gross income in 1950 was 12.2%. This would move the income taxed to $22,852 or a tax rate of 34.58%. Today someone making $250,000 would pay 33% or $82,500. In 1950 the household would pay $7,902 or $75,899 in todays dollars. Assuming the same deductions the taxpayer today would pay $72,435. Some economist like Peter Schiff of Euro Pacic Capital have researched this more extensively and have stated that the deductions from 1950 were far more generous than today. Still the similarity in tax rates from 61 years ago to today is amazing. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has trouble understanding economics Fourth, the percent of consumption by the federal government of the GDP, according to the White House budgets own numbers, was 15.6% compared to 25% today. State, and local consumption of the GDP was 3.7% and 5.8% respectively compared to todays numbers of 9.7% and 10.82%. Our government, at all levels, spends over $6.4 trillion or 45.5% of the GDP and compared to 25.1% back in 1950.

Fifth, Social Security consumed 1.6% of the GDP in 1950 and 6% today. That gure is scheduled to grow signicantly as baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 retire and draw benets. Finally it is important to understand the relationship between the size of government and economic growth. Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary and University of California professor, even admitted that annual economic growth between 1950 and 1981 averaged 3.7% and growth between 1986 and today has averaged 3.0%. Reich falsely attributed it to the low tax rates we have today. He choose 1986 for his comparison because that was the year Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 50% and nally 28% in 1988. He confused tax rates and percentages with actual taxes collected as a percentage of the GDP. For a better explanation of the slow growth Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson of Lund University, researched this phenomenon. The research cited tells us that annual growth is -0.5 percentage points to -1.0 percentage point lower if government share of the GDP rises by 10 percentage points. From 1950 to today it is clear the burden of government has increased from 25% of the GDP to 45%. That would certainly explain the reduced economic growth. Accounting for technology gains in productivity that offset the true negative effect the additional government consumption has had on the economy, the loss of economic growth attributable to the growth in the government share of the GDP is plain to see for any rational person. Further expanding on Robert Reichs misdirection, in the 1950s to the 1970, it was not uncommon for the economy to grow at 4.5% rate. From 1970 to 2000 the growth rate slowed to 3.6%, and nally in the 2000s under Bush and Obama growth is averaging a sluggish 2%. The lesson is clear; government destroys economic growth, prosperity, and tax collections by government, as measured by GDP consumption of resources, are at historic highs.