I think that Tracy gave you a good explanation why your assessment is wrong. $400K income 50 years ago is probably equal to $4M now, so it is just small fraction of population affection. Please, don't take me wrong it's totally unfair, and, imo, plain criminal that someone had to pay 91% tax at that time. I just mean that if you apply all brackets then you will see that taxes are higher now then they were 50 years ago. It is not a rocket science to know the reason for that: entitlements programs are getting out of control (big surprise) and taxes are the only source to plumb holes.

>(Boy, I hate top-posting, but I'm feeling too lazy to re-align this whole sub-thread.)
>
>I mean that we hear people complain all the time about how high taxes are in this country, when in fact, they used to be much higher, _especially_ for those at the top end of the income scale.
>
>Tamar
>
>>Sorry, I can't figure out what was your idea. Do you mean that taxes were higher that time?
>>
>>>Yeah, I think we flattened the whole thing some years back, reducing the number of brackets. But still, the idea that at some point, we had a marginal tax rate of 91% for anyone, even it was only a fraction of a percent.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>>That's misleading. I looked it up and it was only effective for those making taxible income over 400,000 a year... Back then, there were very few making that amount so it didn't impact the average American. In fact, it probably still wouldn't..
>>>>
>>>>(Source is from the snopes article)
>>>>
>>>>http://staff.jccc.edu/swilson/businessmath/fit.htm
>>>>and
>>>>http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The bottom tax bracket for federal income tax in 1955 was 20%, the lowest that rate had been since 1943. The highest tax bracket had first exceeded 50% as far back as 1932, and it was an astounding (by modern standards) 91% in 1955.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take that, those who think taxes are too high today.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar