2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Toni]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

But, nobody actually paid that high of a rate. I've looked it up and found that there wee so many deductions back in those days, that the actual highest rate was quite a bit lower.

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

Nobody really paid 91% tax rate or so I've read. I read about this years ago, but people still make the claim that some very wealthy people were paying 91% tax rate. They were not.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-high-income-americans-really-200011606.html

There's a common belief that wealthy Americans were heavily taxed in the 1950s, with a top income tax rate of 91%. But was this the case? Let’s breakdown what was happening with taxes back then.

The top federal income tax rate was 91% for much of the 1950s. However, this figure is a bit misleading regarding what the wealthy paid. The Tax Foundation explains that the 91% tax rate is only applied to incomes over $200,000, about $2 million in today's dollars.

This means only a tiny fraction of taxpayers reached this income level. The Wall Street Journal said fewer than 10,000 households fell into this top bracket.

Even for those who did earn more than $200,000, not all of their income was taxed at 91%. The 91% rate only applied to the portion of their income above the $200,000 threshold. When all taxes (federal, state, and local) are considered, the richest 1% paid an average of 42% of their income in taxes during the 1950s.

Wealthy Americans back then also had many ways to reduce their taxable income through deductions and shelters. For instance, a doctor could claim paper losses from real estate investments to greatly lower their taxable income.

Imagine a doctor in the 1950s who made $50,000 from his medical practice. He could use $50,000 in paper losses or property depreciation from real estate investments to reduce his taxable income to zero. Many professionals used these kinds of tricks to lower their taxes.

So, while the official tax rate was high, the amount of income subject to this rate was much lower due to different loopholes.

Those aren't "loopholes"; That's how tax brackets work.

How does this compare to today? Despite lower official tax rates now, the tax burden on the wealthy hasn't changed as much as you might think. As the Tax Foundation writes, in 2014, the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average of 36.4% of their income in taxes — or about 5.6 percentage points less than in the 1950s.

If a top bracket of 90%, or even 99% were introduced today, nobody would be taxed 90% of their entire income. That's not how it works, nor how it is supposed to work.

That "5.6 percentage points" is a hugely misleading figure. The difference between paying 36.4% of your entire income and paying 42% of your entire income is likely FAR greater than the difference between paying a top marginal rate of 36.4% vs paying a top rate of 42% (exactly how much greater depends on the threshold of that top bracket, and on the rates charged in the lower brackets).

That whole article seems to be arguing against a strawman idea that someone is proposing a 90+% total tax imposition on billionaire incomes. But nobody is doing that; The proposal is for this as the top marginal rate, as it was in the 1950s.

And yes, nobody pays the top rate on their whole income. That's basic maths, and must apply whenever two or more brackets exist with differing rates.

No no no: loopholes are special rules that allow you to avoid paying tax if you are wealthy enough and hire a clever tax attorney

 

[southernhybrid]

I think we are fixated on tax rates instead of the midterms. I just read that the former mayor of ATL is leading in the Democratic primary. I hope not. She wasn't a popular mayor and despite the fact that she is a Black female, my closest Black female friends don't like her and haven't voted for her in the primaries. If the brilliant, charismatic Stacey Abrams couldn't win, there is no chance that this woman can win, imo and in the opinion of many other people.

On the brighter side, John Ossoff is way ahead in the polls, and the Republicans are trying desperately to find someone who might beat him. We will know who won the primaries tomorrow, although if nobody gets over 50%, there will be a run off. Ossoff is the only Dem running in the Senate primaries, so he will be on the ticket this fall. I'm pretty sure the one I voted for as my Congress person will win in the primaries. I've actually seen a lot of signs for her in my rather conservative area.

 

[Derec]

I think we are fixated on tax rates instead of the midterms. I just read that the former mayor of ATL is leading in the Democratic primary. I hope not. She wasn't a popular mayor and despite the fact that she is a Black female, my closest Black female friends don't like her and haven't voted for her in the primaries.

Lance-Bottoms really bungled the response during the 2020 riots. In the initial riots, she allowed the rioters to trash the downtown area and then they moved pretty much unmolested to the Lenox Square Mall 8-9 miles away and looted stores there.
Then came the Rayshard Brooks riots where she allowed #BLM terrorists to occupy a city block with armed force for weeks. This resulted in the murder of an eight year old girl.

If the brilliant, charismatic Stacey Abrams couldn't win, there is no chance that this woman can win, imo and in the opinion of many other people.

What is she doing with herself these days? I still think it was a mistake for her to not run for Senate in 2020 instead of the preacherman.

 

[Derec]

A marginal rate of 91% in a tax code without all the loopholes would probably do the trick. Not sure about the resulting economy.

"Trick" for what exactly?

But why are you hung up on an ultra literal interpretation? At least to me, it is pretty obvious from the discussion that Toni did not literally mean no one should have 1 billion dollars of wealth.

Whatever she might have meant, that's what she wrote.

 

[laughing dog]

A marginal rate of 91% in a tax code without all the loopholes would probably do the trick. Not sure about the resulting economy.

"Trick" for what exactly?

Eliminating billionaires.

 

[lpetrich]

OK, I give up, the system is corrupted and I have no idea what to do about it.

Same here. All the outrage over gerrymandering right now is understandable, but this has always been a corrosive problem. I have no other opinions on it because like the electoral college, it will never change barring a literal overthrow of the government.

There is a sure cure for gerrymandering: proportional representation. That will require multimember districts and some proportional method of vote counting like single transferable vote, a multiseat extension of instant runoff voting. But it can be done.

I have the incredibly naive thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

That would cut across lots of communities, and the resulting districts would vary greatly in population.

 

[Derec]

Bad news from Pennsylvania. The rabidly anti-Israel socialist Chris Rabb who campaigned with AOC and Hasan Piker won the primary in the most lopsided district in the country.

This is the problem with both district-based and plurality voting because he didn't get anywhere near the majority of primary vote.

At least the anti-Israel Republican Thomas Massie lost his primary though.

 

[Tigers!]

I have the incredibly naïve thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

You make electorates, districts based solely upon number of noses. Pick a number N and all districts need to be that size =/-%N.
The key is N is solely numeric. You do not concern yourself with what colour the noses are or how they voted large time. Just numeric.
It will not give you 'nice shaped' or equally sized districts but they will be geographically contiguous i.e. a continuous line can be drawn around the district, no gaps and no pieces elsewhere. The areas of the districts will vary according to population density but that does not matter. Number of noses, just number of noses.
Largest and smallest electorates in Australia based upon area

Because the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) must ensure each electorate has a relatively equal number of voters, densely populated urban areas are significantly smaller in land size compared to vast, sparsely populated regional and outback electorates

Reduces the possibility of gerrymandering considerably. Politicians and/or parties are not involved.

Requires apolitical electoral commissions (and keep judges largely out of it).

Oh wait. I see a problem for you.

 

[Derec]

A marginal rate of 91% in a tax code without all the loopholes would probably do the trick. Not sure about the resulting economy.

"Trick" for what exactly?

Eliminating billionaires.

If it's marginal rate on income (as opposed to wealth) it would not eliminate billionaires.

It would only slow down how quickly they become billionaires, but even that's dependent on how much they take out as income to spend vs. just leave in the business for investment and growth.