this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
15 points (57.7% liked)

Conservative

384 readers
78 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The latest IRS data on who bears the income tax burden demonstrate yet again the benefits of lower tax rates over higher rates.

When President Donald Trump entered office, the richest 1% of tax filers ($675,000 income and above) paid a little more than 40% of the income taxes collected.

The 2017 Trump tax cut reduced the effective highest federal tax rate to 37% from 42%.

But the most recent IRS tax return data (for 2021) confirm that even as these rates were lowered — not to mention the corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 21% — the share of the tax burden shouldered by the 1% rose to almost 46%.

Written by the guy who came up with the Laffer Curve, Arthur Laffer.

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Damned interesting! OTOH, the wealth gap has exploded since 1980, so it seems natural that the 1%, being so very much richer, and the rest of us being so very much poorer (in relation!), would bear a higher percentage of the total tax burden.

Can someone explain more? I'm no finance guy, but I'd guess there's more than a 1-1 relationship here.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Your post is almost word for word what I was going to post, right down to the "I'm no finance guy." But yeah, greater concentration of wealth in the 1% in comparison to everyone else seemingly should result in increased tax share.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Easy enough to understand with simple ratios. If the top 1% holds 50% of the nation's wealth, we would expect they should pay somewhere around 50% of the nation's taxes. If their wealth increases to 60% you would expect the amount of taxes they pay to go up by a relatively equal amount.

Conversely the lower 99% would pay an inverse proportion of taxes. If the wealthy are becoming propositionally more wealthy, the less wealthy should be paying less of the nation's taxes.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone in the 99% will actually pay less taxes, as their wealth is not increasing at the rate of the 1%. It just means that the wealthy should be paying more as their proportion of the nation's wealth keeps growing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

seems natural that the 1%, being so very much richer, and the rest of us being so very much poorer (in relation!), would bear a higher percentage of the total tax burden.

That's another point that I hadn't considered. The rest of us are just less able to shoulder more of the tax burden and, as a result, the 1% end up doing more. And/or the TCJA lowered the marginal tax rates, which just resulted in a shift of the tax burden, such that everybody was paying less in taxes, but they paid a higher percentage.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Gee, it's almost as if a massive increase in wealth resulted in a slight increase in taxes paid.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Hey! That's a good point! Especially post pandemic, they've made huge gains in wealth.

Also, they should probably be shouldering more because 125,000 Americans who earn more than $400K don't file tax returns.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

There is validity in the logic that lower effective tax rates lead to higher gross receipts. That is totally unrelated to the percentage of tax paid by the highest 1%. Other than a way to dunk (as long as you don’t think about it too hard) on democrats who hammer the “pay your fair share” line, it’s completely irrelevant.

Take the author, Arthur Laffer, with a grain a salt. Kansas for instance, took his taxation advice back in 2012, eliminating corporate taxes on pass through entities and slashing the tax brackets to just two and it failed so hard that they voted to repeal them and elect a democrat as governor after 6 years of budget crisis

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

What a nonsense article. The rich paid more because they've made 10 trillion on the market while normal people were busy getting wrecked by inflation. The rich don't pay income taxes on market gains, they pay capital gains taxes. I can't believe idiots fall for this stuff.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's a shitty source from a community with no source standards. So you're bound to find shitty titles like this one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Was there a change in tax enforcement? This really isn’t enough data points to establish a causality, given there could be so many other factors.