[tdb7893]

I love how when people talk about making America Great Again they are generally talking about a time where the highest marginal tax rate was like 70% (of course no one paid that but people don't pay the top rate now either). I would love to bring that piece of history back. I love America and have benefitted a lot from it, I'm happy to pay more for my fellow Americans (which I do now via some donations but I need to do more)

[rayiner]

People pay much more of the theoretical top rate today than they did of the higher top rate back then. Federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP has been basically flat since 1950: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S.

[katbyte]

What does that have to do with ”how much of their income/wealth as a % of their total do the ultra rich pay nothing vs 50 years ago”

As they paid less everyone else could just be paying more as a total

[tdb7893]

Interesting, thanks for the info. Though I wish it could be broken down based on income brackets but I can't find that.

[rayiner]

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-income-growth-...

“Contrary to common perceptions, the CBO data indicate that: (1) income earned after taxes and transfers has increased over the past several decades for all income groups, (2) the federal tax system is progressive and has become more progressive over the past three decades, and (3) the federal system relies heavily on higher earners to raise revenue for government services and means-tested transfers.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-t...

I can’t find data before 1980.

[tdb7893]

Also I want to point out that a significant chunk of the "increasingly progressive" nature is driven by increases in income inequality over that same timeframe. Both pre and post tax income even for higher earners has increased (as a percentage rate) much much faster than lower earner so anything other than "increasingly progressive" would be an absurdity.

Not saying I entirely disagree with it. I just don't think that data is that compelling since it's a pretty shallow analysis of taxation and income of high earners (which is fine, not every article needs to be that deep)

[woooooo]

"Three decades" is doing a lot of work there. Reagan?

[rayiner]

The data starts at 1979, before Reagan’s major tax reform in 1986: “In contrast, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent has remained relatively high over this period, ranging between 25 and 35 percent since 1979.”

Reagan’s tax reform wasn’t a gimmick: it broadened the tax base (to encompass more kinds of income) and lowered rate to keep the effective tax rate basically the same.

The biggest problem is we simply doesn’t tax enough. We want to grow the scope of our government to be more like Europe, but we aren’t willing to tax the middle and upper middle class the way they do in Europe. We had an au pair from Germany. Our effective tax rate in a blue state as a dual income professional couple was the same as she paid at her entry level office job.

[woooooo]

Reagan did 3 big tax bills, 81 tax cut, 83 social security and the 86 reforms you're referencing.

You're right that the 86 reform was pretty progressive but with all 3, the rich did great, poor did alright and middle class did poorly, IMO.

[lotsofpulp]

I contend that taxing higher earned incomes at higher and higher rates is not progressive. Real wealth is made via appreciation in property prices, and those mostly detractive and rent seeking members of society are the least taxed.