3 ms·
The stat you cite is actually 1979, but if you look at the income proportions[1] at that time relative to current by-quintile income proportions, the growth in
by haikuginger 9y ago
The stat you cite is actually 1979, but if you look at the income proportions[1] at that time relative to current by-quintile income proportions, the growth in taxation of the top quintile between 1979 and 2005 is slightly greater than linear with that income growth.
[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
- refurb 9y agoThanks for the correction on the year. Income growth can definitely explain the increase in tax burden, but my point still stands, no? The tax burden is not shifting from the wealthy to the poor. And if you look at the bottom quintile, their tax burden has fallen, even though income continues to rise.
- bomb199 9y agoThe wealthier are paying a lower percent of their wealth/income, it's just they make so much more than the masses it doesn't matter. Should think of the marginal utility of their funds. If a $20,000 a year person pays $5,000 - it's much worse than a $10,000,000 paying $100,000.
- refurb 9y agoAgain, not true. Look at the effective tax rates. The lowest quintile pays single digit percentage (negative income tax when you account for the EITC). Top quintile pays an effective rate of over 30%.