Coming Attractions: Rep. Paul Ryan Warns of a Top Marginal Tax Rate of 88% (Video)

ThreeFingersofPolitics.com ^ | March 19, 2010

[Rufus2007]

Since the health care debate has swung into high gear, Republican Wisconsin congressman Rep. Paul Ryan stock has gone up as well, coming off as smart, intelligent and able to take the . He was Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program last night criticizing what health care reform would do to the deficit. But he said something else that really caught my ear. As he explained, based on projections from the so-called non-partisan Congressional Budget Office tax-rates will skyrocket with the wealthiest pay an astounding 88-percent rate within 30 years. [Transcript below video]

[Oceander]

No, it wouldn't. The US has had marginal rates that high before. As set out in the table on this webpage, the highest marginal rate ever was 92% for the tax years 1952 and 1953, although that was subject to an effective tax rate limitation of 88% of "statutory income." Essentially, as the footnotes on that webpage make clear, for most of the 50s and 60s, the highest marginal tax brackets topped out at the equivalent of an effective tax rate of 87% to 88%.

Not, mind you, that this makes such an abomination defensible. The DEEM-ocrats must be permanently gelded politically before we allow them to do that to us.

[Rusty0604]

I wonder how many even bothered to make enough to be taxed at that rate? Are there any stats?

[ol' hoghead]

IIRC, at the close of the WWII/ Korean war era,the top marginal income tax rate was c. 90%. There were 15 or more descending rates below the top rate.

JFK was able to get the top rate down to c. 70% in 1962 with a large number of descending rates below that.

The Great Ronald W. Reagan was able to bring the top rate of 28% with only two rates below that.

[Graybeard58]

Possibly at Wiki but who can trust that source.

In 1963 I was working under those outrageous rates but as a "G.I.", the top marginal rate didn't affect me a whole lot.

[scott7278]

I don’t know, but I remember reading about actors like Reagan purposefully turning down movie roles so as not to go into the highest tax bracket.

In the real world, that means having to work just hard enough, or even quit working, in order not to be penalized for success.

It also means that you can move up positionally but down with the pocketbook. All because of freeloaders.

[mtrott]

Well, there can’t be another world war(that would be survivable anyway) that they could try to justify 80% tax rates with. The gravy train is over for the Great Society, will have to be rolled back. Further, there is going to be open rebellion if they go down this road, particularly this individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The federal government simply does not own citizens and does not have the authority to force them to buy it.

[Spartan79]

If rates approach the levels discussed in this post, the freaks in Hollywood and the limousine liberals on the east coast will turn against the dems so quick it’ll make their head spin. They’ll have to rely on campaign contributions from their buddies in ACORN and the SEIU, and will thus be limited to hand-painted campaign signs. UAW and other industrial workers unions make too much money to put up with this nonsense, and we’ll see a return of the Reagan democrats to the fold.

[Dayman]

It doesn’t matter how many people earn enough to be taxed at that rate. No gov’t has the right to demand that much money from anyone.

Taxation should be uncoupled from income and everyone pays the same amount, regardless of productivity/income.

[The Pack Knight]

Keep an eye on Paul Ryan. That man gets it.

If it isn’t too late, maybe he ought to consider running for Senate against Feingold this year if Tommy Thompson doesn’t.