I was thinking that there was no way the tax in the 70s on $200k was 70%. You are correct, as long as we are talking about the marginal tax and the actual 70% tax is on an amount of income between $150k and $200k (for instance). The effective tax rate would be something lower (but still higher than that today I think).
The other thing to think about is that correcting for inflation, $200k in the 70s would be equivalent to $1000k today. But your point about what we could buy back then is understood.
Newsletter
Newsletter
"a third of a percent" is not very much progress.
Flag this comment
I like Mr. Cain. He is not a career politician. That alone is enough to get my vote.
Flag this comment
Thanks Mike, you taught me something.
I was thinking that there was no way the tax in the 70s on $200k was 70%. You are correct, as long as we are talking about the marginal tax and the actual 70% tax is on an amount of income between $150k and $200k (for instance). The effective tax rate would be something lower (but still higher than that today I think).
The other thing to think about is that correcting for inflation, $200k in the 70s would be equivalent to $1000k today. But your point about what we could buy back then is understood.
Flag this comment
This comment was removed by the user.
Flag this comment
If only the debt was billions... Should read trillions. Bit of a difference. :)
Flag this comment
Actually, $725 for 30 years at a 5% yearly interest is worth about $50k. :)
Flag this comment