>> robert frank takes a look f >> on the campaign trail, democrdaic cans are citing the 1950s and '60s as the golden e of taxing the rich, ratesre s high as 70 to 90%. julian castro saying, there was a time in this country when the p marginal tax rate was over 90%. it was around 50%. what those candidates are not saying, is that the taxes actually paid by the wealthy were much lower, and they haven't changed much in over 50 years. and now, top onists, led by thomas pickety. look at the amount of federal, state and local taxes relative to their in 1960, when the top rate was 91%. the 1%ers paid 42% of their income in taxes. that rate fell during the 1970s and early '80s, and started rising again.to y the top 1% pay a rate of around. %. it's onl 5 or 6 percentage points less than the0s 1 why did the rich pay so much less than the official tax te. those t rates only apply to a small group, less than 10,000 households made enough to pay at 91% in the 1960s. much of the income also came from capital gains and investments, which were always taxed at lower rates. as they always do, thelt wea found ways to avoid those high rates. even though the top rates were more than