3 ms·
1) I expect that if we included state and local taxes the story would be much the same, though I don't have a graph handy. You could be right I suppose. 2) I t
by harryh 9y ago
1) I expect that if we included state and local taxes the story would be much the same, though I don't have a graph handy. You could be right I suppose.
2) I think we mostly agree here. There have definitely been meaningful changes both up and down (on the order of 20%) over the years depending on both economic and political changes. However, when you look over a 50 year timespan (everything post WW2 basically), you don't really see a meaningful longitudinal change. To me this refutes the OPs point about taxation being meaningfully different in the "olden days."
- Retric 9y ago2) He was not talking about total recites. And the top tax rates are a very different story: https://www.cch.com/WBOT2013/029IncomeTaxRates.asp https://www.cch.com/WBOT2013/029IncomeTaxRates.asp PS: IMO, a ~1 to 2% AMT on all wealth per year would be incredibly beneficial. But, there is currently about zero chances of that ever happening.
- harryh 9y agoMy understanding is that those top marginal rates didn't matter as much as you might think because they mostly shifted forms of compensation. The data we'd really want to investigate this question is what % of taxes were paid by various income groups (top .1%, 1%, 5%, 10%) over time. See how much that share has changed with various policy changes. I can't seem to find a relevant graph on fred.stlouisfed.org though. :(
- opo 9y agontu.org has some recent data. In general, federal income tax has gotten more progressive since the 50s. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes