[garciasn]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S Federal Receipts as a Percent of GDP measures total government revenue relative to the size of the economy, serving as a standardized way to track the federal tax burden over time.

Although the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s indeed exceeded 90%, federal receipts hovered around 17% of GDP; this was nearly identical to current levels, because loopholes and high income thresholds (roughly equivalent to $2MM for single/$4MM for couples) meant almost no one actually paid that top rate.

The effective tax rate for the top 1% was closer to 42% rather than 90%, demonstrating that extremely high statutory rates on paper do not necessarily generate proportionally higher government revenue.

[rich_sasha]

The total tax intake is fairly unambiguous. Personal tax bill for the vast majority of people is also quite clear. But when you get to the top 0.1% or whatever it is, things like "income" and "tax" get ambiguous. I suppose a lot of the ultra rich don't have much earnings, at best cap gains, and even that can be offset, boxed and off-shored ad nauseam.

Maybe instead of looking at the ultra rich we could look at what GDP fraction the "bottom 95%" contribute to the tax burden - is that more or less than before. Not sure where to look for this data but sounds like a nice little exercise.

[gruez]

>But when you get to the top 0.1% or whatever it is, things like "income" and "tax" get ambiguous. I suppose a lot of the ultra rich don't have much earnings, at best cap gains, and even that can be offset, boxed and off-shored ad nauseam.

But the denominator isn't "income", it's GDP. That's far harder to "offset, boxed and off-shored ad nauseam".

[rich_sasha]

Sure - but not at an individual level. If you're asking, how much tax are the rich paying now vs before, as a % basis, you need an individual numerator and denominator.

Maybe the total tax take now is 17% of GDP, same as before, but when measured correctly, the overall tax rate for the super-rich has gone down, and for the plebs gone up.

To even identify who the super-rich are in this exercise, you may need to be careful with the definition of "rich". If eg you go for highest income earners, you might find upper middle class people instead, with the super-rich having no supposed income as such.

[milesvp]

Raising taxes should never be seen as a way to raise revenue. Even if the Laffer curve has come under attack, there is still some profit maximizing rate which I’m positive most modern countries are beyond both at a static rate and at a growth and future revenue maximizing rate. No we don’t tax at this point to increase tax revenue. We do tax to shape what society looks like.

Right now society doesn’t look very good to so many people in the US it’s almost hard to talk about. Job growth is literally people saying, “hey, tomorrow, I can see it look better. We can spend time and resources to create something we all want more than today.” When job growth is low, that vision must also be low.

Taxation can turn that around in an industry. It can turn that around in aggregate. It does thay by both signaling to players, and by changing the game tree payout structure.

I think much of the taxation conversation right now is unfortunate because it keeps getting couched in terms of tax brackets, and that is almost a strawman at this point (even if many people think it’s important). I would say we need to tax the 1% differently. For instance, stock buy backs are currently a hugely distorting effect on the world economy. You can start by greatly taxing that.

The real thing people are talking about when talking about taxing the 1% isn’t just about tax brackets, it’s more about how taxes don’t materially effect people once they reach certain thresholds. It’s the same fundamental problem with traffic tickets. They are not proportional to general wealth so that means it’s a set of laws that apply less and less as one gains wealth which not only feels unfair, it is arguably a corrupting influence undermining the rule of law.

[garciasn]

I am choosing not to get involved in a discussion about tax policy miniutiae as I am not an expert in any related way; instead, I wanted to provide factual context to the oft-repeated 'America was better in the 1950s due to the tax rate on the rich,' claim so folks might be able to better understand what they're attempting to say.

[kiliantics]

It's about how the taxes are spent too. If the government cuts welfare and gives handouts and subsidies to special interests, that is not an effective redistribution.

[gilbetron]

It would be interesting to see the same graph broken down by wealth (preferably) or income quintile. Maybe higher tax rates don't mean more tax income, but it does mean more wealth redistribution.

[iamtheworstdev]

no one pays the top rate today either. I've spent a large chunk of my adult life in the top 5% of income earners and I've never had an effective tax rate over 17% that I can recall.

[loeg]

Your experience as a 95 %ile earner does not negate that people in the 99 %ile of earners pay the top rate. (I paid the top rate last year.)

[NickC25]

and the effective tax rate today for the ultra wealthy is 0.

Shit, a few years ago Jeff Bezos got a tax credit for his kids.

Think of how absurd that is. Jeff Bezos, the founder of a multitrillion dollar corporation that already receives billions in government contracts and subsidies, who owns a $500m yacht and a multibillion dollar real estate portfolio, asked for, and was given, a tax credit for his adult children.