Federal Receipts as a Percent of GDP measures total government revenue relative to the size of the economy, serving as a standardized way to track the federal tax burden over time.
Although the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s indeed exceeded 90%, federal receipts hovered around 17% of GDP; this was nearly identical to current levels, because loopholes and high income thresholds (roughly equivalent to $2MM for single/$4MM for couples) meant almost no one actually paid that top rate.
The effective tax rate for the top 1% was closer to 42% rather than 90%, demonstrating that extremely high statutory rates on paper do not necessarily generate proportionally higher government revenue.
bdangubic•1mo ago
there is a lot of things that can happen but taxing wealthy ain’t happening ever again in america. you cannot ever again get elected without them at scale and since they control who gets elected this will always ensure they get their way. it’ll be always a great election campaign issue and maybe there will be some marginal tax thing (e.g. nyc mayor’s plan) but nothing will disturb the wealthy :)
M95D•1mo ago
A couple? I only see one.
stevenalowe•1mo ago
Pareto distribution FTW
EPWN3D•1mo ago
Yeah, and between me and Elon Musk, we're the richest person on earth. There is no way this is evenly distributed among the top 10%, and I'm guessing it's mostly concentrated in the top 0.1%.
leg100•1mo ago
At a glance, I'm not seeing a big difference in share of wealth between now and 1989. I'm not sure, then, what Robert Reich's point is, to say that the richest 10% "now" hold 60% of the nation's wealth, nor how he can come to the conclusion that it is "eating" the economy alive. Nor what the point is of providing a chonological graph, a graph which doesn't provide any actual percentages, nor a source. He's an accompolished economist, he can do better than that if wants to point out the egregious unfairness of society. Or is this the quality of argument on x.
casey2•1mo ago
If the bottom 50% disappeared they would be replaced with migrants in 1 or 2 weeks. If the top 10% disappeared the nation and all it's lifeline systems would cease to exist and the bottom 50% would slowly rot.
We could probably weather the storm of losing the top 0.1%, but, taking a good for the nation perspective, I'd rather that money get distributed to the top 1% than the bottom 50%.
memen•1mo ago
I think finding and transporting 170 million migrants in 2 weeks to replace the bottom 50% would be quite the engineering challenge if at all possible.
xqcgrek2•1mo ago
general1465•1mo ago
nielsbot•1mo ago
garciasn•1mo ago
Federal Receipts as a Percent of GDP measures total government revenue relative to the size of the economy, serving as a standardized way to track the federal tax burden over time.
Although the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s indeed exceeded 90%, federal receipts hovered around 17% of GDP; this was nearly identical to current levels, because loopholes and high income thresholds (roughly equivalent to $2MM for single/$4MM for couples) meant almost no one actually paid that top rate.
The effective tax rate for the top 1% was closer to 42% rather than 90%, demonstrating that extremely high statutory rates on paper do not necessarily generate proportionally higher government revenue.
bdangubic•1mo ago
M95D•1mo ago