Ritsu

Wow, youre beautiful 😍

Are you argiuing that corpate tax rates should double to its peak rates? Would that also mean personal rates should double back to its peak? Graphs paint a very incomplete and poor picture that are easily misunderstood.

In the 1950’s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but people were allowed to avoid income tax by funneling income through corporate tax shelters, leaving a top effective tax rate that wasn’t much higher than it is today. Not only that, but the tax burden has also shifted dramatically since the 1950’s. In Eisenhower’s day, those earning more than $100,000 per year shouldered around 20% of the tax burden. Today, the equivalent economic class shoulders over 80% of the tax burden. Lowering the tax rates and eliminating loopholes in the 1960’s and 1980’s actually resulted in the rich paying a much higher share of total taxes.

The high rate created incentives for corporations to find ways to minimize their tax burden, such as increasing debt financing, retaining earnings, and pursuing tax loopholes. This led to distortions in corporate decision-making and the allocation of capital. Additionally, the high rate may have discouraged some new business formation and investment.

Whether a 90% corporate tax rate, BTW, which never existed, would work effectively today is debatable. The economy and global business environment have changed considerably since Eisenhower's era. A rate that high could potentially lead to more severe distortions, capital flight, and reduced competitiveness for U.S. companies in the modern globalized economy. Most tax policy experts believe a more moderate corporate rate, combined with a broader tax base and fewer loopholes, would be more effective at raising revenue while minimizing economic distortions.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.

...? Your numbers literally state that PERSONAL marginal income taxes were 90%. Corporate taxes were, yes, 100% higher. So were personal tax rates.

The top marginal corporate tax rate never exceeded 52.9%. This is conflating the corporate tax rate with the individual income tax rate. The marginal rate was raised above 80% during the Great Depression, and it was raised above 90% in the 1940’s.

In the 1950’s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but people were allowed to avoid income tax by funneling income through corporate tax shelters, leaving a top effective tax rate that wasn’t much higher than it is today (the exact number is hard to calculate). Not only that, but the tax burden has also shifted dramatically since the 1950’s. In Eisenhower’s day, those earning more than $100,000 per year shouldered around 20% of the tax burden. Today, the equivalent economic class shoulders over ~~80%~~ 40% of the tax burden.

Heres another flaw: when tax rates were 90%, the tax code also provided for tons of deductions that no longer exist. It also treated income from many sources as not being subject to tax, such as income derived from trusts or investments held in trusts. Imagine Bill Gates placing his Microsoft stock into a trust and only paying tax on the money he takes as a salary from his Foundation or from speaking fees. Sure, his “tax rate” might hit 90%, but the vast majority of his income would escape taxation. Such was the tax code under Eisenhower. You can’t just compare tax rates without also accounting for the rest of the tax laws including credits, deductions, exclusions, and definitions of taxable income.

So, no, corporate tax rates were literally never 90%.

Liquidity Risk: Paying in full ties up a large amount of capital in one asset, reducing financial flexibility and liquidity.

Opportunity Cost: The capital used for a lump sum payment could potentially yield higher returns if invested elsewhere. Although, at current rates that is probably unlikely.

Leverage: Mortgages allow for leverage, where you can control a large asset with a smaller initial investment.

Interest Rates: With historically low interest rates, financing can be more cost-effective than using cash. This is currently not true.

Diversification: Investing the money in a diversified portfolio can reduce risk compared to putting it all in a single property. See Leverage.

Tax Benefits: Mortgage interest payments can often be tax-deductible, which is not applicable when buying outright.

Sounds like you don't know the story of core-js. Any popular open-source is basically unsustainable without profit.

https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-02-14-so-whats-next.md

It's literally AI art