#### Comment Preferences

• ##### If...(9+ / 0-)

Those tables were adjusted for inflation  - that means you would have to earn 205,317 before paying over 20% in taxes.

'Osama Bin Ladien is still dead and GM is still alive' - Joe Biden

[ Parent ]

• ##### Am I calculating this right,(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
elwior

(under this chart), if I earned \$250,000, half, or \$125,000 would go to the Federal government?

• ##### In today's dollars multiply by about 10(9+ / 0-)

to get an Idea of what actual impact that was for survival.

What is really sad is the fact I have never in my life earned enough in contemporary dollars to pay a bit of taxes according to the lowest scale on that chart. Yet under the current system my contribution n income taxes alone exceed 30% of my paltry income. The backs of the poor is where we are getting our money now.

Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

[ Parent ]

• ##### Good question robertlewiws, great read, an (4+ / 0-)

American with math skills, impressive.  Imho, we should shift the conversation from individuals (where Republicans want to move the conversation) to corporations who pay nothing, nada, zip, a zero tax rate with US government subsides adding to profit margins that are obscene.

• ##### You're joking right, about the math skills that is(0+ / 0-)

And judging from the various answers, my math skills aren't so sharp after all. I forgot to include variables. That may be how the corporations avoid paying a simple percentage, by employing variables. Yes, that would be it. In any case, I've never earned \$250k in a single year and my question was meant to emphasize what I think is an excessive tax rate. Half?

So I have a joke for you foucault (requires math):

Ques: If one cat is an a tree and two more cats climb the tree, how many cats are in the tree?

Ans: Tree

• ##### I could be wrong...(10+ / 0-)

Actually, there's a fairly high likelihood of that, because honestly, I rely on DKos quite a bit for my understanding of our tax system.

Regardless, I was under the impression that that would not be the case. (For simplicity's sake, I'm going to not adjust for inflation.) My understanding that the nature of progressive tax brackets is that if you made \$250,000 (and you were the sole breadwinner, since the chart on the left is for married but jointly filing), only the amount of income from \$234,645 to \$250,000 -- so \$15,355 -- would be taxable at 50%. So you'd only pay half of that, or \$7,677.50, at a 50% rate.

The money you'd make up to that point would be taxed at the respective lower brackets. So your total taxes paid would be it:

0.20(29,331 - 0) + .22(58,661 - 29,331) + .26(87,992 - 58,661) + .30(117,323 - 87,992) + .34(146,653 - 117,323) + .38(175,984 - 146,653) + .43(205,315 - 175,984) + .47(234,645 - 205,315) + .50(250,000 - 234,645)

= .20(29,331) + .22(29,330) + .26(29,331) + .30(29,331) + .34(29,330) + .38(29,331) + .43(29,331) + .47(29,330) + .50(15,355)

= 5,866.20 + 6,452.60 + 7,626.06 + 8,799.30 + 9,972.20 + 11,145.78 + 12,612.33 + 13,785.10 + 7,677.50

= 83,937.07

So if you were the sole breadwinner in a jointly filing married couple in 1963 who made exactly \$250,000, you would pay \$83,937.07 in taxes, leaving you with a net after tax income of \$166,062.93.

If I did anything wrong or don't understand something about our tax system, PLEASE CORRECT ME!

But this is what I think the answer to your question is.

"My great panacea for making society at once better and more enjoyable would be to cultivate greater sincerity." -- Frances Power Cobbe

[ Parent ]

• ##### No.(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
elwior, Apost8

That's the marginal tax rate, not the rate on your entire earnings.

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

[ Parent ]

• ##### But, (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

not a lot people were making \$250,000.00 back then including educated individuals.  I had a relative that was an executive for the phone company in the 1960's, their pay back then was around \$30,000.00.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolution­ary act. " George Orwell

[ Parent ]

• ##### If 90% of profit is taken in taxes(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
elwior

then companies look for ways to invest the money rather than declaring it as profit.  A big portion was poured into R&D.  I read something on here about that not too long ago.  Probably bungling the explanation though.

• ##### Or could it be that the rest of the world was (0+ / 0-)

bombed to smithereens just a few years earlier?

[ Parent ]

• ##### This chart should be front paged(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Blueslide, Horace Boothroyd III

It is irrefutable proof that the progressivity of the tax rate does not inhibit growth. The continual cry of "no new taxes" is nothing but a cry of greed from the selfish, stingy, affluent of this country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.