|
|
|
|
|
|
by antonvs
21 days ago
|
|
|
> Is it that difficult to acknowledge that you posted something that was inaccurate, and move forward from it? What I take serious issue with is the deceptive and uncharitable nature of your "correction", which didn't mention that the number I quoted was real and in effect up until 1963. The reason you're behaving like that is that in your desperate desire to defend the infrastructure that supports oligarchs, you need to cling to minor nitpicks because you don't have any serious points to make. > Your comment directly implied that taxation should be used to prevent companies from "getting to the point when it feels 'outlandish' to them to be punished for trying to destroy the society that granted them their wealth." Quoting my exact comment is not describing an implication. Perhaps you'd like to take another stab at incorrectly describing whatever you're imagining that I'm implying. |
|
|
"Reagan-era" is the 1980s. You were off by almost two decades. That warranted a correction.
And as I noted, the number of people who this rate actually applied to was unbelievably small. To put it in precise terms: in 1963, only 501 returns out of approximately 50 million filers actually paid this rate. According to the Tax Foundation, the actual average effective tax rate for the top 1% of earners in 1962 was only ~16%. That's because, as I noted, there were tons of exclusions, deductions and shelters permitted, the biggest of which were removed as the tax rates were lowered.
Taking the position that tort law and consumer protection regulation, not punitive tax rates that will never actually be paid, is the way to deal with corporations behaving badly is common sense, not pro-oligarch.