Why? Because you’re a moron:

I hate hearing that argument about % tax rates. You need to change the language to effective tax rate, because even in the 90’s when Clinton raised taxes the effective tax rate hardly moved:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/are_the_rich_really_different

Marginal tax rates and effective tax rates are totally different ball games:

Marginal tax rates have been all over the lot in the last 50 years: from 90 percent in the 1950s to 28 percent in the late 1980s to 39.6 percent in the 1990s to 35 percent today. Even with all the volatility in the top tax rate, the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of earners has barely budged.

What’s more, as tax rates have come down, the share paid by the rich has gone up. In 1981, when the top tax rate was 70 percent (50 percent on earned income), the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for 17.6 percent of the income tax, or 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, according to Laffer. In 2006, with a top rate of 35 percent, the richest 1 percent paid 40 percent of the income tax, equal to 3.2 percent of GDP.

Advertisements