Alan Grayson- "A Dollar is a Dollar". Best US tax history graphic I've seen.

[ErikJ]

Last edited Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:16 PM - Edit history (2)

See that last tiny blip up at the end of the green line? That's what Obama is trying to go back to, 39%. And that is only on any part of the person's income that is over $1 million. And for this the GOP propaganda machine is calling Obama 'socialist, Marxist, communist ', etc.

Its interesting that in 1917-21 you can see the top tax rate for both the income AND capital gains were exactly the same. That's what it should be now. As Alan Grayson says "A DOLLAR IS A DOLLAR!", so they should be taxed the same. The billionaire investor class has been fooling Americans for 90 years.

“If we go back to the principle that a dollar is a dollar and just because you’re rich, and you get it through capital gains, doesn’t mean you get some sort of special tax break,” he said. “If we go back to the sense that a dollar is a dollar, they’re all green, let’s tax them equally, that itself will go substantially to reduce the deficit. That tax break alone is over $100 billion a year.”-Alan Grayson
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1sxh0)

?format=1500w

http://visualizingeconomics.com/tax-rate-poster/

---------------------------for clarity here are the top marginal Income Tax rates --------------------


Year Top Marginal Rate Year Top Marginal Rate Year Top Marginal Rate
1913 7.0% 1946 86.45% 1979 70.00%
1914 7.0% 1947 86.45% 1980 70.00%
1915 7.0% 1948 82.13% 1981 69.13%
1916 15.0% 1949 82.13% 1982 50.00%
1917 67.0% 1950 91.00% 1983 50.00%
1918 77.0% 1951 91.00% 1984 50.00%
1919 73.0% 1952 92.00% 1985 50.00%
1920 73.0% 1953 92.00% 1986 50.00%
1921 73.0% 1954 91.00% 1987 38.50%
1922 56.0% 1955 91.00% 1988 28.00%
1923 56.0% 1956 91.00% 1989 28.00%
1924 46.0% 1957 91.00% 1990 31.00%
1925 25.0% 1958 91.00% 1991 31.00%
1926 25.0% 1959 91.00% 1992 31.00%
1927 25.0% 1960 91.00% 1993 39.60%
1928 25.0% 1961 91.00% 1994 39.60%
1929 24.0% 1962 91.00% 1995 39.60%
1930 25.0% 1963 91.00% 1996 39.60%
1931 25.0% 1964 77.00% 1997 39.60%
1932 63.0% 1965 70.00% 1998 39.60%
1933 63.0% 1966 70.00% 1999 39.60%
1934 63.0% 1967 70.00% 2000 39.60%
1935 63.0% 1968 75.25% 2001 38.60%
1936 79.0% 1969 77.00% 2002 38.60%
1937 79.0% 1970 71.75% 2003 35.00%
1938 79.0% 1971 70.00% 2004 35.00%
1939 79.0% 1972 70.00% 2005 35.00%
1940 81.10% 1973 70.00% 2006 35.00%
1941 81.00% 1974 70.00% 2007 35.00%
1942 88.00% 1975 70.00% 2008 35.00%
1943 88.00% 1976 70.00% 2009 35.00%
1944 94.00% 1977 70.00% 2010 35.00%
1945 94.00% 1978 70.00% 2011 35.00%

[loudsue]

1. But that would make too much sense! Not something republicans are capable of

doing....acting with good sense.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. K&R for Congressman Grayson!

It's such a relief to have him back, speaking out for us...

[Filibuster Harry]

3. The Rs are such a bunch of jerks. You think the tax rate currently if 40 or 50% and that the

President wants to increase it to 70%.


In 1969: top rate was 70% on income over $ 200,000 (MFJ) and 70% over $ 100,000 (single)
plus a tax surcharge of 10% on your tax

1983: I don't have the rates but I have tax tables:
$ 50,000 (Joint) tax = $ 12,004; (single) tax = $ 14,727

1988: Worksheet table to figure tax : single over $ 89,560; joint over $ 149,250.-
The rates for amounts just below those listed above were 33%.
Example: joint with taxable income of $ 200,000 their tax = $ 57,092
An effective rate of 28.5%

1995: joint income over $ 256,500 tax was $ 77,263 + 39.6% (amount - 256,500)
single over $ 256,500 tax was $ 81,711 + 39.6% (amount - 256,500)

2009: joint income over $ 372,950 tax was $ 100,895 + 35% (amount - 372,950)
single over $ 372,950 tax was $ 108.216 + 35% (amount - 372,950)


The rich never had it so good and now they are as selfish as ever by having this unfair 15% tax rate.
If this rate is such a fair one then how come no president in this country (prior to W) including Reagan
proposed and passed it.

[Barack_America]

4. Taxes on the rich preceding the Great Depression and Great Recession look eerily similar.

And look at that 90% tax rate on the rich during our nation's period of greatest prosperity!

[abelenkpe]

12. +1000 nt

[Kaleva]

18. When the rich have too much money, they tend to wreak the economy for their own gains.

[colsohlibgal]

5. Nice

The chances you'll see anything like that on the 6:30 news are slim and none.

[libodem]

6. I heart the guts guy

Exceptional!!!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Looks interesting but is unreadable. Is there a copy that hasn't been clobbered to 650 pixels wide?

[ErikJ]

11. Hit the link and it gives a bigger version

But even that is indistinct. I think it may be so you cant print off your own posters as this is a poster for sale.

But I like it because it puts all the tax rates together in one graphic. I saw a pretty good one somewhere else a year ago but I cant find it now. But I dont think it went back as far. I wish I could see what the top graph is all about. I might just have to buy the poster.

?format=1500w

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. No, the link gives the same version. 650 pixels, if you use "View Image". It's an illusion on the

No, the link gives the same version. 650 pixels, if you use "View Image". It's an illusion on the link page where they use HTML code to command the browser to expand the image (mangle the image).

But thanks anyway. I think you are right, it is limited to encourage poster sales, but it is frustrating.

[Dirty Socialist]

8. Republican Nirvana Is Achieved

Taxes for the rich and corporate are the lowest since 1916. Of course, this means boundless wealth for America, right? Right?

[Rain Mcloud]

9. So where are all these trickle down magic jobs?

With the tax rates so low,why is the world economy teetering on the toilet seat with a wet towel tied around around it's neck to the fire sprinkler?
Yeah,job creators,right!

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. Back at it with the charts

[Volaris]

13. lol well THAT didn't take long...

you would think he might take a few weeks off, and enjoy the fact that he got his smart and awesome self back into Congress. But NOOOOOO, THIS motherfucker just goes ahead and goes the fuck back to WORK.

If Nancy decides she, and the rest of the long-timers should make some room for some "new blood" in the Leadership, I want Alan as the new House Party Whip. How fun would that be, to watch the Tea Party Caucus just get their ass kicked every time they think it's a good idea to just yammer out idiot, dittohead nonsense from the floor of the House?

Welcome Back, Alan, we missed you.

[2naSalit]

15. I agree with that

Representative Grayson would be an awesome party whip.

I don't think he ever really stopped working during this last Congress, he must have known he'd get his seat back after the folks in his district figured out what they got instead.

I wish we had at least one of him in every state, in my case it would be my only representative, and I got a real looooozer. So I don't really have any representation where I'm at. When I go on a phone calling campaign, I have to call Congressional people representing other states and ask them to oppose the shit the toads from MY state either introduced or are supporting. It sucks but I am not relocating, I have a right to live where I do for the reasons I do, the trade off is that I have the burden of a bad set of Congressional folks who don't seem to think I qualify as a constituent since I didn't give them a million bucks to get their attention. Not sure it would be much different elsewhere since I am of one of those groups who have at least three strikes against them on the acceptance scale.

Bravo for Alan Grayson! Thank you, sir.

[TeamsterDem]

16. Right again, Mr. Grayson. Now if only we had about 434 more just like you in the House. nt

[bvar22]

17. This puts it all in perspective.

One not so pleasant epiphany is that the Democratic Party is NOW
fighting for Historic LOW Tax Rates on the RICH,
and this would be considered a VICTORY! by Democrats...
Low Taxes on the RICH = a Democratic VICTORY!

Man, are "they" GOOD at framing the debate!

We should be fighting FOR a return to the successful Tax (+70%) and Trade policies of the 60s! Now THAT would be worth FIGHTING FOR,
and would bring the Republicans crawling and begging for 39%!

THAT is HOW to Frame this "Debate"!