>>>You got to check what income level was taxed by 90% rate and/or (it is a bit more cumbersome) check what was the rate for 250K income recalculated to 1950s (or other period) dollars. I can help you a bit, by the way. 90% rate was applied in 1950s to 400K+ income. You may figure out now what 400K from 1950s means in today's dollars. It could mean that only Hollywood crowd would be subjected to these taxes and Obama does not want to punish faithful constituency/donors.
>>
>>Wow Edward! So the "Hollywood crowd" makes that much money. Tell us how please! How does the Hollywood crowd earn all of their money? Seriously, I'm interested because I like money. Do you really know anything about how the Hollywood crowd makes this money? For instance, Who gives it to them? Why? I just gotta know, maybe you know and could tell us all.
>>
>>TIA,
>>Steven-
>
>Firstly, you got to find out how to refer yourself properly, i.e. calling yourself in plurals may reveal certain self-identification problems. You could find a mirror around and start counting. If you get 3 or 4, then try again. It means that getting to more complicated issues, like Hollywood, is premature.

I am sure Steven has slunk away in pain after that stinging retort ;-)

In fact I think he had a good point. There were any number of high income groups you could have chosen as an example, yet you chose the "Hollywood crowd," i.e. red meat to conservatives. (BTW, for a bunch of alleged liberals they sure put out a lot of deeply conservative movies, but that's a topic for another thread).