Are you including the fact that $100,000 in the 1950s is more than $1million after accounting for inflation?

According to some quick googling, $1,300,000 is the modern equivalent of $100,000 in 1950. That would put you in the top 5% earners (and very nearly in the top 1%). According to the IRS, the top 5% contribute about 65% of the tax burden.

The top 25% make up about 90% of contributions, but that starts around $70,000 annual income.

that is fascinating… do you have some longer easy to read source to learn about this topic?

also, you say those earning 100k in 1950’s only carried 20% of tax burden and now they carry 80%… what exactly is tax burden and is that number inflation adjusted? how big fraction of income distribution are we talking about?

The best thing to have is a variable tax rate that goes up the more profit is made.

That’s how it is in my country.

Sure. Gimme a progressive tax rate across the board.

One problem with that is that companies could create a ton of subsidiaries or shell companies and move money around in funny ways to keep all of them at the lowest bracket

Here’s a wild idea… tax corporations based on income, not profit.

Are you argiuing that corpate tax rates should double to its peak rates? Would that also mean personal rates should double back to its peak? Graphs paint a very incomplete and poor picture that are easily misunderstood.

In the 1950’s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but people were allowed to avoid income tax by funneling income through corporate tax shelters, leaving a top effective tax rate that wasn’t much higher than it is today. Not only that, but the tax burden has also shifted dramatically since the 1950’s. In Eisenhower’s day, those earning more than $100,000 per year shouldered around 20% of the tax burden. Today, the equivalent economic class shoulders over 80% of the tax burden. Lowering the tax rates and eliminating loopholes in the 1960’s and 1980’s actually resulted in the rich paying a much higher share of total taxes.

The high rate created incentives for corporations to find ways to minimize their tax burden, such as increasing debt financing, retaining earnings, and pursuing tax loopholes. This led to distortions in corporate decision-making and the allocation of capital. Additionally, the high rate may have discouraged some new business formation and investment.

Whether a 90% corporate tax rate, BTW, which never existed, would work effectively today is debatable. The economy and global business environment have changed considerably since Eisenhower’s era. A rate that high could potentially lead to more severe distortions, capital flight, and reduced competitiveness for U.S. companies in the modern globalized economy. Most tax policy experts believe a more moderate corporate rate, combined with a broader tax base and fewer loopholes, would be more effective at raising revenue while minimizing economic distortions.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.

One of the driving economic forces associated with taxation is human nature. You simply cannot legislate around it. Enter the Laffer Curve. Google it. Basically, if the government taxes at zero percent, it gets no revenue. That’s obvious. If the tax rate is 100%, you get the same result. People either won’t work or (more likely) they’ll work for cash under the table. Tax evasion becomes a full-time indoor sport. As government increases tax rates from 0% to 10%, it gets money! It gets even more if it goes from 10% to 20%. But soon that revenue curve that was steadily increasing starts to bend downward toward 0% again as tax rates increase. Liberals think that if you get $X with a tax rate of 33%, then you’ll get three times as much if tax rates triple to 100%. Nope! This isn’t just a theory. It’s a recorded historical event. We’ve seen certain tax rates be reduced and yet revenue increased! Magic? Nope. The tax rate was simply on the right side of the Laffer Curve. Makes sense! This principle also demonstrates that there is a maximum amount of revenue any government can extract from the population. Politicians promising more spending than this maximum revenue level are pandering, or perhaps are economicly uneducated. Perhaps they lack a understanding of human nature. They do understand that many voters are also economically uninformed and will vote for politicians who promise free stuff and a “tax the rich” solution to supposedly pay for it all. See you in the Bahamas!