A recent NY Times article included a graph showing the amount of taxes paid to the federal government based on income groups. While I like the graph it does not explain what the income thresholds are for each income group. However, I was able to pull out of the original journal article that the average income for the highest earning 0.01% was $18,113,612.
See also: What does Top 1%, Top 0.1%, Top 0.01% mean?
2005 US Income Distribution part 3
Technorati Tags: NYTimes, Taxes, income inequality, wealth, income distribution, superrich
Related Posts:
Popularity: 11% [?]
Get the latest graphs and maps sent to you automatically!
Subscribe to my RSS feed or sign up for updates by email.
View
It would be interesting to see GDP growth rates plotted in there too, to see if there’s a correlation between marginal tax rates and growth.
If the start of the graph were to be the begining of the 1900’s instead of 1960’s a very different picture would emerge.
vs GDP AND starting in 1900.
Now that would tell us something.
Me thinks starting in the 1960s gives the impression that the more modern tax rates are a aberration, whereas I think the 1960 tax rate was the aberration.
the newyork times is the aberation
The question that I beleive is where the recent trend of responsability for tax burden is moving. Is the proportional burden proportionate to the proportional income and weather should it be based upon various groups productivity. It is disengenuous to posit about the trend from 1900’s original tax structure was created because it was as we all know only to effect the super rich. However, it highlightes the tax creep that all groups are chafing about.