Hey, in the 1950s the top marginal income tax rate in the US was well over 90%. Barkley Rosser On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:38:39 -0400 Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> wrote:
> >>Tax burdens have been fairly stable over time. Shares
> >>move as income distribution changes, which has been a lot
> >>in recent decades.
> >>
> >
> >Hey Max, what about the corporate tax? During the eighties(are they really
> over?)I remember reading in one of the left rags that if the corporate tax
> burden was the same as it was in the 50's, it would wipe out TheDeficit.>
>
> As long as Madonna is taking off her
> clothes in public the 80's will never
> really be over.
>
> The 1950's are before "a couple of decades"
> which was the time period I was noting.
> It's true the corporate tax share was
> much higher then. In my view too much
> is made of this.
>
> Here's a snip from a paper I'm writing,
> exclusively to LBO-talk:
>
> "In 1996, Federal personal income tax revenues were $687 billion and
> corporate tax revenues $195 billion. The Federal budget was $1,698 billion,
> or 22 percent of GDP. For the U.S. public sector (Federal, state, and
> local) to enter the lower ranks of the European social democracies, it would
> need at least another seven percent of GDP, or about $530 billion in 1996
> (Department of Commerce, 1997).
>
> Corporate profits net of tax were $448 billion, so even under a 100 percent
> corporate income tax the U.S. could not finance a modestly social-democratic
> state. If we imagined a whopping, 50 percent increase of $100 billion in
> corporate taxes, we would still have a shortfall of $430 billion. (This
> increase would reduce dividend payments subject to the personal income tax,
> so the $100 billion overstates the net proceeds of the increase, and the
> shortfall would exceed $430 billion.)" [ (c) Max B. Sawicky ]
>
> Bottom line is that the rich will not finance
> socialism, social-democracy, or even national
> health insurance. Not even close.
>
> MBS
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu