Conservative

383 readers

13 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

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.
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.
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

[email protected]

Data prove it: The Trump tax cuts soaked the rich (nypost.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [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.