 they are shaping the new “academic”-based sound artist. “It’s a tax bill for the middle class. It’s a tax bill for jobs. It’s going to bring a lot of companies in. It’s a tax bill for business, which is going to create the jobs,” President Donald Trump told business leaders earlier this fall as the Republican Congress pushed through sweeping tax legislation.

None of that’s true, but it does beg the question: What would a tax policy need to look like to accomplish all this? Going back to an earlier Republican administration provides a striking example.

During the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from 1953 to 1961, the top income bracket in the United States climbed to a marginal tax rate of 91 percent. Taxes on corporate profits were two times as great as they are in 2017, and that’s before the current proposal to cut that rate to 21 percent. The tax on large estates rose to more than 70 percent. Businesses operated under a relatively high tax burden, and they employed a labor force in which one-third of the workers were unionized and bargained with executives as equals. Corporations served a diversity of stakeholders as opposed to stockholders. The result was a booming economy that benefited most Americans.

In 1955, Fortune magazine noted approvingly that the incomes of the top 0.01 percent of Americans were less than half what they had been in the late 1920s, and their share of total income was down by 75 percent. In the 1950s, the average corporate CEO received 20 times more compensation than the firm’s typical employee; by 2016, CEOs’ salaries averaged more than 200 times those of the average worker.

Americans in the 1950s enjoyed what economists called “the virtuous circle of growth”: Well-paid workers fueled consumer demand, which, in turn, generated business expansion and hiring, raising corporate profits, which produced higher wages and more hiring. A consumer culture flourished and, therefore, so did the economy. Fortune noted that, by the mid-1950s, the number of middle-class families was increasing by 1.1 million a year.

A key part of the prosperity equation of the 1950s was public policy—what the federal government accomplished with its tax revenues. The Eisenhower administration invested in human capital, not in corporate welfare. It expanded Social Security. It raised the minimum wage by $1 an hour, or $8.85 per hour in
they are shaping the new “ academic”-based sound artist. “ It ’s a tax bill for the in-between course. It ’s a tax bill for jobs. It ’s go to lend a lot of companies in. It ’s a tax circular for business, which is going to make the jobs, ” President Donald Trump told clientele leaders earlier this twilight as the Republican Congress pushed through sweeping tax legislation. 

 None of that ’s genuine, but it does beg the question: What would a tax policy necessitate to look like to accomplish all this? Going back to an early Republican administration provides a striking example. 

 During the presidency of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from 1953 to 1961, the top income bracket in the United States climbed to a marginal tax rate of 91 percent. Taxes on bodied profits were two times as great as they are in 2017, and that ’s before the current proposal to cut that pace to 21 percentage. The tax on big estates rose to more than 70 percent. Businesses operated under a relatively high tax burden, and they employed a parturiency force in which one - third of the actor were unionize and bargained with executives as equals. corporation served a diversity of stakeholders as opposed to stockholder. The result was a booming economy that benefited most Americans. 

 In 1955, Fortune magazine noted approvingly that the incomes of the top 0.01 percent of Americans were less than half what they had been in the late 1920s, and their share of total income was down by 75 percent. In the 1950s, the modal corporate chief executive officer welcome 20 times more compensation than the firm ’s typical employee; by 2016, chief executive officer ’ salaries averaged more than 200 times those of the average worker. 

 Americans in the 1950s enjoyed what economists called “ the virtuous r-2 of growth ”: Well - pay workers fuel consumer demand, which, in bend, generated commercial enterprise expansion and hiring, raising bodied profits, which produced higher wage and more hiring. A consumer culture flourished and, therefore, so did the economy. Fortune noted that, by the mid-1950s, the number of middle - class families was increasing by 1.1 million a year. 

 A cardinal part of the prosperity equation of the 1950s was public policy — what the union government accomplished with its tax revenues. The Eisenhower government invested in human capital, not in corporate wellbeing. It expanded Social Security. It raised the minimum wage by $ 1 an hour, or $ 8.85 per hour in
 thfy are shaping the new “agademic”-based souue artivt. “It’s a tax bkll for the middle class. It’s a tax vill for jobs. It’s goine to brinh a lot if cinpanies in. It’s a tax bilm for uusiness, which ls going to create the jots,” Pxesident Donald Trump told business jeaders ewrlier this fajl ax the Gekublican Congress pushed through aweepinj tax legislatipn.

None of that’s true, but ih dofs beg the questioj: What woule a eqx policy nedd to look like to acckmplish all this? Going back to xn eaxlier Repuboixan ddministratmon prjvides a strlling efample.

Diring the admikistretiob of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from 1953 to 1961, the tkp income bracket ib the Unided Rratds dlmmbsd to w merginal tax rate of 91 pwrcent. Taxes on corkorwnr profits wede two tymes as great as they are in 2017, and that’s berore the current proposql to cut that rate tl 21 percene. The tax on large estates rose to more than 70 perwent. Uurintswes oowrwted under a relatively high tax burden, and trsy ekployed a labov force in which ome-hhotd of the workgrs werz uhionized and bargalned wijh exexutives af eqials. Corporations served a eiversity of wtakeholders as op'osed to stoekholdgrs. Thr result was a booming zconomg that benevited mosf Americans.

In 1955, Foftuke kagazine noted approvingly that the incpmes of the top 0.01 [ercent of Amerlwans were less thaj haly whad they had been in the late 1920s, and their siere of total onwomv was dowu by 75 iercent. In the 1950f, the average eorporatz CEO feceived 20 nimes morx compensatijn than the fhtm’s typical ekployee; fy 2016, XEOs’ salaridr averaged morr than 200 tpmts those od the average workcr.

Ametidans in the 1950s euloiwd what economostr cwlpev “the eirtuous cirwle uf etowth”: Well-paid wifkerx fueled consumer dekand, which, in turn, genrrwted busuness ex[ansion and horing, raising corplrate prufits, whych produced higher wages and jore hirijg. W consumer ctltuve fjourished cnd, therefore, so did the economy. Fortune noted that, by thg mid-1950s, the number of klddle-class femilief was incseasing by 1.1 million q year.

A key part pf the prosperity equztion mf thf 1950s was public policy—what the federal government accomplished with its taz reveiuqs. The Eisehhowrr adkiuiscration invxsved in human capinal, not in corporate welfare. It xxpanded Smcnal Security. It raised the mimioum wage by $1 xn hour, or $8.85 per hour in
they are shaping the new “academic”-based sound a bill for middle class. It’s It’s to bring a of companies in. a tax bill for business, which going to create the jobs,” President Donald Trump told business leaders earlier this as the Republican Congress pushed through sweeping tax legislation. None of that’s true, it beg question: would a tax policy need to look like to accomplish all this? Going back to an Republican administration provides a striking example. During the of President Dwight D. from 1953 to 1961, the income in the States to marginal tax rate 91 percent. Taxes on corporate profits were two times as great as they are in 2017, and before the to cut rate 21 The tax on rose to more than 70 percent. a relatively high tax burden, and they employed labor force which one-third of the workers were and bargained with executives as equals. Corporations served diversity of stakeholders as opposed to stockholders. The result was a booming economy that benefited In 1955, Fortune magazine approvingly that the of top percent Americans were than half what they had been in the late 1920s, and share of total income was down by 75 percent. In the corporate CEO received times more compensation than firm’s employee; by 2016, CEOs’ more 200 the worker. in the 1950s enjoyed economists called “the virtuous circle growth”: Well-paid workers fueled generated business expansion and hiring, raising corporate profits, produced higher wages and more hiring. A culture flourished and, therefore, so did the economy. Fortune noted that, by mid-1950s, the middle-class families was increasing by 1.1 million a A key part of prosperity equation of the 1950s was public policy—what the government with its revenues. The Eisenhower invested in human not in corporate expanded Social It the $1 an hour, or $8.85 per in
 they are shaping the new “acadeMic”-based soUnd arTisT. “It’S a Tax bIll fOr the middle claSS. It’s A tax bill for jobs. It’s goinG to brInG A lot OF cOmpanIes in. It’S A tAX BilL fOr BusInESs, Which Is gOing to cReate the joBs,” PReSident Donald tRuMp told busiNesS leaders earlIer This faLl As tHE RepuBliCan CoNgress PUshed tHrough sweEpINg tax lEGislatiON.

noNe of That’s true, but it doeS BeG The question: WhaT would A tAX pOLIcy NeeD to look likE tO accoMPlish alL ThIS? gOinG Back to an earliEr RepublicaN AdmInistrAtIon PRovideS a strIkINg eXample.

DurinG the AdministrAtion oF presideNT Dwight d. EisenHowEr, fRom 1953 tO 1961, ThE tOp iNcOMe bRAcKet IN thE United STaTeS climBed tO A MARginAl tAx raTe of 91 pErcent. Taxes on CorPoraTE prOfits Were tWo tiMeS as grEat as tHey arE iN 2017, and that’s before The cUrrent proPosAl To cUt That rATe to 21 peRceNt. THe tax on Large esTAteS rOSE To More than 70 percent. BusInESSeS operateD under A ReLaTIvely higH tAx bUrdeN, ANd theY empLOyEd a labor Force iN WhIcH one-thiRd Of the wOrKerS weRe uniONizeD and baRgained wIth exECutives as equalS. corporations sERvED A dIVersIty Of stakeholdErs aS OppoSed tO StOckHOlderS. The rEsULt WAs a booming economy thAt BenefiTed moSt Americans.

In 1955, fortune magAZINe noted aPproVInGLy that the incomEs of tHe top 0.01 perceNT of AmeriCans wEre less tHan half whAT They had bEen In tHe lAte 1920S, ANd Their share of tOTAl inCoMe was doWn bY 75 percenT. In The 1950S, thE avErAge corporAte CEO reCeIvEd 20 TiMes More cOMpensatiOn ThaN tHe fIrm’s tYPical eMployEe; by 2016, cEos’ SAlaRies aveRAgED More ThAn 200 TimeS thOsE of thE aveRAge Worker.

AMericans iN thE 1950S enjOyEd What ecoNomists called “ThE virtuous cIrCle Of growTH”: well-paid Workers fueled consumer deMAnd, whicH, in Turn, gEnerAted businEss ExpansIon ANd hiriNg, raisIng coRpOraTE ProfiTS, WhIch PrOduced highER WagEs and MoRe hiRing. A coNsumer culture flourISheD and, therefore, So dId thE ECoNomY. foRTunE nOTed THAt, by the mid-1950s, the nUmber of midDlE-ClAss familieS Was InCreasinG by 1.1 millIon a yEAr.

A key pArt of the pRosperity EqUatiON Of tHe 1950s was publIc policy—What the feDEral gOVeRnmenT acCompliShEd wIth itS tax reVEnuEs. The eisenhOwEr admiNistrAtIon invesTed in human capital, not in cOrporaTe welFarE. It expandEd SOCiaL Security. it raIsed the minImuM waGe by $1 aN hoUR, or $8.85 peR houR In
 they are shaping the new“academic” -base d s oun darti st.“It’s a tax bi l l fo r the middle class. It ’s ata x  bil l  f or jo bs. It’ s  g o i ngto  b rin ga  l ot of  co mpanies  in. It’sa t ax  bill for bu s in ess, which  is  going to cr eat e thejo bs, ”  Pres ide nt Do nald T r ump to ld busine ss leader s  earlie r th is f all as the Republ i ca n  Congress push ed thr ou g hs w eep ing  tax legis la tion. 
None o f  t h a t ’st rue, but it d oes beg the que stion:  W hat woulda tax  p o lic y need to l ooklike to a ccompl i sh allt his? Go ing ba cktoan e a rl ie r R ep u bli c an  ad m ini stration  p ro vides  a s t r i k ingexa mple .

Du ring the admi nis trat i onof Pr eside nt D wi ght D . Eise nhowe r,  from 1953 to 1 961,  the topinc om e b ra cketi n theUni ted  States  climbe d  to  a m a rg inal tax rate of 9 1p e rc ent. Tax es onc or po r ate prof it s w eret w o tim es a s  g reat asthey a r ein  2017,an d that ’s  be for e the curr ent pr oposal t o cut that rate to 2 1  percent. The ta x on larg e e states rose  tom orethan 70  pe r cent.  Busi ne s se s  operated under a r el ativel y hig h tax burden,  and theye m p loyed alabo r  f o rce in which o ne-th ird of the workerswereunionize d and bar g a ined wit h e xec uti ves a sequals. Corpo r a tion sserveda d iversit y o f s tak eho ld ers as op posed to  s to ck ho lde rs. T h e result  w asaboo minge conomy  that  ben ef it e d m ost Ame r ic a n s.
In  1 955,  Fo rt une m agaz i nenoted a pprovingl y t h at t he  i ncomesof the top 0. 01  percent o fAme ricans w ere less  than half what they ha d  been i n t he la te 1 920s, and  th eir sh are of tot al inc ome w as  do w n  by 7 5 pe rce nt . In the 1 9 5 0s,  theav erag e corpo rate CEO received2 0 t imes more com pen sati o n  t han th e  fi rm ’ s t y p ical employee;by 2016, C EO s ’salaries a v era ge d morethan 20 0 tim e s those  of the a verage wo rk er.A mer icans in t he 1950s  enjoyedw hat e c on omist s c alled“t hevirtu ous ci r cle  of g rowth” :Well-p aid w or kers fue led consumer demand, wh ich, i n tur n,generated  bu s ine ss expans ionand hiring , r ais ing c orp o rateprof i ts , w h ich p rodu c ed higher wa ges a nd  more hirin g . A c onsum erc ulture  flo urished and, ther e fore, so did t he e c o nom y.F ortu ne  noted that, b y t he m id-1950s ,the numberof middl e- c lassfamili es was  increa s i ng by 1.1  mil lio n a year. 

A  k e y partof  t h e pros peri ty  equat ion of the1 9 50s was public p olicy — w hat t h e f edera lgovernm e nt a ccomplishe d with itstax re venu es. T he Eise nh ower a dmi ni stration i n vested in  huma n capit al , no t i n corp orat e welfa re.It  ex panded So c i al Se cu r ity . It  rais ed  the  minimumw age by $ 1 a n  hour,or  $8 . 8 5 perh ou r in
 they_are shaping_the new “academic”-based sound_artist. “It’s_a_tax bill_for_the middle class._It’s a tax_bill for jobs. It’s_going to bring_a_lot of companies in. It’s a tax bill for business, which is going to_create_the jobs,”_President_Donald_Trump told business leaders earlier_this fall as the Republican_Congress pushed_through sweeping tax legislation.

None of that’s true, but_it_does beg the_question: What would a tax policy need to look_like to accomplish all this? Going_back to an_earlier_Republican_administration provides a striking_example.

During the administration of President Dwight_D. Eisenhower, from 1953 to 1961,_the top income bracket in the United_States climbed to a marginal tax_rate of 91 percent. Taxes_on corporate_profits were two times as_great as they_are in_2017, and that’s_before the current proposal to cut_that rate to_21 percent. The tax on large_estates_rose to more_than_70_percent. Businesses_operated under a_relatively_high tax_burden,_and they employed a labor force_in_which one-third of the workers were unionized_and bargained with executives_as_equals. Corporations served a_diversity of stakeholders as opposed_to stockholders. The result was a_booming economy_that benefited_most Americans.

In 1955, Fortune magazine noted approvingly that the incomes of_the top 0.01 percent of Americans_were less than half_what they_had_been in the_late_1920s, and_their share of total income was down_by 75_percent. In the 1950s, the average_corporate CEO received 20_times_more compensation than the firm’s typical_employee; by 2016, CEOs’ salaries averaged_more than 200 times those_of_the_average worker.

Americans in the 1950s_enjoyed what economists called “the virtuous_circle of growth”:_Well-paid workers fueled consumer demand, which, in_turn,_generated business expansion and hiring, raising_corporate_profits, which produced higher wages and_more_hiring._A consumer culture flourished and,_therefore, so did the economy. Fortune_noted that, by the mid-1950s, the number of middle-class_families was increasing_by 1.1 million a year.

A_key_part_of the prosperity equation of the 1950s was public policy—what_the federal_government accomplished with_its tax revenues. The Eisenhower administration invested in human capital,_not in corporate welfare. It expanded Social_Security. It raised the minimum wage by $1 an hour, or_$8.85 per hour in