U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 - <AUTHOR> http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets <comment><USER2> Take a look at 1953. Top rate, 92%.

Consider the 1950s. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the general in charge of winning WWII in Europe, a Republican, and very much into heavy defense spending. That administration developed, mass-produced and deployed nuclear submarines, B-52 bombers, ICBMs, aircraft carriers, A-bombs, and H-bombs. Bases were maintained all over the world, with large numbers of troops. Plus, the US paid some of the costs of putting Europe and Japan back together, and the interest on the national debt from WWII.

Financial regulation was tight. There were commercial banks, which could take deposits and make loans, but couldn't trade in the stock market. There were savings and loans, which could make loans on houses and take deposits but not much else. There were stockbrokers, which could deal in stocks but not trade for their own account. Most stockbrokers were partnerships, such as Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Beane, with the partners personally liable for losses. There were a few investment banks trading for their own account, such as J.P. Morgan. They were using their own money, and if they went under, that was their problem. Finance was very clearly subordinate to doing real stuff.

The CEO of United States Steel made about $42,000 a year. The first billionaire had not yet appeared; John Paul Getty, a Texas oilman, broke through that barrier in the 1960s.

Yet this locked-down economy produced the greatest economic boom in American history.

<comment><USER3> Keep in mind that the rest of the developed worlds' infrastructure and productive capacity had been bombed to oblivion. Of course it was a boon to the American economy, despite the political situation. The US was the only place left standing that could mass-produce complex goods in conjunction with its new-found standing as the most powerful military. The world we live in now is very different - it's flattened out. A large number of nations have either matched or surpassed the US in both productivity and standard of living.

<comment><USER4> Trade was a very small part of the US postwar economy. The economic boom was almost entirely Americans making stuff and selling it to other Americans:

[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/19/opinion/11191...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/19/opinion/111912krugman3/111912krugman3-blog480.jpg)

<comment><USER3> You reinforce my point. Buying products from overseas was not viable because their capacity was bombed to hell. Not many electric washing machines coming out of these places after the war:

[UK] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/world_war2/scotl...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/world_war2/scotlands_blitz/includes/resources/images/clydebank_ruins.jpg)

[Japan] [https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-PR-Japan/img/USA- PR...](https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-PR-Japan/img/USA-PR- Japan-447.2.jpg)

[Germany] [http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/berlin_ww2-P.jpeg](http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/berlin_ww2-P.jpeg)

<comment><USER4> You're making a case against free trade then.

If things were so good for so many Americans because we weren't trading with anyone, then why'd we start?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just a reminder: due to the exceptional circumstances following World War II, the top marginal individual tax rate was around 90%. (The effective rate was really about 70% for the highest incomes since so few paid actually the top rate.)

This was largely to prevent war profiteering, though it lasted until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. It's not really relevant to our times unless you're forecasting another global war, in which case all bets are off.

<comment><USER6> > It's not really relevant to our times unless you're forecasting another > global war, in which case all bets are off.

According to [http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new- economy/2011/1025/Iraq...](http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new- economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will-cost-more-than-World-War-II), the Iraq war will wind up costing "more than the $3.6 trillion the US spent to fight World War II, even after adjusting for inflation". Add in Afghanistan and the ongoing airstrikes and likely expansion into other areas of extremism, and maybe we should start talking about Americans at home paying a bit for the militarism in the form of higher tax rates.

<comment><USER7> Is that an argument for higher tax rates or lower ones? After all, if you are anti-war, would you really say tax rates should be higher so that we can have more wars?

The weird thing seems to be that the people who are most anti-war want higher tax rates for things that are not war, and then when the money gets spent on war, they want even higher tax rates for the things they were originally promised but didn't get.

Looking at tax history it seems like a repeating game of bait and switch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just a reminder that modern wars are done off the books without "pay fors" that congress insists on for everything else or your taxes would be absolutely insane. Like the $2 Trillion Iraq War.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure about the "pay fors" you're talking about, but I believe your sentiment is correct-- and effectively, that $2T came out of the economy via the hidden tax of inflation.

While people would be mad to see the $2T in direct taxation (what you called "Absolutely insane") they do not realize it when it is done via inflation. (Eg: your gas prices, food prices, everything else is higher, because the government just printed the money to spend on the war, increasing the debt and devaluing the dollar.)

From The Economic Consequences of the Peace: "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth." John Maynard Keynes

<comment><USER9> Generally when new spending is proposed it needs to be budgeted and either money repurposed from somewhere or new taxes introduced. This is sometimes referred to as "pay-fors".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool data source. Thanks for sharing. In case anyone is curious about the early history of the income tax, or why it is so spotty prior to 1913:

The income tax was first imposed in 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. Prior to that, the government got most of its income from excise taxes and tariffs.

In 1895, the Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional, since it was not apportioned fairly between states, which is why the government added the 16th amendment in 1913, which gave it the power to impose an unapportioned income tax.

<comment><USER11> I still find it baffling that the USA has _not_ had a Federal income tax for about half of its existence.

<comment><USER4> During that time the US Federal Government was funded through tariffs and through selling land on the western frontier.

<comment><USER11> This is interesting because the federal government still owns a lot of the land in the western half of the country. I saw an infographic recently (sourcing a federal agency's statistics) which said that 48% of California's and 88% of Nevada's land are owned by the federal government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> God Damm, 90% tax rate!!

<comment><USER13> I see this kind of comment an awful lot, and I have two immediate reactions:

The first is a sort of dumb and dumber "we landed on the moon!" feeling where I actually can't believe that someone didn't know that there used to be a 90% marginal tax rate. Perhaps you live outside of the United States?

The second is that the 90% tax rate is completely misleading, as there were so many deductions and loopholes that hardly anybody ever paid it.

Every time somebody brings up the 90% rate, it's always someone on the left attempting a "We could raise tax rates a whole lot more; just look at how high they used to be". It's one of the most disingenuous arguments in politics.

<comment><USER14> There's also the point pg brought up in his most recent essay[1]:

"To some extent this was an illusion. Much of the de facto pay of executives never showed up on their income tax returns, because it took the form of perks. The higher the rate of income tax, the more pressure there was to pay employees upstream of it."

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/re.html](http://paulgraham.com/re.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Instead of having all of these tax brackets, which for all of the smart people and companies they are meaningless anyway since they take advantage of the hundreds and hundreds of loopholes (also called "deductions") so they don't pay the full amount, why not have a flat 15-20% income tax for _everyone_ instead - rich or poor?

I think it would be simpler, more honest, more transparent, and more fair (slightly favoring the rich, but it more than makes up or it in other ways). You also wouldn't have these endless discussions about whether you should tax the poor 10% (because the tax affects them more) and the rich 30%, or the poor 30% and the rich 10% (because they are the "job creators")?

A moderately fair flat 15% income tax for everyone. No deductions for any special interest.

I'm not a huge fan of subsidies either, but if you really think you need to "make it easier" for some vital or up and coming industries, then you could give them some subsidies for a while. That would also be a more direct and more transparent approach than giving them lower taxes, because then you'd know exactly how much of the taxpayer's money is going into aiding an industry and there would be bigger pressure to end that subsidy eventually.

<comment><USER3> Easy answer - it removes divisive politics from the equation. No more "the rich don't pay their fair share" from the _left_ and "what's mine is mine" from the _right_. Both of those are powerful tactics that the bureaucrats employ to keep us bickering while them and their cronies rob us blind.

<comment><USER3> By the way, a number of countries have a flat income tax:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems)

<comment><USER3> It's interesting to get down votes for sharing link to wikipedia. Is taking a look at functioning flat-tax systems of other governments not even worth investigating, or does the very idea simply clash with some folks political agendas? Several of the nations are able to provide for both social welfare (including free secondary education and basic healthcare) as well as national defense on a (typically low) flat tax. Russia's 13% stands out for a large country and Estonia's 21% for a small country.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Mechanical Transmission of Power: Stangenkunst - <AUTHOR> http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/01/mechanical-transmission-of-power-stangenkunst.html <comment><USER2> This is really fascinating. When my father was a boy, he worked in the oil fields of Southern Illinois/Indiana. He described to me roughly how the pumps worked:

A large single-piston engine, centrally located provided power they looked more or less like this [http://www.stationaryengine.org/hornsby1_haddenham_2003.jpg](http://www.stationaryengine.org/hornsby1_haddenham_2003.jpg)

The huge wheel had to be removed by hand every once in a while and greased up. Apparently it normally took 3-4 burly men. It was backbreaking work.

Attached to the engine through some contraption he was too young to remember or understand were a number of power transmission rods (that sound like they might have been what this article is talking about) that went out to the pumps. A single engine might power a dozen pumps and the pumps might be a mile away or so from the engine.

The oilman had to make his rounds throughout the day to each pump to make sure they were working well and keep the flow of oil coming. While out at a pump, the engine might have problems.

The "diagnostic" was to grab the rod and feel the vibrations. An experienced oilman could tell what was wrong and the nature of it by these vibrations and knew if he needed to go back, send a young worker boy (like my father) or leave it for a bit till he got back later.

Even more experienced oilmen could simply sit at the engine head and grab each rod and feel if the pumps were misbehaving and dispatch himself or a boy to go deal with it. This saved miles of walking around to the pumps each day.

It's hard to imagine an oilman, perched a bit like a spider near his engine, feeling into his web of rods for problems out in fields a mile away, but that's how it was.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a second article in their series on mechanical power transmission [1] and a HN discussion from a couple of years ago [2]

[1] [http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/02/the-mechanical- transm...](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/02/the-mechanical-transmission- of-power-jerker-line-systems.html)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5159884](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5159884)

</comment><comment><USER4> I heard that the Drake Well Museum in Pennsylvania operates a replica of a similar system, if you're looking to see one in action:

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well_Museum](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well_Museum)

</comment><comment><USER5> Fascinating. Here's a crappy amateur video of one in action at the Gamla Pershyttans mining museum in Sweden, anybody got a better example?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycN8nR9SD4w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycN8nR9SD4w)

</comment><comment><USER6> Plural should be Stangenkünste or even more probably Stangenkunstwerke. (artworks)

<comment><USER7> Künste would be the proper plural, as in this context "Kunst" doesn't mean a work-of-art, but it is an old meaning mostly used in mining, roughly 'machinery' or 'devices': [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergm%C3%A4nnische_Kunst](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergm%C3%A4nnische_Kunst)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hacker News for Windows Phone 8 - <AUTHOR>

Hacker News for Windows Phone 8 just passed the certification and is now available in the Marketplace.
You can see it there: http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/hacker-news/89024c43-fa94-463a-a560-ee5c8825225c
Let me know what you guys think. <comment><USER2> Nice work! I was really hoping to get a WP8 this Christmas but unfortunately Sprint dropped the ball on that one and decided not to release any phones until "next year". I'm still using my 3 year old HTC Hero because I refuse to get another android. One day I'll get a WP8 and I'm sure this will be one of the first apps I install. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey I really like this app. Thanks for keeping a very simple style with the comments. I would like the ability to vote and write comments. Looking forward to the live tile updates. Also it would be cool to integrate the native sharing options to quickly share a link.

</comment><comment><USER4> What's the difference between this and your Combinator app? [http://www.windowsphone.com/en- us/store/app/combinator/a5275...](http://www.windowsphone.com/en- us/store/app/combinator/a5275a3f-6611-48f6-bd62-7382eda4c028)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's been remade for Windows Phone 8. It currently matches Combinator's features, but I plan on adding additional features to it in the near future (such as live tiles and dynamic lock screen).

It supports multiple tile sizes.

It uses the device's theme/accent instead of the custom Hacker News theme. I may add an option to set the HN theme if people request it.

The comment view is a bit different. I think it's cleaner.

The name is different, which make it look like an "official" app. I believe people prefer to use an app named "Hacker News" than "Combinator". I'll probably drop the Combinator app in the near future.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link: [http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/hacker- news/8902...](http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/hacker- news/89024c43-fa94-463a-a560-ee5c8825225c)</comment>


Spectrum goes Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.chat/thread/556b4915-7269-46a7-96e6-f38446d14146 <comment><USER2> For some name confusion, Spectrum is also the chat / forum / VOIP (eventually) platform for Star Citizen. If anyone else was thinking of that, this is a different project.

[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/)

[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm- link/transmission/15...](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm- link/transmission/15587-Monthly-Studio-Report) (mentioned down near Turbulent)</comment>


PortMiami high-speed rail will connect cruise passengers to Orlando - <AUTHOR> https://www.wftv.com/news/local/portmiami-high-speed-rail-will-connect-cruise-passengers-to-orlando/1003205322 <comment><USER2> [https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639520111/florida-gov-rick- sc...](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639520111/florida-gov-rick-scott-has- convoluted-ties-to-rail-company-whose-project-he-supp)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, wonder if that's how they are up and running faster then. I was wondering since I know California has their huge rail project, but missing deadlines and might even have to payback federal funds.

Was also reading Miami has a trolly, the MetroMover and also one of the talk walkable areas. Kinda didn't realize they were that invested in public transport but I guess it is a huge tourist area. Plus also a top walkable city too, however I know other parts of FL is very bad for walkability, was reading that Broward County for example issued hundreds of erroneously jaywalking tickets and also infrastructure for pedestrians were poorly built, such as lacking sidewalks.

Seems like Broward County is one of the most mismanaged parts of FL. Was just curious and looking on the website and if you want to dispute a ticket without showing up, you have to purchase a form "Affidavit of Defense" and then the site to download it says "IMPORTANT NOTICE: All Report and Form Downloads are compressed in a file with an "exe" extension and are available for download within 7 days. If you are not using a Windows Operating System you may not be able to complete the download process or access the contents in the download file."... Wow seems so outdated, have to download a exe? Why not just offer PDFs... I guess Mac users are screwed unless they run a VM. I wonder if library computers would even let you do that, since some block running your own programs. Also seems horrible they charge for digital forms which should be free and cost literally nothing to offer for a download. Wonder if other parts of the US is this backwards.

One of the things I want when I move, walkable would be nice. I think people would be much more healthier if didn't drive everywhere, and then of course it's warm there. Hurricanes is a worry though but does seem like a great area. But it seems like my mind of where I want to move changes a bunch over the years... Seems like like no place is perfect though, part of me dreams of being a nomad traveling full time earning money passively from investments or owning a business managing it remotely.</comment></comment>


Senate Approves Telco Immunity for Illegal Wiretaps - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html

<comment><USER2> This is an interesting bill to me. On one hand, I hate the idea of these wiretaps, and think they're one of a number of reasons for which Bush should be impeached.

On the other hand, I think the phone companies need to be exonerated. Corporations can't be expected to pick and choose when they cooperate with the government, and they should never be penalized for doing so. We don't want to create a system in which companies can be held liable for that. It will hinder legitimate law enforcement, and create insurmountable legal bills for small businesses asked to cooperate with government investigations.

<comment><USER3> The Bill of Rights does not secure the right to earn a profit. Every one of these corporations had a choice between doing the right thing and doing the easy thing.

A true patriot would fold the business before allowing it to be used to infringe upon the rights of citizens.

We can blame Bush and we can blame Congress, but first we should blame ourselves for letting it go this far.

<comment><USER2> Folding the business because you think a government order is unethical would land you in jail. When you run a publicly traded company, you have a legal responsibility to represent your shareholders' financial interest.

If you want to be technical, the Bill of Rights does not secure the right to use a phone without the government knowing who you call. In fact, it doesn't even secure the right to privacy. It kind of flirts with the issue, but it's a common misconception that it guarantees it.

Maybe I'm biased because I think patriotism is stupid (as Shaw said "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.") but if captains of industry folded their corporations every time they perceived an ethical violation we'd have no stock market left.</comment></comment></comment>