This number is ignoring that the tax structure of the time was quite a bit different than today. It's more enlightening to look at effective tax rates, which depending on the year were around 20-40%. (Edit: Actually very rarely far from 20%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... shows effective personal tax rates on the 1% from 1979, and this http://www.freeby50.com/2010/08/effective-tax-rates-1934-to-... shows average effective taxes from before then (and after match the first link fairly closely).)

Almost the entire economic expansion after WWII came from the middel class. The rates you link to are referring to the top marginal rate which do not affect the middle class.

There is also a rather important paragraph at the bottom that I think you missed.

> "This table contains a number of simplifications and ignores a number of factors, such as a maximum tax on earned income of 50 percent when the top rate was 70 percent and the current increase in rates due to income-related reductions in value of itemized deductions. Perhaps most importantly it ignores the large increases in percentage of returns that were subject to the top rate".

The US tax code is so complicated you can't just look at some percentage and come to any sort of accurate conclusion. I would say the main factor in how much a given person pays in taxes depends mostly on their accountant.

You should also take into account most of the world was in shambles was when the war ended which gave the US a huge economic advantage.

How you dare questioning the sacred idea that an income tax bracket of 70%+ would destroy the economy?

What should be considered is not the maximal tax rate but the effective tax rate (after deductions, evasions and so forth).

Do you have any doubt that with the paper accounting of the 50's it was significantly easier to evade paying taxes? Do you really think anyone actually paid 70%?