Phony Tax Comparison Between the 1950s and Today Exposed

July 16, 2011
Posted by Economics9698 @ 13:59 PM

The late Elizabeth Taylor, 1950s version

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 today’s 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 today’s 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 fifth of American households made $20,453 and the next fifth 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 today’s dollars. The top 5% today made $180,001 in 2009. The top 1% earned $380,354.

Where are the increased tax collections from the 1950s when the top tax rate was 91%?

Where are the increased tax collections from the 1950s when the top tax rate was 91%?


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 Obama’s definition of “rich” to be $250,000 in today’s 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 today’s dollars. Assuming the same deductions the taxpayer today would pay $72,435. Some economist like Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific 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 today’s 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 figure is scheduled to grow significantly as baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 retire and draw benefits.

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 finally 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 Reich’s 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 finally 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.

Tags:


12 Responses to “Phony Tax Comparison Between the 1950s and Today Exposed”

  1. » Phony Tax Comparison Between The 1950s And Today Exposed Says:

    [...] Links on research. [...]

  2. Steve Yzerman Jersey Says:

    wonderful blog, very resourceful. I like it in deed. I come acoss your blog by Bing search engine. I will visit your site monthly and introduce it to my neibourghhood. Please keep it fresh. Keep on the good work. – A hockey fun

  3. Elissa Granado Says:

    Wonderful post. I should write alot more though I am surfing on my small cellular phone. I actually have saved your site and thus expect to comeback when I get home.

  4. Economics9698 Says:

    Thanks Elissa.

  5. bobbybear Says:

    I am a conservative and was concerned about your facts quoted in your first paragraph. What I think you are saying is that in 1950 no one paid taxes until they made $4000 (1950 dollars). I don’t see that to be true.
    I see people paying 20% for income from $0 – $2,000
    22% for income from 2k – $4,000
    I like a lot of people will see what I think is an error and will quit reading your web page.

  6. economics9698 Says:

    Bobby it was 17% rate with 0 deductions.

  7. Douglas Says:

    You state that almost no one paid the top tax rate in 1950 but provide no actual evidence. There were rich businessmen in the 1950s if you weren’t aware.

  8. economics9698 Says:

    Tax rates were 90% but they were marginal rates. An individual’s earnings would be taxed at approx 20% on the first $2,000, 21% on the next $2,000, etc graduating up to the 90% tax rate which you would not fall under unless you earned in excess of $300,000, whats $300,000 inflation adjusted dollars today?. I’ve read that an individual would have to earn several million dollars in 1950′s dollars to be fully taxed at the 90%.

    Additionally *everything* was tax deductible, they were so pervasive that the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was eventually introduced to offset the myriad deductions.

    Economics is often poisoned by political wishful thinking. Taxation is an important example.

    http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5728

  9. sean Says:

    Someone needs to let the author know what a progressive tax system is. That they don’t know undermines the entire piece.

  10. economicsw9698 Says:

    Sean that was so profound I do not have a coherent response. duhhh


Leave a Reply



4 − = 2