> Actually the exact opposite is happening.

You're mistaken and given your responses elsewhere I think you're either confused or arguing in bad faith.

The mean tax rate paid by the top 0.1% of earners in 1979 was just over 40%. This fell to about 25% in 2010.[1] Marginal rates followed a similar trend. Meanwhile the US Gini coefficient rose from .415 in 1979 to .476 in 2012.[2] This implies that the top quintile pays a greater share of Federal taxes because they're proportionally richer than the other quintiles. The poor don't pay much Federal tax because you can't get blood from a stone.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917..., page 3

[2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/05/mapping-three-decades-i...

First off, the Gini coefficient has a shit ton wrong with it. A country would score better if everyone was poorer, but equal, rather than wealthier but unequal. I for one would choose the later, even if I'm not one of the top earners.

Second your graph shows rates for the top .1% and .01%. I was talking top quintile which you seemed to have forgotten plus you didn't challenge the data I provided.

The stat you cite is actually 1979, but if you look at the income proportions[1] at that time relative to current by-quintile income proportions, the growth in taxation of the top quintile between 1979 and 2005 is slightly greater than linear with that income growth.

[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

Thanks for the correction on the year.

Income growth can definitely explain the increase in tax burden, but my point still stands, no? The tax burden is not shifting from the wealthy to the poor.

And if you look at the bottom quintile, their tax burden has fallen, even though income continues to rise.

The wealthier are paying a lower percent of their wealth/income, it's just they make so much more than the masses it doesn't matter.

Should think of the marginal utility of their funds. If a $20,000 a year person pays $5,000 - it's much worse than a $10,000,000 paying $100,000.

Again, not true. Look at the effective tax rates. The lowest quintile pays single digit percentage (negative income tax when you account for the EITC).

Top quintile pays an effective rate of over 30%.

For some reason the bottom quintile doesn't seem to make use of offshore tax shelters quite as much, as the top quintile.

To those who have much, more will be given...

Is your statement based on fact or just how you think things work?

Can it be both?

[that page may 404 if you have a bunch of anti-spyware on your browser. It worked when I popped open an incog window.]

How should I interpret that chart, considering things like wealth versus income? There's some sort of transition between those -- I would guess more wealth was held in non-taxed trusts or investments back then, compared to now? Does the estate tax change behavior?

I think the point is to look at how much of the government is paid for by the top quintile than the others, over time, compared to each group's wealth. Is that correct?

(I am not an economist, just have an amateur interest in complex systems.)