Young Research & Publishing Inc.

Investment Research Since 1978

Compensation was paid to utilize rankings. Click here to read full disclosure.

  • About Us
    • Contributors
    • Archives
    • Dick Young’s Safe America
    • The Final Richard C. Young’s Intelligence Report
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
    • Dick Young’s Research Key: Anecdotal Evidence Gathering
    • Crisis at Vanguard
  • Investment Analysis
    • Bonds
    • Currencies and Gold
    • Dividend Investing
    • ETFs & Funds
    • Investment Strategy
    • Retirement Investing
    • Stocks
    • The Efficient Frontier
  • Investment Counsel
  • Retirement Compounders®
  • Free Email Signup

Biden’s Plan Taxes Like Never Before

May 13, 2021 By Jeremy Jones, CFA

Joe Biden, the 47th vice president of the United States, was the featured guest for the Tom Johnson Lectureship at the LBJ Presidential Library on Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2017. The conversation was moderated by Mark Updegrove, former director of the LBJ Library. 10/03/2017 LBJ Library photo by Jay Godwin

In The Wall Street Journal, Phil Gramm and Mike Solon lay out the case against broadly applying high marginal tax rates on wealthier Americans. They make it clear that what is being proposed by the Biden administration is unlike anything that has been done before in America. Even though the nominal marginal rate will not be the highest ever, it will apply to a much broader swatch of taxpayers. They write:

With deficits at levels not seen since World War II, the March $1.9 trillion stimulus only beginning to spend out, and President Biden calling for significantly higher marginal tax rates to help fund another $4 trillion of spending, maybe it’s time for a reality check on how high marginal tax rates, and the actual tax rates paid by Americans, can be raised without crushing economic growth. Proponents of massive tax increases will argue that economic growth and prosperity are compatible with high tax rates by pointing to the 35 years of postwar prosperity in America, when the top federal tax rate was 70% or higher.

But before accepting this as proof by example, it’s worth examining how many taxpayers actually paid those top rates and what percentage of their income high earners actually paid in taxes. Economists Gerald Auten of the Treasury Department and David Splinter of the Joint Committee on Taxation have compiled an extraordinary new database using Internal Revenue Service data on taxes actually collected since 1962. The top marginal income-tax rates and the taxes actually paid, including payroll taxes, as a percentage of income for the top 1%, top 10% and bottom 50% of income earners are shown in the nearby chart. The figures for 2016-20 are comparable estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The top tax rate of 91% in 1962 applied to families with joint incomes, in today’s dollars, of $3.38 million. After deductions and credits, only 447 tax filers out of 71 million paid any taxes at the top rate. The top 1% of income earners paid only 16.1% of their income in federal income and payroll taxes, while the top 10% paid 14.4% and the bottom 50% paid 7%. This followed the pattern set by the top Depression-era and wartime tax rates. Only three filers out of six million paid any taxes at the top Depression rate and only 13 out of 50 million paid any taxes at the top wartime rate. The top 1% of earners paid 12.6% and 23.5% of their income in federal income and payroll taxes in 1938 and 1945, respectively.

President Kennedy recognized that while confiscatory tax rates collected little revenue, they stifled growth as resources were squandered in the “avoidance of taxes” rather than the “production of goods.” When the top tax rate was reduced to 70%, individual income-tax collections continued to grow and the actual percentage of income paid in taxes by high-income earners barely changed. Only 3,626 out of 75 million filers paid any taxes at the new 70% rate. When the Reagan tax cut reduced the top rate to 50%, gross domestic product grew. Taxes collected from high-income earners as a percentage of their incomes were largely unchanged, as the chart shows. Only 341,000 of 109 million filers paid any taxes at the new 50% top rate.

The 1986 tax reform reduced the top rate to the postwar low of 28%. The reform also closed loopholes, offsetting the rate reductions and other changes in the tax code. Revenues grew as the economy expanded and asset sales surged at the lower marginal tax rate. Twenty-six million out of 115 million filers paid taxes at the 28% rate. The top rate was raised to 39.6% in 1993 and has fluctuated between 39.6% and 35% since. Only 453,000 out of 123 million filers paid any taxes at the 39.6% rate in 1993.

Remarkably, while the top marginal rate fell from 91% in 1962 to 28% in 1988, the percentage of income actually paid in income and payroll taxes by the top 1% and 10% of filers rose to 21.5% and 19.6% from 16.1% and 14.4%, respectively. As the top tax rate fell by two-thirds, the percentage of income paid in federal income and payroll taxes by the top 1% and 10% of earners rose by a third.

The percentage of income actually paid by the top 1% of earners, which the Tax Policy Center estimates to be 25.7% in 2020, is close to the average rate paid during the last quarter-century. Whether the federal government could actually impose a top rate of 50% on a significant number of taxpayers, or actually collect much more than 30% of the income of the top 1% of earners in income and payroll taxes, without crippling economic growth is a question our postwar experience certainly doesn’t answer.

It is also worth noting that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has found that high-income Americans already bear a higher relative share of the income-tax burden than the rich do in other developed nations. The top 10% of American households earn about 33.5% of all earned income but pay 45.1% of all income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. That progressivity ratio of 1.35 is far higher than the German ratio of 1.07, French ratio of 1.1 and Swedish ratio of 1. As a percentage of their incomes, the top 10% of earners in Germany, France and Sweden paid 21%, 19% and 26% less than the top 10% in America. And the bottom 90% of earners paid 17%, 34% and 21% more as a percentage of their incomes respectively than the bottom 90% in America paid. While the OECD study predates the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Congressional Budget Office found the act made the U.S. tax code even more progressive.

Before Congress bets the future of America on the federal government’s ability to soak the rich without crippling the economy, lawmakers need to recognize that the marginal rates being proposed have never been collected from any significant number of taxpayers except under the direst circumstances such as a war for survival. Voters might also note that in the rest of the developed world, where government takes a larger share of GDP in taxes, high earners pay about the same share of GDP in income taxes that high-income Americans pay today, but everybody else pays a lot more.

Read more here.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

You Might Also Like:

  • Biden’s Plan to Take More of Your Money
  • Biden Tax Hikes: I’m Here to Help, But Only if You’re Serious
  • Happy Tax Freedom Day!
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
Jeremy Jones, CFA
Jeremy Jones, CFA, CFP® is the Director of Research at Young Research & Publishing Inc., and the Chief Investment Officer at Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. CNBC has ranked Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. as one of the Top 100 Financial Advisors in the nation (2019-2022) Disclosure. Jeremy is also a contributing editor of youngresearch.com.
Latest posts by Jeremy Jones, CFA (see all)
  • Money Market Assets Hit Record High: $5.4 Trillion - May 26, 2023
  • The Mania in AI Stocks Has Arrived - May 25, 2023
  • The Wisdom of Sam Zell - May 24, 2023

Search Young Research

Most Popular

  • Wellington and Wellesley Funds Not Managed by Vanguard
  • The Single Worst Market Timing Event in History
  • “No Way I’m Spending That Much on Those”
  • Should America Move Closer to the Saudis, or Push them Away?
  • The War Machine's Manpower Problem
  • The Power of a Compound Interest Table
  • Will the Fed Hold Up Its End of the Bargain?
  • “You Didn’t Eat That Again, Did You?”
  • Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) vs. Wellington (VWELX): Which Fund is Best?
  • Profits Becoming Elusive in China

Don’t Miss

Default Risk Among the Many Concerns with Annuities

Risk and Reward: An Efficient Frontier

How to be a Billionaire: Proven Strategies from the Titans of Wealth

Cryptocosm and Life After Google

Warning: Avoid Mutual Fund Year End Distributions

Is Gold a Good Long-term Investment?

How to Invest in Gold

Vanguard Wellington (VWELX): The Original Balanced Fund

What is the Best Gold ETF for Investing and Trading?

Procter & Gamble (PG) Stock: The Only True Dividend King

The Dividend King of the North

You’ll Love This if You’re Dreaming of an Active Retirement Life

The Importance of a Balanced Portfolio

Invest with Peace of Mind and Comfort

What Kind of Life Are You Investing For?

RSS The Latest at Richardcyoung.com

  • The Elephant in the Room
  • “Then One Day the Grandfather was Gone”
  • My Key West Garden Office
  • OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD: The Truth About the CIA?
  • Does a New Antiviral Covid Drug Do More Harm than Good?
  • The Biden Regime Treats Americans Worse than Illegal Immigrants
  • Key West #1 Wine Shop & Wine Expert
  • California – First to Enact Statewide Gun and Ammo Tax
  • “No Way I’m Spending That Much on Those”
  • How Much Can Grid Battery Storage Help?

RSS The Latest at Yoursurvivalguy.com

  • “Then One Day the Grandfather was Gone”
  • How Joe Biden Raised Oil Prices
  • Is the Philadelphia Looting Spree the Wake-up Call America Needs?
  • “No Way I’m Spending That Much on Those”
  • What Trade Policy Serves America’s National Interest Best?
  • California Wants to Make the 2nd Amendment Unaffordable
  • “You Didn’t Eat That Again, Did You?”
  • Is McCarthy Up to the Task?
  • Rising Costs Are Hammering Commercial Real Estate
  • Your Survival Guy Fishing with Dolphins

About Us

  • About Young Research
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Our Partners

  • Richard C. Young & Co.
  • Richardcyoung.com

Copyright © 2023 | Terms & Conditions

 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.