Telegram Isn't for Sale

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by nickik on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @03:54AM (#15903999)

This is a total BS argument. Nobody ever payed these taxes. Its far more accurate to look at what part of the GDP the government is spending. That number was the further back you go.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by aaronbrethorst on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @04:05AM (#15904043)

I'm citing my sources. You could at least show me the courtesy of doing the same.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by snowpanda on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @04:31AM (#15904164)

Not OP but he's right, your statement is slightly misleading, not many people actually paid that (fewer than 10,000 households[1]). A good source as you asked for can be found here:

[1] https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by aaronbrethorst on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @02:03PM (#15908398)

The Tax Foundation has been called a “deliberate fraud” by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation)

Also, 10,000 households in the 1950s is roughly equivalent to the top 1% of the top 1%, and exactly who i’d expect to be taxed at a rate of 90%+.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by nickik on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @07:57AM (#15905253)

I'm not saying the 90% number did not exist. My point is that overall government was lower then. What part of that are you not understanding?

[ Parent | on HN ]