Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Year 1964 Top Federal Income Tax Rates on Regular Income 91% Highest Income Tax Tier $200,000 Top Rate on Capital Gains 25%

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 31, 2011, 8:19 p.m. EST by USCitizenVoter (720)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Year 1964 Top Federal Income Tax Rates on Regular Income 91% Highest Income Tax Tier $200,000 Top Rate on Capital Gains 25%

Year 2011 Top Federal Income Tax Rates on Regular Income 40% Highest Income Tax Tier $378,250 Top Rate on Capital Gains 20%

82 Comments

82 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively. The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

 Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held  less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

  Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

IT"S A CORRRUPT SYSTEM and you listed some great examples of companies that can get the tax laws change to their favor. They formed an idea tax plan that would be in favor of the company years ago. It's no secret that some of the EX- IRS lawyers and EX-IRS accountants are on the company payrolls today and have been on well planned long term career paths most of their lives. The IRS was just their first job where they manage to get the tax laws changed then a company like GE employs them for the long term to prepare and file their business taxes. Now keep in mind the EX-IRS Lawyers and EX-IRS Accountants were involved in writing the tax laws while employed with the IRS creating tax laws that their current employers can use to lower the company taxes. It has been their game and they will continue to win because I'm sure that right now they have future employees that they will hire someday and these future employees are currently employed at the IRS at this very moment.

[-] 1 points by Josue (13) 8 years ago

Look at many of our strongest growth years since WWII. High taxes did not interfere with the postwar expansion. Let's stop bellyaching about taxes.

[-] 1 points by ryancozzens (32) 8 years ago

These figures include the new Deal and WW2 era taxes. Which is where we are headed. We don't need to get to those same figures, but we need to find a middle ground.

[-] 1 points by tehm (32) from Knoxville, TN 8 years ago

While I'm all for going back to Jan. 1964 I think there's a MUCH better argument that says we should simply fight to go back to the Reagan tax scheme (the real one here that was actually in effect under Reagan... not the fantasy plan that people today seem to think Reagan might have wanted maybe...).

Is it as good as the 1964 plan? Probably not... but it's a hell of a lot better than any plan we've had since and it has the advantage of being SACRED by virtue of having been advocated for and branded by "St. Ronnie"(tm).

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

So you want to get trickled on again?

[-] 1 points by tehm (32) from Knoxville, TN 8 years ago

So here's the thing...

Trickle down economics is a complete sham and it is an absolute travesty that both sides of the aisle have completely bought into it (remember all the fiasco with Solyndra? The problem isn't that the company failed. It's that we gave money to a company PERIOD. Demand creates supply, not the other way around.)

But see... I'm not advocating for a return to supply-side (though that was a major talking point of Reagan)... I'm talking about a return to his actual tax plan which if you remember had NO loopholes and capital gains taxed the same as the top tax bracket.

Think about it this way: You could make the top marginal rate 100% and by Mr. Buffett's own admission his total tax liability would still be below 20%. Why? Because almost everything he earns is counted as Capital gains.

Worse yet, under the current system with the way loopholes are setup GE ( a "person" now...) can literally get away with paying no taxes at all. 100% of nothing is still nothing.

Under St. Ronnie's provision at least both situations like these would instantly be remedied.

Is it perfect? Hell no. But it's still a whole lot more fair than any system we've had since.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

Ok I agree that capital gain should be taxed the same as income. No loopholes sounds good too. The rest of Reagans' policies,no.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

I voted for Him. I was a young man and my mother was right there voting for him too.

[-] 1 points by bsl041972 (37) 8 years ago

And the tax rates were even higher on top income earners in 1948. We managed to do ok, I think. Built the Highway system, sent a man to the moon. This flies in the face of every claim they make that lower taxes equal jobs.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

People have forgotten what it was like for their grandparents to scratch a living out of the dirt. It's easy to be Selfish

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

There's plenty of headroom to add new progressively higher tax brackets if you ask me, a new bracket for 1M+ at 45% and another for 10M+ at 50% make for nice round numbers. There's nothing so onerous in that as to force people to leave the country. How much of a dent in the freaking budget deficit would that make? The federal budget has been out of control for a looong time now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can't spend more than you have... reduce spending and raise revenue already... f'ing idiots in DC.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I vote that people only get to talk about what they feel THEY should pay.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

So you disagree with reducing spending and raising revenue... let me guess... especially the raising revenue part? Maybe you think we should increase spending and decrease revenue instead, that's basically what's been going on for the last decade. Or maybe you buy the idea that lowering taxes will magically increase revenue despite the fact that the last decade is evidence to the contrary?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

How about we return to the tax rates of 1964 ?

See http://occupywallst.org/forum/fix-the-deficit-return-to-1964-tax-rates/

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

I think that would be onerous to the degree of causing people leaving the country... so no... i don't think that would be a good idea.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Did you notice that even the lowest brackets were paying taxes in 1964 ?

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

awesome Beliefs have the power to create and the power to destroy. Human beings have the awesome ability to take any experience of their lives and create a meaning that disempowers them or one that can literally save their lives. by:Tony Robbins

[-] 1 points by Shrek (9) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

not sure of the source of this post, nor the one I am posting, but it seems there are different opinions

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/how-tax-burden-has-changed/#.Tq9LcbJbUro

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Doesn't need to be a matter of opinion. The old forms are available from the IRS at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 8 years ago

That 91% rate was swiss cheese after deductions and avoidance schemes. Those aren't there anymore.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

$200,000.00 in 1964 = $1,418,634.30 in 2011.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

"Yeah we been screwed" We do own this country you know. Frankie Nice work on the numbers Thanks

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

More accurately, the rates that you cited above would be PRIOR TO 1964. They were dropped to 71% in 64 and the personal exeption was started.

Although it sounds good when talking about how much less the "1%" are paying, the problem is that nobody ever talks about the rest of the rates. There were a lot more tiers back then but as examples:

  • At the low end, people were paying 20% at $0 - $2,000 (about $0 - $14,000 in 2011 dollars).

  • At the middle, 34% at $8,000 - $10,000 (about $50K to $70K in 2011).

  • At the upper middle, 56% at $20,000 - $22,000 (about $140K - $150K in 2011).

And that's with no cut off at the lower end, no personal exemptions, no earned income credit, etc., etc., which substantially lower the rates now.

Not many people would be real happy going back to pre-64 rates.

[-] 1 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

That 91% would be tough but how about 91% after $200,000 and They can have up front, first class parking privileges at all of the stores anywhere they shop in the US of A. Just put them at the front of the lines. Get them little stars to hang on their mirrors. The 1%ERS waste a hell of a lot of the planets resources. They are over consumers. I can't stand their attitudes of how they deserve to be Wastefull people. You think they care about the price of a gallon of gas. Hell no they have invested in barrells of oil and pray that it goes to $200 a barrell. I'll stop while I'm ahead.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I just LOVE how freely you talk about what should be done with the rightful property of others. It's so generous of you to leave them anything at all !

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

You think you own property. How are you going to take it with you to your grave. Do something good for the world.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Thanks for the offer, but I'll do with what I please. I was specifically thinking of setting up a trust to pay for the college educations of my descendants.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

And it's entirely up to me what I decide to do with my property. Property rights are sacred above all else. You do NOT get the right to tell me what to do with mine. If I want to give it all away, I have that right. If I want to keep it and use it solely for the purpose of gaining more property, that is my right as well.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

If your paying taxes every year on it then you don't own it. But I want to thank you for renting it and paying your taxes on it. Go get youself as much as you can. In fact I recommend that you buy some of that ocean front property. But you may not want to leave it to your children in your will. The news is reporting that it will be under water as the ocean levels rise due to future climate changes.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

That's exactly why we need to abolish property taxes as well. Why do the landowners have to pay for everything? Everyone who uses county services should have to pay a tax, and let it be based on household size.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Your an f n nut

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

Thank you. The plan is that it all works out okay. Eventually if I own enough houses in a given neighborhood I can peition the city to let me build parks and schools, but that's a ways off yet. So we shall see, we shall see.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

Actually, I have a few in a city that once held the title Murder Capital of the US. (I like 'em rough) But why should that matter? If it takes $5,000 a year to educate a kid, it shouldn't matter what city that kid is in.

And that's one effed up tax btw. Although I'm not surprised, local taxes can get so whacky. But that brings another problem; all those taxes discourage business. There are towns in my county I won't own a house in because it's just too much of a pain in the ass. People have to be able to make money off investments, real estate or other wise. If not, those investments will disappear.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Well you have big balls. Everyone knows USA towns can't survive and grow without investors like you. Hope you get the breaks your looking for.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

I don't understand why it matters if I'm making money though. I got into landlording to make a profit. No landlord I know gets into it not to make profit. But why am I being punished for making a profit? Again, do my tenants use more services just because they are tenants? I don't think so.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Sometimes it"s all about the location and I'm going to guess that the properties which you own are not in the highest crime areas of your city. Would prices of the properties and the taxes be less in those areas? Location- Location- Location. Now here is a good one for the tax list, our city has a tax category called your business personality tax. The value of your office furnishings are taxed every year. If you can depreciate it they will find a way to tax it.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

I did not say no taxes, I said no PROPERTY taxes. There is a difference. If the county wanted to institute a 5% income tax on everyone, no exceptions, to pay for these things then fine. But don't make as a homeowner pay but not the renter. And don't make me as a landlord pay more than a homeowner. Take what you need from everyone equally.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Most renters are there for a short term housing and are providing you with additional income from your investment $$$... Now in the long run... Who benifits the most from the deal? I'll close by stating as a matter of fact me being as respectfull to you as I can be that I don't have the solutions to resolve our counties problems if it is taxes or the corruption and greed that is upon us.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

Why....? Because I believe we should each pay for the services we use and not pay based on something completely arbitrary and unrelated to the amount of services we use? I own many properties and pay twice as many property taxes on them than those who just have the one home they live in do? I do not see how my tenants use any more services than they would if they were not tenant? I do not see how the size of my houses reflects how much garbage, police, and fire services the property uses. That makes me a nut how exactly?

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Have you ever been informed that it takes the entire village to raise a child? The children are our future. Plus no taxes = no schools, no roads, ect.

[-] -2 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

Need help making a t-shirt. We need to draw a picture of Zooccotti Park with a cage around it. Here are some ideas: Draw a hippie climbing the cage like a monkey and throwing shit.
Draw a hippie rolling in mud and shit like a pig.
Draw a hippies fucking like dogs.
Draw a picture of a hippie eating peanuts like a big fucking elephant. Draw a hippie as a lazy fucking Ape doing nothing.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Richardgates would you like to be intelligent? ( Well, YOUR NOT! YOU LOSER! ) Was your mother a hippie and you are ashamed of her? Your a dumb ass selfish asshole please stay off my post.

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

Eat my hippie ass dirt bagger.

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

Yes i agree ... Rates are still too high ...

[-] 0 points by Uriah (218) 8 years ago

Agreed. I have a feeling if some of these people made real money their tunes would change. I've never been rich, and don't really have the desire to be, but most of the rich guys I've known in my life worked for it (with the exception of a few blue bloods). I don't know any billionaires though.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

We can learn a lot from history if we want to.

[-] 0 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 8 years ago

These are rates that nobody paid. When they were cut, tax receipts from the richest dramatically INCREASED.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

where did you get your info from

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

You DO understand the unique position America held for about 30 years after WW II, right? The was no-place for our rich to go and we faced zero competition from overseas.

[-] 0 points by Tryagain (300) 8 years ago

Rates were higher then, but it was swiss cheese with deductions and avoidance schemes. Today, the rate pretty much sticks or can even go up. For example, you lose deductions equal to 3% of income over a threshold. That means that marginal rate for many is actually about 35%; it's 1.03 * 35%.

So, then is not comparable to now.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Just want to see if we can get the 1% to pay 91% to the Federal Gov.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

How about we instead take 91% of YOUR income. You seem to think that's fair.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

I will pay my share always have always will. In fact I have put my life on the line for this country served 6 years in our us army

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Hey brother, I'm a Vietnam Era veteran. Thanks for serving.

I pay my share too, but why is my share greater than anyone elses given "equal protection," "due process," etc?

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

No chance ... No one should pay 91% of their income in taxes to support others

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

That's too bad you know our forefathers and many since have given up their lives for the US of A

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

What does that mean? They revolted against unfair taxation. They didn't want to create a European welfare state

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Yes onced upon a time that happened but we have a lot more history than fighting for our first independence. There has been a hell of a lot of wars and struggles for freedom and justice since then. It takes time to research just the history of Americas presidents and what kind of works they did and why they made the choices that shape our country.

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

Ok thanks. U still aren't going to get 90% tax rates

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

That 90% would be tough but how about 90% after $200,000 and They can have up front, first class parking privileges at all of the stores anywhere they shop in the US of A. Just put them at the front of the lines. Get them little stars to hang on their mirrors. The 1%ERS waste a hell of a lot of the planets resources. They are over consumers. I can't stand their attitudes of how they deserve to be Wastefull people. You think they care about the price of a gallon of gas. Hell no they have invested in barrells of oil and pray that it goes to $200 a barrell. I'll stop while I'm ahead.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

How about you stop trying to declare what should happen to the rightful property of others and declare what YOU should be paying ?

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

Rico you must have a lot of wealth you sure bitch a lot.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I have precisely as much wealth as I am entitled to. So do you. Why do you think you get to tell me what to do with my money?

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

Who cares what they spend their money on ... They earned it so why do you feel entitled to their money ?

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

I detect anti-Semitism with that "hang stars on their mirrors" section. How about you? And you're right, they don't need to give up what they earned. That's real greed and envy.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

I have to questions a lot of things that wealthy people tend to do. Like Killing a wild animal just to mount it's head upon a wall or Killing a hundred sharks for the fins or how about Killing a wild bear to harvest it's gall blader and sell it. How about the people driving new vehicles that get 14 miles per gallon of fuel. When we have used every last drop of oil it won't matter any longer. If you made fuel from all of the corn grown in the US of A that corn will only replace 3% of the gas that is used in the US of A.

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

They can drive cars with any mpg they want ... Hunt animals... Eat meat .... It is called freedom

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

I'm calling that B.S. they feel Privileged. 1.Having special rights, advantages, or immunities. 2.Having the rare opportunity to do something that brings particular pleasure.

[-] 1 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 8 years ago

So what .... It is a free country .... Now you are going to tell people what they are allowed to do? You are crazy

[-] -1 points by foreverleft (233) 8 years ago

Ever notice when rates increase reported income decreases exponentially? Look at graphs, its amazing. :)

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

graphs are amazing need to be shared

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

end the irs!!!

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

repair the IRS

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

no we should not have an income tax