Sure the effective rates were the same. Those 90% rates of the 50s and 60s were rarely collected, by design. Corporations were forced to reinvest in the business by those taxes, not forced to suffer them. They were forced grow their business (thus jobs and the economy), not their elitist bank accounts like today.
Those are individual rates, not corporate rates. What I wrote did not address corporate taxation at all. So, that’s a bit off the original topic.
And Friedman? Idealist at best and elitist apologist at worst. Little in the real world actually works like Friedman explained.
I’ll have to disagree vis a vis the Great Depression. There’s still some contention about the contribution of the various causes, but I’ve not seen anyone baldly claim that Friedman was wrong about the GD, or that he did not provide the most in-depth analysis of its causes.
What Friedman did other than the GD is again, a bit off topic and subjective. Although I quite agree that no “ism” ever works perfectly as designed (or expected)
We all have a bias. I personally and biased towards the effects of economic policy on the middle and lower classes. Thus I am as not well versed on the economic propaganda of the upper classes as you are. (Of course, it’s pretty much all propaganda, due to the lack of an objective Press.)
Well, that’s why you gotta do the math :-)
But I do notice that you are deferential to the Reagan era economic outlook. So I’m interested to see how you might define the benefits of supply side economics, in Friedmanesque terms, with respect to the runaway wealth divide we have today?
Well, supply side economics never was really implemented during the Reagan term. You can see that from the effective rates. Supply side requires that you cut taxes for the upper quintile for measurable benefits in the other quintiles. So, if there was no tax cut, there could be no measurable benefits.
That’s on the face of it. Reality was a little more complicated.
When Reagan ended the financial engineering by which the upper quintile lowered their AGI’s, all that capital that previously was “invested” for the tax break went looking for another place to be invested. Obviously, it flowed into the stock market, which took off during the Reagan years.
So, that explains the market boom and how the rich got richer, even though their taxes didn’t change, to a very large extent; they simply had money to invest.
Of course, they’ve continued to get richer during the post-Reagan years, but now you’re getting into the subjects of globalization and information technology, the latter of which has the effect of routing money that used to be paid to middle class workers into the pockets of the technologist.