Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts

25 July 2025

Macroeconomics Is An Art Not A Science And Is Influenced By Politics

Don't trust Republican economists when it comes to GDP during Republican Presidencies or the benefits of tax cuts.
Using a novel dataset linking professional forecasters in the Wall Street Journal Economic Forecasting Survey to their political affiliations, we document a partisan bias in GDP growth forecasts. Republican-affiliated forecasters project 0.3-0.4 percentage points higher growth when Republicans hold the presidency, relative to Democratic-affiliated forecasters. Forecast accuracy shows a similar partisan pattern: Republican-affiliated forecasters are less accurate under Republican presidents, indicating that partisan optimism impairs predictive performance. This bias appears uniquely in GDP forecasts and does not extend to inflation, unemployment, or interest rates. 
We explain these findings with a model where forecasters combine noisy signals with politically-influenced priors: because GDP data are relatively more uncertain, priors carry more weight, letting ideology shape growth projections while leaving easier-to-forecast variables unaffected. Noisy information therefore amplifies, rather than substitutes for, heterogeneous political priors, implying that expectation models should account for both information rigidities and belief heterogeneity. Finally, we show that Republican forecasters become more optimistic when tax cuts are salient in public discourse, suggesting that partisan differences reflect divergent beliefs about the economic effects of fiscal policy.
Benjamin S. Kay, Aeimit Lakdawala, and Jane Ryngaert, "Partisan Bias in Professional Macroeconomic Forecasts" SSRN (2025).

10 July 2025

Making Enemies

One of the big problems facing the GOP is that it is making enemies fast. Furthermore, Trump relies almost entirely on fear and greed to hold onto power. When that works, it works. But the moment his threats prove hollow and his promises are no longer credible, many of his elite level supporters will turn on him in an instant and disavow him as quickly as he has disavowed a huge share of his minions.

Also, now that Trump has delivered on creating an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court (both due to their abortion politics and for other reasons) and permanent tax cuts for the rich, many supporters who collectively held their noses to back him predominantly for those reasons, no longer need to support him.

* First and foremost, the Roman Catholic Church has started to seriously mobilize against their anti-immigration efforts. They have picked a fight with the largest religious denomination in the nation, led by a Pope who understands American politics at an intuitive level, which includes an important share of their base and of their elites. While White Evangelicals are realistically going to continue to be Trump and the GOP's do or die supporters, they need the political support of conservative white and Hispanic Catholics as well to secure majorities.

So far, the Catholic Church in the U.S. has only taken some baby steps to accommodate a heavily immigrant group of parishioners. But the Pope has an immense capacity to turn up the heat, and Trump has denied himself a key tool to fight that by having the IRS take the position that churches can endorse candidates in our elections from the pulpit.

What happens if Catholic justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, in Congress, and in the Trump Administration are denied communion, or even excommunicated? What happens if Pope Leo declares that Trump and his minions are servants of Satan?

The Papacy hasn't tried anything like that for centuries. But there are precedents for a Pope doing so. If Pope Leo sees Trump acting increasingly like Hitler towards a population that is mostly Catholic, the Pope has plenty of room to escalate and the institutional capacity to coordinate that effort in a way that few other movements in the U.S. can. 

Even if the Pope and his bishops and clergy do nothing more than throw shade at Trump, that's something that could flip a lot of swing voters (and not just Catholic ones).

* Southern voters burned by hurricanes, floods, tornados and other natural disasters and denied the federal disaster relief assistance that they've become accustomed to are another set of enemies who will burn hot to oppose Trump and weren't expected what they got, even if Trump campaigned on it. It isn't even just a matter of the economic substance of it. A big part of Trump's appeal in Red States was the perception that he cared more about people like them than the Democrats did. His indifference to their suffering during disasters undermines that perception.

* Veterans tend to vote conservative, but have received almost no respect, with Trump repeatedly disparaging them, and have seen programs for their benefit cut mercilessly. Some veterans will see this as breaking faith with them and dump him. Veterans disproportionately subscribe to a culture of honor, something utterly foreign to Trump.

* Farmers  and small business owners, especially in rural America and small towns, who have been badly hurt by Trump's trade policies, the deportation of their workforces, the imminent shutdown of their local hospitals, and deep cuts to their community schools are another set of potential enemies.

* Everyone involved in the healthcare industry has been alienated by Medicaid cuts, immense threatened pharmaceutical tariffs, indiscriminate cuts to medical research that weren't telegraphed on the campaign trail, and the utter insanity of RFK, Jr.'s pseudo-scientific approach to public health, even wealthy doctors who benefit from his tax cuts.

* The tax cuts Trump has provided to Wall Street and big business are meaningless if they are losing money, which his disastrous trade policy, threats to the independence of the Fed, and the damages he has done to the value of the dollar and the credit rating of the United States has done.

* Trump has flipped Elon Musk from being "co-President" to his enemy. The richest man in the world is a formidable foe, and is the leader of the coalition of tech billionaires that backed Trump. Musk's proposed "American Party" could also split the conservative vote and hand victory to Democrats in many races.

* Non-MAGA smart conservatives from federal judges, to think tank figures and professors, to older generation Republican leaders, to pundits, to military officers, are not keen on some of the directions Trump is taking, such as disregard for rule of law, civility and respect, and his anti-intellectualism, even if they like many of the changes he has made in substance.

* Federal employees are the source of every federal elected official's power. And, Trump has done everything he can to purge civil servants who won't be loyal to him and to cow those who are left with fear. But he's shed a lot of competent seasoned officials, made life very hard for those who are left, and betrayed the longstanding trust of almost every federal employee. So undermined, the federal government is going to be a lot less competent and effective, and federal employees will be looking for passive-aggressive ways to undermine him at every turn. no matter how hard he tries to assert control. And, a large percentage of federal employees who have abruptly seen their secure, high prestige futures shattered are now on a singular mission to use their insider knowledge and connections to fight him with all of their being.

* Educators from every school and higher educational institution in the country now see Trump and the GOP as their unequivocal enemies. While this was never an industry that strongly backed the GOP before, their long standing efforts to be neutral towards the GOP have been shattered now that the GOP has declared outright war on all of them. These institutions are strong not only in their own right, but also because they have a carefully cultivated and nurtured alumni base who will be willing to go to bat for them that includes many powerful, rich, and influential people.

03 July 2025

The GOP Budget In Charts

The Republican budget passed today passed the House initially by 215-214, passed the Senate in a 51-50 VP tie breaking vote, and passed the House the second time around by 218-214 with no amendments from the Senate version (which was slightly better than the original House version, mostly because bad non-budgetary riders were stripped from the bill). These razor thin majorities, however, have made immense changes to U.S. tax laws and federal spending that are unrivaled since the War on Poverty during LBJ's administration.

This will do irreparable harm in the next couple of years, at least, disproportionately suffered by Republican controlled areas and Republican voters, and the bill's provisions are wildly unpopular with the American public.

The big question is whether this bill, along with Trump's other horrible steps in governing, will lead to a catastrophic defeat for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections as backlash, or whether the usual partisan tendencies will remain unchanged. Have Republicans committed political suicide? Or will the MAGA cult remain strong after encountering the "find out" part of the FAFO adventure.

I can't imagine how any decent person could sleep at night backing this proposal, and struggle to discern any values other than massively transferring wealth from the poor to benefit the rich, are served by it. But Republicans never cease to surprise me.

The big messages about the budget are that: 

(1) the tax cuts in Trump's budget are driving up the national debt immensely (more than any other bill in the Biden or Trump Administrations by a lot) and will drive up interest payments as a drain on tax revenues, 

(2) the number of people without health insurance will grow from about 25 million (out of a U.S. population of about 340 million) to more than 35 million due mostly to Medicaid changes and there will be a massive disinvestment in health care, 

(3) student loan payments for new college graduates will soar, 

(4) the clean energy investments that are eliminated will mostly hurt people in Republican Congressional districts, 

(5) the bottom 20% are much worse off, the next 20% break even very rich are much better off, while the poor are much worse off, the next 59% are modestly better off, and the top 1% and big businesses are vastly better off, and

(6) any improvements to economic growth are exceedingly small.

One key impact that the charts don't note is that many hundreds of rural hospitals (maybe more than a thousand), almost all in Republican dominated areas, will close. 

It also doesn't really capture how deep cuts to federal spending programs will be, except for defense and funds to carry out mass deportations which get big budget boosts.

The charts via the New York Times:

01 July 2025

Why Does Japan Have Less Economic Inequality?

A short video on Facebook explained why Japan has less economic inequality than the U.S. and many other countries. It notes three main points that were particularly decisive in the 1960s.

1. High and highly progressive incomes taxes that persisted later than comparable high taxes in the U.S. in the post-war period.

2. High estate taxes that persisted later than comparable high taxes in the U.S. in the post-war period.

3. Massive land reform in 1946 coupled with inflation that undermined creditors.

Under Japan's 1946 land reform, landlords who owned more than the permitted amount had to sell the excess land to the government at a fixed price. The government then sold it at the same price, giving first preference to any tenant who had been farming the land. 
Japan’s land reform succeeded for two reasons. 
The first reason is that the Occupation had the power to impose and enforce a law that hurt the interests of a very powerful class of people, wealthy landlords, in order to bring about social and economic change. 
The second reason is more complex. At the time the land reform law was passed in October, 1946, it provided reasonable compensation to the landlords who had to sell their land to the government. But from 1946-48 Japan experienced rampant inflation, which reduced the value of the yen. As a result, while most of the buyers were able to pay off their loans within two or three years after they purchased the land, the money landlords received for their land was worth much less.

These aren't the only factors, of course. 

* The wealthy took a huge hit from the destruction of World War II.

* Urbanization gradually divorced income from land ownership.

* Japan's manufacturing based economy lasted longer than in the U.S. where deindustrialization became by the mid-1970s. 

* A mostly ethnically homogeneous society increased empathy that crossed social class lines and reduced resistance to reforms like universal health care that deep racial and cultural divides in the U.S. undermined. So did the bonding that arose from shared experiences of World War II, defeat in that war, and U.S. occupation.

* Loose land use regulation prevented the best from being the enemy of the good in the process of making affordable living possible, so that very few people were in a state of privation as extreme as now found in the U.S.

10 April 2025

Simple Solutions To Big Problems

I'm a "Fox" and not a "Hedgehog". I know many things and focus on details rather than "one big thing" that solves every problem. 

But, I'm going to try to put on my hedgehog hat and come up with ways to address some of the biggest problems facing the U.S. today if forced to suggest just three solutions to each of them. The point of this exercise is partially to force prioritization of lists of proposals that can get bogged down with good ideas to solve small problems or to make lower priority reforms to big problems.

Affordable Housing and Homelessness

Housing prices in major metropolitan areas are high. What is the single biggest thing we can do to address that?

Eliminate virtually all zoning regulations of residential density, parking requirements,  minimum lot sizes, and regulation of the purposes for which buildings can be used. This primarily reduces the land value part of housing costs which is the main factor that makes housing in big cities so much more expensive. 

What is another big thing that we can do to address that?

End all property tax funding of public schools and replace the lost revenue, dollar for dollar, with increased state income taxes. This will typically reduce property taxes by more than 50% freeing up income for making principal and interest payments. It would also reduce inequities in school funding and would be more progressive as a tax source.

What is a third big thing we can do to address that?

Spend whatever it takes to provide basic housing first, immediately, to every single homeless person in the United States. Housing first is cheaper than letting people live on the street and paying the costs of that. This is less burdensome on the health care system, reduces crime, and improves quality of life for both the people who would be homeless and the people that their being homeless in their neighborhoods would impact.

Health Care

The U.S. pays far more per person for healthcare than any other country on the planet and gets poor results for its money, while inflicting great financial hardship on people. What is the single biggest thing we can do to address that?

Adopt "Medicare for All" financed with a higher Medicare payroll tax and a higher Obamacare tax on investment income. Roll in long term care coverage currently paid for, for many people, with the Medicaid long term care program. 

End Medicaid. End the Medicaid Estate Recovery System (i.e. the poor man's death tax). End private health insurance. End worker's compensation coverage of medical expenses. End the separate veteran's healthcare programs. End Obamacare insurance premium subsidies. End health insurance tax deductions and employer health insurance mandates and private health insurance mandates. End lawsuits by private individuals to pay for medical expenses. End casualty insurance policies designed to cover liability for medical expenses in lawsuits. This would greatly reduce administrative cost waste, bad debt, denial of care, linkage of health care to employment, would reduce health insurance and worker's compensation and CGL insurance expenses for businesses, would simplify tax returns for individuals, and would facilitate more effective cost control on provider payments. It would also increase use of preventative care thereby reducing more expensive acute care and would shift expensive ER care for the currently uninsured to more appropriate lower cost providers. This would especially help working class people who are mostly likely to have inadequate health insurance and to struggle with paying medical bills.

In round numbers, the U.S. federal and state governments spend about $2 trillion a year on Medicare, Medicaid, and VA health care, private health insurance policy premiums are about $1.5 trillion a year, and out of pocket health care expenses are about $0.5 trillion a year, for a total of $4 trillion a year of spending on health care, which still leaves about 27 million people without health insurance (in a country with about 336 million people). Cutting administrative costs, profits, marketing, provider level health insurance claim processing, bad debt expenses for providers, shifting ER care for the uninsured as a last resort to primary care and urgent care, price negotiation with providers from drug providers to hospitals to physicians and nurses, since the U.S. pays higher prices for everything than anyplace else in the world, substitution of preventative care that is foregone for cost reasons for later acute care, reduced worker's compensation, car insurance, homeowner's insurance, and other casualty liability insurance premium rates since they don't have to cover health care expenses, state and local public hospital funding, public employee health care funding, and reduced personal injury litigation costs associated with shifting payment obligations for medical expenses, could cut that $4 trillion to $3 trillion (about 25%). So, public expenditures for health care at all levels of government combined would increase by about 50% over current levels (some of which would be covered by eliminating tax exclusions, tax deductions and credits for health care under existing tax law) while largely eliminating household level and business level health care expenses, ending medical expense driven bankruptcies and collect litigation costs, and lower other household and business insurance premiums, and covering all 27 million of the uninsured. Tax bills for households and businesses would go up, but a lot of wasted time in households and businesses dealing with health insurance and medical bill related issues would disappear.

What is another big thing we can do to address that?

Legalize "recreational" drugs in a highly regulated and controlled manner similar to Colorado's marijuana legalization to reduce harm, while providing strong support for substance abuse treatment including drug based therapies and inpatient treatment funded with Medicaid for All resources. This would dramatically reduce the overdose epidemic, and would improve recovery rates for alcoholics and drug addicts, something that takes a particular toll on the poor and working class. This would also dramatically reduce gang crime and organized crime and would cripple cartels, and would reduce crime by addicts and would reduce incarceration costs associated with controlled substance users and jail deaths from drug withdrawal. The reduced demand would also dramatically reduce crime abroad from Columbia to Mexico, which would reduce the flow of refugees and migrants to the U.S. and would reduce corruption in the affected governments.

What is a third big thing we can do to address that?

Double the number of medical student slots for educating physicians by expanding medical school capacity and building new medical schools. We shouldn't have the same number of MD education slots as we did fifty years ago, with twice the population, and there is no shortage of highly qualified premed graduates to fill those slots. Limited supply also drives ups provider costs. Ending student loans for medical students and Medicaid for All ending bad debt issues and administrative costs for self-employed doctors and lowering malpractice insurance coverage due to not having to pay for malpractice related medical bill compensation would also allow reduced MD charges without undue hardship for MDs.

Higher Education

It is very expensive to go to college and many people leave college with large student loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Many kids who are ready for college don't go, but many kids who aren't ready for college go at great expense in public funds and for themselves. What is the single biggest thing we can do to address that?

Provide 100% grant based funding for tuition, room, board, and books to students pursuing higher education whose grades and test scores and other factors show that they have at least a 50% chance of completing the higher educational program that they are enrolled in. Do not fund higher education for people who have a low chance of completing the higher educational program that they are enrolled in. End government sponsored or guaranteed student loans. This would much better utilize our nation's supply of academically competent students while reducing dropouts and failures by people who aren't currently ready for college at great expense and undermining personal self-worth. The status quo of indiscriminate state subsidies to in state students and very low admission thresholds that insure that huge percentages of students admitted at public and for profit colleges drop out without degrees is wasteful while still excluding poor and working class students at high levels from the system. Some of the political alienation towards higher education also comes from people who tried and had bad experiences since they weren't ready and dropped out and from people who were shut out of the system when they were prepared and take a sour grapes attitude towards it.

What is another thing we can do to address that?

Improve apprenticeship systems and vocational education programs, both for high school aged students whose academic performance indicates that traditional liberal education programs in a four year program don't make sense for them, and through community colleges. Adopt occupational specialty identification and training approaches used by the U.S. military for enlisted recruits for civilians. This would provide a path to missing middle occupations and recognize that not going to college doesn't have to mean that there is no path to the American dream.

What is a third big thing we can do to address that?

Forgive all existing federally guaranteed or federally provided student loans, and end the prohibition on discharging student loans in bankruptcy for all other student loans ten years after the repayment period begins if a degree is earned and professional certification is obtained in a pre-professional program, and after five years in all other cases. This would provide intergenerational justice to struggling Millenials and Gen Xers and Gen Z. These students could then better afford the American dream and could better afford to get married and have kids.

Poverty

Lots of people, especially children and single parents, but also many older adults with little education or skills, are poor and struggling. What is the single biggest thing we can do to address that?

Make the large, per child tax credit, that was available during the pandemic, permanent, and replace the complicated and audit prone earned income tax credit with a simple income tax credit equal to Social Security taxes (for both employers and employees) up to the minimum wage times thirty hours a week (or an equivalent amount of credit against self-employment taxes - reflected in not having those taxes withheld. The usefulness of the child tax credit in reducing child poverty in a simple way was demonstrated in the pandemic, and the EITC is far too complicated and has bad incentives for people trying to climb out of low income jobs and is too expensive to administer. This would make it more affordable for Millennials and Gen Z to marry, have kids, and achieve the American Dream.

What is another big thing that we can do to address that?

Reduce the regular Social Security retirement age to 55 years to people who do not have college degrees, without a reduction in benefits, and pay for any shortfalls in social security from existing obligations or new coverage, by increasing the payroll tax cap by however much is necessary to pay for it. Consider this payback for not imposing higher education costs on the public, and well as a rough justice categorical recognition that jobs that require less education are frequently more physically demanding and harder to continue to perform in late middle age. This would particularly help the Trump demographic. Many people in this demographic are already voting with their feet by leaving the work force and often applying for disability benefits which wouldn't be necessary with this categorical benefit that is much cheaper to administer and has better incentives.

What is a third big thing we can do to address that?

Provide paid maternity leave, at public expense, from six months of pregnancy to fifteen months after birth, as a short form, temporary, Social Security disability benefit. Add an additional six months to this time period for twins. Pay for this as well with an increased payroll tax cap. This greatly reduces the need for infant daycare, and increase the health of mothers and babies especially for working class families without unduly burdening employers. The pandemic proved that not being at work in late pregnancy out of economic necessity increases maternal and infant health. This would make it more affordable for Millennials and Gen Z to marry, have kids, and achieve the American Dream.

Transportation

Internal combustion engines are polluting and make up dependent upon oil. What is the single biggest thing we can do to address that?

Reduce trade barriers to importing foreign EVs and batteries, and subsidize high speed charging networks. There are lots of good EVs out there that aren't being exported to the U.S. due to trade barriers, especially from China. EVs reduce pollution and reduce fossil fuel dependency with petroleum dependency creating national security issues.

What is the second biggest thing we can do to address that?

Build dedicated high speed rail in interstate highway corridors where there is high traffic volume on medium distance routes (and upgrade medium speed rail corridors that already exist like the one in the Northeast Corridor), and use that high speed rail not only for passengers but for mail and package delivery by the USPS. Pay for this, in part, by shutting down low speed AMTRAK routes with the heaviest subsidies per passenger-mile. This could reduce pressure to expand highways, is environmentally sound, reduces highway maintenance costs, and provides mutual support between the rail system and the postal system. It would improve speed on these routes relative to both cars and to commercial flights. But it only makes sense where it makes some sort of economic sense based upon cost and demand. Medium distance, high volume routes are the sweet spot for high speed rail. Reducing petroleum dependency in addition to being environmentally and climate sound would increase national security and economic stability by reducing exposure to global oil production shocks.

What is a third big thing we can do to address that?

Convert short haul government fleet vehicles like garbage trucks, intracity and school buses, and urban postal delivery vehicles to EVs. This is a perfect niche for EVs even before charging networks are built out, reducing pollution and reducing oil demand with the benefits described above.

21 February 2025

Gas Prices Around The World

There are about 3.8 liters per U.S. gallon.


The main drivers of gasoline prices prices are gas taxes and the availability of local oil supplies. A secondary factor that drives gasoline prices is the nature of environmental regulations related to gasoline that, for example, limit octane levels or otherwise restrict supply. 

Almost all of the countries at the bottom, including the USA, are major oil producers. The U.S., Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Indonesia also all have very low gas taxes. 

Europe has high gas taxes for a variety of reasons which make gas expensive even in nations that are major oil producers like Norway and the U.K. (partially, it funds the infrastructure that vehicles use, and partially, it is a de facto carbon tax enacted for environmental reasons and addresses other externalities associated with motor vehicles).

28 January 2025

State Tax Progressivity Varies

An update. The results have been true for a long time.
Combining a variety of survey and administrative data, this paper measures the progressivity of taxes and transfers at the U.S. federal level and separately for each state. The findings are as follows. (i) The federal tax and transfer system is progressive. (ii) State and local tax and transfer systems are close to proportional, on average. (iii) There is substantial heterogeneity in tax levels and tax progressivity across states. (iv) States that are funded mostly by sales and property taxes tend to have regressive tax systems and low average tax rates. States that are funded mostly by income taxes tend to have progressive tax systems and high average tax rates. (v) Regressive states are concentrated in the South and attract more inter-state net migration, especially of high-income migrants. (vi) State progressivity has remained broadly stable between 2005 and 2016. (vii) Incorporating corporate income and business taxes decreases average state progressivity but increases federal progressivity. (viii) Including spending on public goods and services as a transfer has a large positive impact on measured progressivity.
From Johannes Fleck, Jonathan Heathcote, Kjetil Storesletten & Giovanni L. Violante, "Fiscal Progressivity of the U.S. Federal and State Governments" Working Paper 33385 (January 2025).

09 October 2024

Republican Mass Delusion Continues

Voters are most focused on the economy, with 52% of registered voters, driven by Republicans and Republican leaners, citing the economy as “extremely important” to their vote. The second-most-cited “extremely important” issue, democracy in the US, was driven by Democrats.

Here are the top five most-cited “extremely important” issues for Republicans and Republican leaners in the survey:

* Economy
* Immigration
* Terrorism and national security
* Crime
* Taxes

The top five for Democrats and Democratic leaners was completely different:

* Democracy in the US
* Types of Supreme Court justices candidates would pick
* Abortion
* Health care
* Education

From CNN.

The Republican list is depressing and shows the power of disinformation. 

The economy is about as strong as it has been in decades. Inflation has been lower than wage growth during the Biden Administration and it ended after one post-COVID spike. We have had sustained low unemployment. The stock market is near record highs. Economic growth is strong. Productivity growth is strong.

Crime is the lowest it has been since 1969. 

Federal taxes are historically low. 

Terrorist threats against the U.S. are almost exclusively far right terrorism supported by Republicans. National security is sound with the U.S. itself not at war or in harms way, even though its allies Ukraine and Israel are at war. 

Immigration isn't causing economic harm, isn't causing crime, and is mostly absent, almost entirely, from red states.

Basically, all of the top issues of Republicans are not legitimately problems, and even if they were, none of Trump's policies or proposals would do anything to address them.

It is another day in the Bizzaro world that is Red State America.

02 July 2024

U.S. Taxes And Trends In Wealth Inequality In The U.S.

Wealth Inequality In the U.S. Over Time


This chart, based on the same household net worth data from the Federal Reserve, shows the top 0.1% separately (but is harder to eyeball):


In the 34 years from 1990 to 2024:

*  the share U.S. national net worth owned by the top 1% (currently net worths of more than about $5.8 million, with the current net worth of the top 0.1% consisting of net worths more than $30 million) increased by about 33% (the top 0.1% increased from an 8.6% share to a 13.5% share which is a 57% increase, while the rest of the top 1% increased from a 14.2% to a 16.8% share which is an 18% increase), 

* the share of the next 9% (currently net worths of more than about $1.94 million up to $5.8 million) fell by about 3% from a 37.8% share to a 36.6% share, 

* the share of the next 40% (currently net worths of more than about $193,000 to about $1.94 million) fell by about 15% from a 36.0% share to a 30.5% share, and 

* the bottom 50% (currently net worths of about $193,000 or less including negative net worths since debts exceed assets) fell by about 29% from a 3.5% share to a 2.5% share.

The bottom 50% peaked around 1992 at 4% of total net worth and hit bottom around 2011 at 0.4%  of total net worth in the wake of the financial crisis, and has recovered about half of its losses since it peak since then.

Of course, this is not a zero sum game (although the nominal dollar figures below exaggerate the extent to which everyone has improved their lot):


Adjusting for inflation (234%) and population growth (about 33%) from 1990 to 2024, the per capita net worth in each percentile group has changed in absolute terms as follows in that 34 year time period:

* Top 0.1% up 74%
* Next 0.9% up 67%
* Next 9% up 66%
* Next 40% up 38%
* Bottom 50% up 13%

Changing tax laws were a major driver of these trends

A significant factor in the increased share of wealth held by the top 1% over the last 30 years has been increasingly smaller tax burdens on them.

The strong preference for unearned income and gifts and inheritances over earned income in the tax code makes the effective tax rates of the wealthiest, especially the 1% lower in most cases, than the effective tax rates of the upper middle class and middle class.

The charts below break it down the tax rates on different kinds of incomes, and on gifts and inheritances, over time.


The chart above neglects several additional key tax preferences for certain kinds of income, mostly unearned: 

(1) the unlimited exclusion of income from municipal bonds, 

(2) the exclusion of income from increased cash value in whole life insurance policies, 

(3) the tax free status of accrued but not realized capital gains in assets owned at death, 

(4) tax deferral of capital gains from the sale of investment real estate that are rolled over into new investment real estate investments, 

(5) an exclusion of $250,000 of capital gain on the sale of a principal residence held for at least two years for a single person and $500,000 for married couple, 

(6) deferred or tax free income from various retirement and education investments (most Social Security benefits, defined benefit pensions, 401(k)s, IRAs, Roth IRAs, 529 plans, etc.), 

(7) preferential income tax treatment for stock options and certain other kinds of equity based compensation, and 

(8) the 20% of pass through entity income deduction (I.R.C. § 199A) in tax years 2018-2025.

Tax breaks from international taxation, too complex to review in this post, have also materially help people on the top 0.1% of net worth.

In addition to the federal income tax, wage and salary income is subject to a 7.65% employee and 7.65% employer FICA tax, for a combined 15.3% (and earned self-employment income is subject to a parallel self-employment tax) up to $168,600 in 2024 (the cap is indexed). Above this wage base, there is a Medicare tax of 1.45% employee and 1.45% employer for a combined 2.9% with a parallel self-employment tax.

There is also a federal 3.8% net investment income tax on investments, including the sale of stocks and bonds, for those who earn more than $200,000 if single or $250,000 for married couples (as of 2021), to finance the Affordable Care Act.

Income from marijuana dispensaries is taxed at a punitively high rate due to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E.

Gift and estate tax exclusions and rates over time:

1987-1996

$600,000

37%

55%

$10,000

1997

$600,000

37%

60%[1]

$10,000

1998

$625,000

37%

60%[1]

$10,000

1999

$650,000

37%

60%[1]

$10,000

2000-2001

$675,000

37%

60%[1]

$10,000

2002

$1,000,000

41%

50%

$11,000

2003

$1,000,000

41%

49%

$11,000

2004

$1,500,000

45%

48%

$11,000

2005

$1,500,000

45%

47%

$11,000

2006

$2,000,000

46%

46%

$12,000

2007-2008

$2,000,000

45%

45%

$12,000

2009

$3,500,000

45%

45%

$13,000

2010[2]-2011

$5,000,000

35%

35%

$13,000

2012

$5,120,000

35%

35%

$13,000

2013

$5,250,000

40%

40%

$14,000

2014

$5,340,000

40%

40%

$14,000

2015

$5,430,000

40%

40%

$14,000

2016

$5,450,000

40%

40%

$14,000

2017

$5,490,000

40%

40%

$14,000

2018

$11,180,000 [3]

40%

40%

$15,000

2019

$11,400,000

40%

40%

$15,000

2020

$11,580,000

40%

40%

$15,000

2021

$11,700,000

40%

40%

$15,000

2022

$12,060,000

40%

40%

$16,000

2023

$12,920,000 [4]

40%

40%

$17,000 [4]

2024

$13,610,000

40%

40%

$18,000


Notes to table:

[1] The 60% maximum tax rate actually represents an additional 5% that was added to estates of more than $10,000,000 from the years 1997 to 2001 in order to eliminate the benefit of the progressive tax table. The additional 5% ended at a taxable estate of $17,184,000, which is when the average tax rate reached 55%. So the top marginal tax rate during those years was 60%, but the top average tax rate was 55%.

[2] The federal estate tax in 2010 was actually optional, and estates could elect to pay no estate tax and instead accept a limit on the increase in the income tax basis on assets included in the estate.

[3] The basic exclusion amount was doubled in 2018, but that doubling ends after 2025.


Unused gift and estate tax exclusion became inheritable by a surviving spouse starting with decedents dying in the year 2010.

Working Class and Middle Class Taxpayers

The working class and the middle class pay no meaningful federal income tax (and sometimes even receives a net credit) and no gift and estate tax. The poor and the working class pay little federal income tax mostly due to the standard deduction (and previously a per person exclusion from income), the per child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the exclusion of health insurance from income, the Affordable Care Act subsidy for certain non-employer health insurance policies, higher education tax benefits, graduated tax rates that tax low incomes more lightly, and the lifetime exclusion from gift and estate taxes. Deductions for student loan interest, self-employment health insurance, mortgage interest and state and local taxes also reduce the tax burden for many middle class families.

They do pay FICA or self-employment taxes, however, which greatly offsets the benefit of paying little or no federal income taxes (although they do receive Social Security benefits based in part on the FICA taxes they paid, and received Medicare health care benefits at age sixty-five, in exchange). 

They also pay the "poor man's estate tax", in the form of the estate recovery system for Medicaid nursing home benefits which requires means tested Medicaid nursing home benefits to be repaid with a beneficiary's probate estate.

Federal Excise Taxes And Revenue Sources

In addition to the federal taxes shown above, there are a variety of federal excise and duties taxes on gasoline and other vehicle fuels, on commercial air travel, on alcohol, on tobacco products, on firearms and ammunition, on phone service, and on good imported from less favored nations. Collectively, these taxes have a mostly regressive impact, meaning that the take a larger share of low income people's money than they do higher income people.

The federal government also earns modest amounts of money from miscellaneous sources such as making coins and currency, entering into grazing leases on federal lands, leasing federal mineral rights, and imposing fines and penalties.

International Comparisons

In many developed countries, value added taxes (VAT) and wealth taxes are important, and are largely absent in the U.S. (apart from real property and car taxes) and in many small countries especially islands, customs duties are a major source of government revenue, while they are largely insignificant in the big picture in the U.S. 

The U.S. also does not follow the "no taxation and no representation" model of oil rich monarchies where government services are financed with oil wealth owned personally by the monarch or the royal family, and likewise, has not nationalized oil and gas extraction to the extent of many, mostly developing, countries.

Overall, total tax collections in the U.S. as a share of GDP are low compared to other developed countries, which is one of several important reasons that the U.S. has more wealth inequality than many other developed countries.


Winners and Losers In Federal Taxes And Spending

Generally speaking, "blue states" (i.e. those that vote for Democrats in Presidential elections) pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, while "red states" (i.e. those that vote for Republicans in Presidential elections) are subsidized by blue states and pay less in taxes than they receive in federal spending, although this isn't a strict relationship.

This is mostly because "red states" tend to have lower incomes and GDPs than "blue states". 


At the county level, Biden voting counties had 71% of the national GDP while Trump voting counties had 29% of the national GDP, despite having roughly similar populations. It isn't clear how much of this relationship is because income drives political preferences, and how much of this relationship is because partisan differences in policy drive income differences.

State and Local Taxes

In addition to the federal government, various taxes are collected by state and local governments. The most significant are income taxes (often, but not always based on federal income taxes), business income taxes, taxes on retail sales of certain goods and some select services, property taxes on the assessed values of real property, gas taxes, alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, and motor vehicle registration fees. Some state and local governments tax the value of real estate transfers. There are also a variety of user's fees. Taxes on mineral extraction and gambling and marijuana are significant revenue sources for some state and local governments.

Alaska pays a fixed some of money to every resident annually, currently $1,580 per resident, from its "permanent fund" of oil and gas tax revenues.

The relative importance of different kinds of state and local taxes varies greatly from state to state.

On balance, most state and local tax systems are regressive, meaning that lower income people are taxed at a higher percentage of their incomes than higher income people. 

Generally speaking, "blue states" have higher overall tax rates and more progressive tax systems, while "red states" have lower overall tax rates and more regressive tax systems, although the correlation isn't perfect.


The combined average state and local tax burden from all state and local taxes combined (from here) is shown below (the U.S. average combined state and local tax burden is 10.56%):


State Level Income Inequality

This only partially drives income inequalities between states, however (states with strong economic contributions very high income industries like technology, finance, and insurance also tend to have great income inequality):