[jandrewrogers]

Tax revenues grew monotonically across the tax reforms of the 1980s in smoothly boring fashion with no discontinuities. That is pretty much a textbook definition of "revenue neutral".

Are you arguing that the tax revenue grew too quickly to be defined as "revenue neutral"?

I'm not old enough to have experienced it but the data is really obvious.

[taurath]

Would guess the idea is more about who pays that similar revenue, as since the 80s income inequality has shot upwards.

[tick_tock_tick]

I mean since we are talking Federal income tax the bottom 50% basically doesn't pay that.

[galangalalgol]

Since the distribution is exponential, removing the top tax bracket and raising the rest a little would be revenue neutral, but exacerbate wealth inequality. Not arguing if thats fair or not, just that you can make policies revenue neutral while still favoring the ultra wealthy.

[closeparen]

It would exacerbate income inequality. It would favor higher-wage workers.

Income and income taxes are irrelevant to the wealthy. Changes in wealth inequality are mostly changes in asset prices.

[ChrisLomont]

Except the Reagan cuts lowered taxes on the bottom 80%, and the top saw a small increase. See my other post with historical effective tax rates from the CBO.