[quote=briansd1]That does not refudiate SK’s point in any way.

And nobody is talking 90% of the amount over 250k. The point is that a progressive tax structure is not bad for growth and productivity. It can be very good for jobs.[/quote]The point was NEVER about progressiveness of the tax code. Our tax code has ALWAYS been progressive, so there nothing nothing to debate or refute there.

SK’s point was, we had 90% tax rate in 1963 and we had good economic growth. Then he said this:
[quote=SK in CV]But I could make a pretty strong argument that increasing the top tax rate, particuarly on businesses, would be good for the economy, but not to 90%. Somewhere between 50 and 60% would help. Higher top tax rates encourage businesses to spend money when the government pays for half of it.[/quote]
So, while we all can agree 90% is too high, he said a 50-60% tax rate would help and higher top tax rates encourage businesses to spend money. That got me thinking about 1963 tax brackets. I find out that the minimum tax rate was 20%. If we had good economic growth in the early 60s because of higher top marginal tax rate, then one can say we had good economic growth in the early 60s because of higher minimum tax rate as well. BTW, the standard deduction back then was 10% of your AGI, not a fixed number, so EVERYONE pay taxes.