Piling on

From Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “How Progressive Is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 2007:



These figures refer to total federal taxes (income, corporate, payroll, and estate taxes) as a share of pre-tax income. Hard to believe that the super-rich once put up with having 70% of their income confiscated. Considered in a vaccuum, I don't necessarily object to trimming that down to 50% or so as was done in the early Reagan years. But of course we don't live in vaccuum. At a time of huge federal budget deficits, problems funding Social Security and social programs, and the health care system in crisis; at a time when pre-tax inequality is increasing dramatically (see this article pointing out that in 2005 the richest 1% got a bigger share of national income than in any year since 1928), why on earth would you make extending the tax cuts that brought the burden on the super-rich down to 30% your number one domestic priority?