3 ms·
> that period was a time of higher taxes for the rich and a rapidly growing middle class Tax revenue as a fraction of GDP is flat since the 60's, and the fract
by saddlerustle 6y ago
> that period was a time of higher taxes for the rich and a rapidly growing middle class
Tax revenue as a fraction of GDP is flat since the 60's, and the fraction of tax revenue paid by the top 1% was much lower in the 60's than it is today.
- Retric 6y agoEffective tax rate is more important than overall tax percentage here. Remember, the rich keep getting richer. the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution "was around 2.5 of total income in the 1970s and reached a peak above 9 percent of total income in 2000 Anyway, in 2020 payroll taxes make up 1340 billion vs 1620 billion in ‘income taxes’ and 221 billion in corporate taxes. So, overall talking about the percentage of income tax paid by the rich is misleading. https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/ Largest difference is the vast reduction in corporate taxes and the explosion in payroll taxes. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29861648 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29861648. But, critically the burden wasn’t handed to the top 0.01% but rather the top 20% as payroll taxes have a cap.
- CraigJPerry 6y agoSure - if you concentrate a higher proportion of income into fewer people, you would hope the tax burden should follow that income redistribution.
- mpweiher 6y ago> fraction of tax revenue paid by the top 1% So you're saying that the rich have gotten so massively richer that despite the ridiculously low taxes, which they often manage to evade as well, their overall contribution is still more.
- cosmiccatnap 6y agoThis should be in the dictionary next to cherry picked