Home
> Uncategorized > Top marginal U.S. income tax rate 1913 to 2013
Top marginal U.S. income tax rate 1913 to 2013
source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
It would be interesting to see an approximation of actual rates paid.
Can you post Kindermann and Krueger’s working paper and their information sources?
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/how-have-the-top-and-bottom-income-tax-brackets-changed-over-time
Some detail:https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/
“Despite these limitations, Kindermann and Krueger say that a top marginal tax rate in the range of 90 percent would decrease both income and wealth inequality, bring in more money for the government and increase everyone’s wellbeing — even those subject to the new, much higher income tax rate.”
Kindermann and Krueger have done a great service. But the economists and others who carry the water for “the gospel that tax cuts for the highest income earners are good” are not interested in taxes or rates per se. They are interested in first, destroying democracy, second, destroying any effective government not ruled by the “highest income earners,” and third reducing the wellbeing of all who oppose their program. I’d say quash the poor and middle class, but it sounds so crass.