Almost nobody paid that 92% rate due to the tax deductions available at the time. And the total amount of taxes collected by the government has remained relatively stable (~19-20%) regardless of the tax rates over history. Google "Hausers Law" if you don't believe me.
Notice how flat that brown line is? That's the level of revenue, and it hasn't changed much even as the rates have.
In the '50s, the country was still producing goods for the rest of the world than hadn't caught up yet from the ravages of WWII.
There are still non-profit health insurance companies today.
http://www.nonprofithealthcare.org/
Healthcare costs have risen as technology has provided more advanced treatments. If you want to limit yourself to '50s era healthcare, your costs would be minimal, and your premiums low.
You had a nice house, food, and cheap fuel, along with a life expectancy 10-15 years less than today.
Today we have $4.00 gasoline, (expectations of) McMansions, I-Phones, High speed internet access, Cable TV (plasma or LCD, of course), vacations that often involve Airplanes/Ships, and so many other baubles (that didn't exist in your youth).
Times have changed. Some for good, and some for bad.
I did.
here’s what I found.
Hauser’s”law” is as preposterous a misrepresentation as the infamous “Laffer Curve.” Conservatives have been trying to prove the “trickle down” and (tax cuts and subsidies will “stimulate”)”job creators” myths for far too long now, and in the face of logic and historic fact to the contrary in both cases.
Economists have been “laffing” at both pseudoeconomic theories since the Right Wing “Think Tanks” and conservative administration advisors *coughpropagandamills* released them in Right Wing publications like Murdoch’s wsj.
“...this is beyond awful. It confuses what may be a desire of the American people not to be taxed beyond 19.5% of GDP, under a variety of tax systems, with an unfounded claim that the American people could not be taxed at a higher rate (on GDP) than 19.5%.
Specifically, it ignores the base-broadening that has accompanied much of the reduction in the top marginal tax rate. It ignores the increasing contribution to revenues played by the payroll tax, which has nothing to do with the top marginal tax rate. It is not robust against the standard Laffer curve critique—it will eventually not hold up for a sufficiently low top marginal tax rate. And the list could be extended. These shortcomings are obvious to anyone who takes just a moment to consider the claim, and yet the Wall Street Journal publishes it. They have no one to blame but themselves for the low regard in which they are being held. “
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/78256-lying-with-charts-wsj-edition
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/329/beyond-awful-wall-street-journal
http://elidourado.com/blog/debunking-hausers-law/
I believe if you KEEP soaking the rich, eventually they will run out of ways to cheat the tax laws - or even better, JUST LEAVE ALTOGETHER and make room for businessmen who are honest and responsible. In fact, given the mess they’ve made of the American quality of life, we need to claw back as much as humanly possible by OUTLAWING and POLICING those tax havens. This GROSS inequality will eventually cause the noted behavior in other Banana Republics - violent revolt and lawless chaos.