Did working women make it impossible to support a family on one income?

Great Debates
61

Even just the mending of clothes was a major chore. My memories of my grandmother when I was a child almost always included her having a needle and thread in her hand. Clothes were worn until they were threadbare, and as they neared the end of their lifespan they ripped constantly.

I remember when she first got some iron-on patches - she was in heaven, but I hated them. They looked dorky, and they were generally hard and scratchy. But they turned an hour’s worth of sewing into 5 minutes of ironing. That one little thing was a huge timesaver for her.

Having chicken for supper meant sending someone out to kill a chicken, which they’d bring back headless and dripping blood. Then she would have to pluck it, pluck the pinfeathers out, gut it, clean it, cut the feet off, and then prepare it for cooking. Today, we remember to take a chicken out of the freezer before going to work, and our prep work is done. Saturday was bread and pastry making day. I remember flour all over the place and a really cozy kitchen because of the heat of the stove and the smell of fresh bread. But Grandma worked her butt off.

62

What isn’t as tidy as I would make it? I made very few opinion based statements in my post, I presented facts. I didn’t present the first chart (raw compensation of two children homes at the poverty level over time) as though it was adjusted for inflation.

I presented facts. I presented the fact that since 1979, the tax burden for every one has trended downwards.

I presented the fact that since 1979, the share of Federal Income Tax receipts and Total Federal Tax Receipts paid by the top 1% has trended upwards, while said shares for the middle quintile have trended downwards.

If you have some further point to make in regard to these figures, feel free to do so. But I posted several bits of information and your comment didn’t specify really what your point was at all. If you don’t think they’re necessarily indicative of anything, then maybe try to explain what you feel is the bigger picture.

My only motivation in posting them was to refute the claim from Der Trihs that the tax burden for the middle class has risen as the tax burden for the wealthy has fallen. The great thing about tax burdens is, they don’t have to be adjusted for inflation. A 25% effective total Federal tax rate is 25% in 1900 and 25% in 2,500. My numbers don’t really show anything else, they’re just raw data with little to no analysis.

If the effective total Federal Tax rate for the middle quintile was say, 18% in 1979 then it means, 18% of their income was given to the government. If it’s 14% in 2007, it means, 14% of their income was given to the government. Percentages don’t have to be adjusted for inflation.

If you want to take the argument beyond simply a point about tax burdens, which was as far as I went in my post to simply address a ludicrous and ill-informed opinion you could.

If you’re interested in income adjusted for inflation;

Average Pre-Tax Income in 2004 Dollars Lowest Quintile Households


1979  15,100
1980  14,500
1981  14,200
1982  13,800
1983  13,300
1984  13,700
1985  13,900
1986  13,900
1987  13,600
1988  13,900
1989  14,400
1990  14,800
1991  14,800
1992  14,500
1993  14,800
1994  14,700
1995  15,500
1996  15,200
1997  15,600
1998  16,300
1999  16,800
2000  16,100
2001  15,900
2002  15,400
2003  15,200
2004  15,400

Average After-Tax Income in 2004 Dollars Lowest Quintile Households


1979  13,900
1980  13,400
1981  13,000
1982  12,600
1983  12,100
1984  12,300
1985  12,500
1986  12,500
1987  12,400
1988  12,700
1989  13,200
1990  13,500
1991  13,500
1992  13,300
1993  13,600
1994  13,800
1995  14,500
1996  14,300
1997  14,700
1998  15,400
1999  15,800
2000  15,000
2001  15,100
2002  14,700
2003  14,500
2004  14,700

From 1979 to 2004 the lowest quintile got a pre-tax raise of a whopping $300 (15,100 vs. 15,400, or 1.9%) Keep in mind that is a real gain, these aren’t actual numbers these are numbers in 2004 dollars in actual dollars the average income of the lowest quintile in 1979 was lower than $15,100.

From 1979 to 2004 the lowest quintile got a post-tax raise of $800 (around 5.75%.) The fact that post tax income increased at a higher rate than pre-tax income suggests further that the tax burden for the lowest quintile went down. The fact that the income for the lowest quintile in 2004 dollars actually went up from 1979 to 2004 also further proves the notion that very few households exist on the minimum wage level, as if that were the case real income most assuredly would have dropped from 1979 to 2004, as the minimum wage’s value in constant dollars has most assuredly dropped over the last 25 years.

For the middle class you have a similar result:

Average Pre-Tax Income in 2004 Dollars Middle Quintile of Households


1979  49,000
1980  47,400
1981  46,900
1982  45,900
1983  45,200
1984  47,200
1985  48,000
1986  49,200
1987  48,800
1988  49,600
1989  50,200
1990  50,000
1991  49,100
1992  49,500
1993  49,700
1994  50,100
1995  51,500
1996  52,100
1997  52,900
1998  54,300
1999  55,400
2000  55,100
2001  55,800
2002  54,600
2003  54,200
2004  56,200

Average After-Tax Income in Constant 2004 Dollars Middle Quintile of Households


1979  39,900
1980  38,600
1981  37,900
1982  37,700
1983  37,300
1984  38,700
1985  39,300
1986  40,300
1987  40,200
1988  40,700
1989  41,200
1990  41,000
1991  40,500
1992  40,900
1993  41,100
1994  41,400
1995  42,600
1996  43,100
1997  43,700
1998  45,200
1999  46,100
2000  45,900
2001  47,300
2002  46,500
2003  46,700
2004  48,400

For middle quintile homes, you had a raw increase pre-tax of $7,000 (or 14.6%). You had a post-tax increase of $8,500 (or 21.3%.)

63

There’s lots of accurate facts there, and poor conclusions.

Your itemized deductions won’t be higher than $9,700 if you own a cheaper home because well, you own a cheaper home and pay a smaller mortgage. You can’t instantly assume that someone who buys a $150,000 home in Pittsburgh is actually poorer than someone who buys a more expensive home in Los Angeles. The person in Pittsburgh lives in an area with lower housing costs, that in and of itself means that person’s salary, even if a good bit lower than the person in L.A.'s goes further, meaning his actual purchasing power could be higher (or it could still be lower, but not near so much as the gap in housing prices would suggest.)

How exactly is a homeowner in Pittsburgh subsidizing a homeowner in Los Angeles? Because the homeowner in Pittsburgh can’t take an itemized deduction and the homeowner in Los Angeles can? That’s a specious argument. I’m willing to bet the Pittsburgh homeowner also pays significantly lower property taxes, has a less expensive mortgage payment to begin with, and also lives in an area with a lower cost of living than Los Angeles.

64

However, it must also be borne in mind that the top 1% nowadays also have a higher share of the total income and the total wealth. The fact that the wealthiest pay a larger amount of the total taxes is mostly just a reflection of the fact that they possess a larger amount of the total money.

65

Yeah, if I didn’t have that link to the NYT article as well as a quote from it in my post I’d feel all guilty and stuff. As it is … not so much. Plus there’s all sorts of good quotes and so forth in that thread on the topic.

Strawman. Never said it was. But it IS a very bad idea to cannabalize the middle class’ wealth to make the upper class richer. That’s what those crap-ass Third World countries do, you know, the ones typically described as “economic basket cases.” The ones you seem strangely determined to emulate.

You would think that, as an economy grows as the US has (mostly) over the last couple of decades, all classes would experience a rise in income. But it hasn’t. Only the upper classes have seen their income increase, and their income has GREATLY increased, far faster than in prior decades. The divide between rich and poor has grown so great that even Ben Stein sees it as a problem. Hell, the former chairmer of the Fed, Paul Volker, sees it as a problem. These are not leftists. When people on the left AND the right see something as a problem, it’s probably a really big fuckin’ problem.

66

I have to say, **Martin Hyde, ** that while your long lists of numbers were at first mind-numbing and utterly meaningless to me, you finally brought the situation under control with post #62 and proved, to my satisfaction anyway, something I’ve believed for many, many years – we Americans are not over-taxed and the last thing we need to do is “cut taxes” for anybody. I do have a question, however, about FICA and whether that was figured into your numbers, or just income tax.

67

Definitely so, but there was a direct, observed rise in the share of the tax burden (and total government revenue) contributed by the top 1% when we dropped the tax rate on the top bracket from 70% down to 50% then down to 38%.

I think 35% is a good place for the top bracket, the few years of 28% was probably too low in the late 80s. The years where it was 90%+ was just ludicrous.

If you look though, you’ll note that the share of income by the top 1% has fluctuated a good bit since 79, hitting a high of ~20% near the end of Clinton’s term.

It’s always been my opinion that the more prosperous the economy, the more prosperous the wealthy are (and everyone else.) They’re the ones who are risking the most money in capitalist ventures, so it’s only logical they reap the highest rewards.

68

No, it’s not. Look at the numbers I’ve posted, the middle class’s post-tax income has gone up $8,500 in real terms since 1979. The middle class has seen an increase in income, your claims that they haven’t is just untrue.

69

It varies from chart to char, which I made clear.

The ones which have “Income Tax” in the title are just looking at Federal Income Tax Figures, the ones that have “Total Federal Tax” in the title deal with a combination of Federal Income Tax, payroll taxes, Federal excise taxes, and corporate taxes.

70

Counterclaims:

Stangant wages:

For the last 2 1/2 years, middle class wages have declined or been stagnant (barely keeping pace with inflation. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/census/story/501203.html

Income inequality since 1979:

“The basic story is very clear,” Blinder said. “Inequality was mostly falling for 30 or 35 years or so until the late 1970s and has been mostly rising since then.” He offered a vivid example: In 1979, the average taxpayer in the top one-tenth of 1 percent earned about as much as 44 average taxpayers in the bottom half. In 2001, the rich taxpayer earned as much as nearly 160 less affluent people."
– Allan Blinder, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors

The wealth gap has hit the middle class hard in the important places. Geegaws like CDs and big screen TVs have gotten cheaper, but the big stuff has FAR outpaced middle class incomes:

"According to economist Bernstein, whose study covers the years 1991-2002, households in the middle fifth of the economy increased their incomes (not adjusted for inflation) by 41 percent. Inflation during that period, as measured by the government’s Consumer Price Index, went up 33 percent. That implies real living standards rose by a not very impressive 8 percent during more than a decade.

But hold on. During the same period, housing, healthcare, education, and child care went up 46 percent, or more than incomes. We cannot afford the big things we need and comfort ourselves with gadgets. The cheaper laptop, plasma TV, and GPS screen in your car make it appear statistically that living standards are not falling as much as they are."
((“Bernstien” is Jared Bernsteins of the Economic Policy Institute, a moderate think tank. – EC)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0401-20.htm

(The above really rings true to a guy without health insurance of any kind.)

Here’s a nice summary of the wage declines experienced by middle class families 1989-1999:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_labor99

Put it all together, and it’s a pretty grim picture. Directly contrasting yours, Martin.

71

Yes, but don’t forget that tax rates on other brackets were also cut when the cuts were made to the top marginal rate. Everybody (or almost everybody) was paying less tax, so it’s not surprising that the tax contributions of the wealthiest ended up being a bigger slice of the smaller revenue pie.

For (a very simplified) example, let’s say that in a revenue pool consisting of you and me, you’re paying $100,000 in tax on a $200,000 income, and I’m paying $10,000 on a $50,000 income. You’ve got a 50% effective tax rate and are bearing about 91% of the total tax burden, while I’ve got a 20% rate and only about 9% of the total tax burden.

Let’s suppose now that your tax rate gets chopped to 35% and mine to 12%, so you now pay $70K in tax while I pay $6K. It’s clear that you got a much bigger tax cut than I did, in terms of percentage points. And you saved a lot more on your taxes than I did, in terms of dollar amount. And yet your share of the total tax burden actually went UP, to over 92%, while mine dropped to about 8%.

Is this increased share of the total tax burden an unfair imposition on you? Would you like to return to the previous tax-rate setup, to avoid having to carry that increased share of the total tax burden? No, I didn’t think you would.

This is why I don’t think “share of the total tax burden” is a very good measure of how hard or how “unfairly” the taxpayers at different income levels get taxed. As a rule, if you cut taxes for everybody, it’s likely that the top earners are going to end up bearing more of the resulting (smaller) overall tax burden. That doesn’t mean that tax cuts are somehow less good for the top earners than they are for the middle class. Or that the middle class is somehow being let off the hook tax-wise compared to the top earners.

I definitely agree that a strong economy enriches its wealthiest members. And I tend to agree that in the long term, a consistently strong economy tends to enrich its non-wealthy members too. But I don’t think that the prosperity of the wealthiest necessarily reliably correlates with the prosperity of the non-wealthy, certainly not in the short term.

72

That article doesn’t say that, at all. It says for the last 15 years income has increased about 35%, or around 15% adjusted for inflation. The article never once says that the wages have declined, or are barely keeping pace with inflation. You either did not read the very article you just linked to or you deliberately lied about its contents hoping no one would bother to read it.

The one point where the article uses the word stagnant is in this context:

That wasn’t an objective opinion, it was just conveying what was identified as problems in congressional testimony. The article’s author certainly does not believe wages have been stagnant, as they go on to say:

That’s as far as the article goes, it even goes on to say, as I’ve already stated that adjusted for inflation wages have risen by an average of 15%. So no, I don’t see anything to support your contention that middle class wages have barely kept pace with inflation, what’s interesting is it’s probably possible to find an article out there that says just that–although I’d question the article’s veracity. You didn’t even go to the trouble to find such an article (even the other articles you link to still suggest an increase in real income vs. inflation), you linked to an article that says no such thing and lied about its contents (as to the point about the last two years, that’s never remotely mentioned anywhere in the article you linked.)

Since there’s no evidence middle class wages (adjusted for inflation) have decreased or become stagnant, I guess the crux of your problem is you have a bad job and don’t like it that rich people are getting richer. There’s no real credible evidence the middle class is getting poorer, in fact, they’re getting richer, too. Your problem is, they aren’t getting rich as fast as the rich are. Well, cry me a river, or start pursuing investments or try to start your own business. The rich are rich because they’ve taken risks in their life, or because they are way more valuable than you are. Doctors have to spend 12 years in education before they start to make real money, and will spend 10 years after that before they break even. Most entrepreneurs fail and fail miserably, ruining their personal and business finances while they’re at it.

You can’t expect an economy to work when the most qualified, or those most willing to take risks get rewarded on the same level as those who are not as qualified or those who are not willing to take risks. It’s not a risk to go to a State university, get a four year degree, get an office job paying ~$50,000 and more or less be a drone for the next 30-years til you retire.

You’re like the poker player who is mad because you’ve played the entire game ultra-conservatively and the guy who played loose won the pot, sometimes taking risks pays off, and it pays off big. That’s why people do it. It also sometimes ruins you, that’s why it is called risk.

This is in direct contradiction to another economist supported cite from your first article which stated that, even adjusted for inflation, wages have gone up by 15%, not 8%. Who do we believe? Your first article, or this one? Or do we have to pick and choose from the facts you present in order to paint a picture most supportive of your argument?

The figures about housing, healthcare, education, and child care is meaningless without context (even assuming the numbers are correct.) That 46 percent is nationwide, whereas people at the individual level don’t function “nationwide.” The national price of homes may outstrip the national rise in wages, but that could be because homes in major cities on the two coasts have become extremely expensive, it doesn’t necessarily mean families can’t find affordable housing. The price of education and healthcare can in many cases be subsidized, most Americans have some form of health insurance be it government supported or job supported. Many others who don’t have health insurance choose not to have it, while there is something like 65 million who don’t have health care, not all of those people really have no means of getting it, they chose a second car, a new TV, or et cetera instead of a monthly premium.

There are Federally subsidized student loans and scholarships and grants for people who can’t afford college.

I agree, if you’re willing to lie about the facts, string together articles that contradict each other and cherry pick the facts you most agree with, it’s a grim picture indeed.

73

:confused: Do we maybe have a link issue here? I read the article in that link, and didn’t see anything about income levels over the past 15 years.

Are we talking about the same URL? The one in the part of EC’s post that you quoted here is, AFAICT,

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/census/story/501203.html

– Wait, I get it! You mistakenly identified the wrong one of EC’s links. The article that does talk about income levels over the past 15 years is his next link,

And I think you slightly misunderstood it. It didn’t claim that “for the last 15 years income has increased about 35%, or around 15% adjusted for inflation”; it says

Emphasis added. The article is not actually talking about income in both cases, as you suggest.

74

What you fail to realize is, when they dropped the tax rates on the wealthiest brackets, total government revenues increased. It was not a “bigger slice of the smaller revenue pie” it was a “bigger slice of the bigger revenue pie.” It was actually discovered that paradoxically cutting taxes can raise government revenue. Why? There’s lots of speculation out there, some economists argue that when taxes are too high, people will be less inclined to make money, thus even though the tax rates are high, the income base is relatively lower so revenues are low.

I don’t believe that, I think people will always try to make money. However, the higher the tax rate, the more people are going to try and find loopholes in it. When you’re a multi-millionaire there are ways around taxes. However, getting around taxes is usually never without cost in and of itself, so while it’s worthwhile to pursue all kinds of semi-legal means to avoid paying a high income tax at 70% or 90% tax rate, it may not be near as worthwhile at a 50% or 38% tax rate.

As proof of my claims cite

Let’s look at several key transition years. From 1954-1963 the top marginal tax rate had been 91%, it was dropped to 77% in 1964, from 64 until 79 it fluctuated in the 70s, for most of those years it was at approximately 70%.

Total Federal Receipts (in billions of constant FY 2000 dollars)


1962  99.7
1963  106.6
**1964**  112.6
1965  116.8
1966  130.8
1967  148.8

The tax rate for the top bracket dropped from 91% to 77% in 1964, then further down to 70% starting in 1965 and going through 1967. In all those years, the real increase in government receipts continued to increase.

In 1968 the rate went back up to 75.25%, then up to 77.00% the next year, down 71.75% the year after that, and finally back to 70% in 1971 where it stayed until 1981.

In 1981, it went from 70% to 69.13%, then down to 50% throughout the first half of the early 80s (til 87.)


1980  517.1
1981  599.3
1982  617.8
1983  600.6
1984  666.5
1985  734.1
1986  769.2

From 1980-1981 when there was a little under a 1% reduction, we saw a good increase in federal receipts, went up some more in 82 when the rate went down to 50%, dropped some in 83, skyrocketed up from 84-86 (to all time highs in constant 2000 dollars by 86.) In 1987 the rate dropped even further, down to 38.50%, then down to 28.00% the next two years, then up again to 31% until 1993.


1987  854.4
1988  909.3
1989  991.2
1990  1,032.1
1991  1,055.1
1992  1,091.3

When the rate dropped from 50% to 38.50% revenue went up (in real terms) over 50 billion dollars, when it dropped further still to 28.00%, revenue jumped by 80 billion.

Capital investment fuels our system. Even if relative gains for the rich don’t directly help the poor and the middle class in the short term, without capitalists our economy loses its engine.

75

Wait a second. As far as I can tell, the two claims you’re comparing are the following:

From this link:

And from this link:

One study describes the change in real wages in “the vast majority of households” between 1989 and 2004 as +15%. The other describes the change in real income in the middle quintile of households between 1991 and 2002 as +8%.

I don’t see that those two statements necessarily contradict each other. That’s not to say that either or both of them couldn’t possibly be untrue, but I don’t see any obvious inconsistency in them.

76

You’re right, I’ll apologize for saying he was lying, though I still think he’s wrong.

You’re right. Either way though, when referencing that particular quote I believe the point I made was, “even adjusted for inflation income increased by 15%.” What the article actually said was "real wages increased by “less than 15%.” We can interpret that many ways, in general I tend to interpret it as "around 15%’ I was in error to read the numbers on net worth as being the same as the numbers on wage increase, but the wage increase numbers were given at “less than 15%” which unless you think that means “1% or 2%” probably means “right around 15%.” If it was actually significantly less than 15%, like say, 12% or 10%, they would have said so, the wording suggests it was probably somewhere between 14.5-14.9%. Which is a healthy increase in real wages in any case.

THe newsobserver article, which for whatever reason I confused as being the WaPo article makes claims about wages that are directly contradicted by the WaPo’s statement about real wages increasing by “less than 15% when adjusted for inflation.” A newspaper like the Washington Post, if they had actually found wages were stagnant, not increasing, or declining would not have said they were increasing at a rate “less than 15%” they would have said rather that real wages are declining when adjusted for inflation, or were stagnant when adjusted for inflation, which isn’t what they’ve said.

In any case, even if, over the last two years real wages have been stagnant, that’s of little relevance. These things are better looked at in long-time stretches, and I’ve already given income figures in constant dollars from 1979 to 2004, and over that time period while there were flat areas of the curve, it trended upwards, to the degree of a real 20% increase (post-tax) over that time period.

77

As a discussion of whether working women made it impossible to support a family on one income, this has devolved nicely into a discussion about whether taxes are higher than they used to be, but it’s missing the point.

In Denver, in the 1950s, a bus driver could make a big enough income to support a wife who didn’t work (but who may have sold eggs or taken in laundry) and a few kids. Said bus driver could buy my house, and in fact, did. The house cost him $11,800, which was approximately 3x his annual income.

I bought the house in 1993, when it cost $159,000, which was slightly more than 3x the annual income of two people–my husband and I. At the time we both made slightly more than 3x the minimum wage and we each made about the same as ONE bus driver. So something changed.

Is this my fault for working? It turns out that when there’s more money in the economy, things cost more–so even though this house isn’t intrinsically worth more than it was in 1950, its cost is much greater. And the thing is, houses around me are selling now for more than twice what we paid for this one. That’s a big bite of somebody’s income if it’s an ordinary income–like that of, say, a bus driver.

(I should have bought this house in 1987, when it sold for $79,000. Oh well.)

I would just like to say that if it’s my fault, as a working woman, that things have gotten so badly out of hand, I am willing to quit. I would be happy to stay home and darn socks. That wasn’t the case for most of my life, though.

ETA: Off-topic, but I had to go to the county assessor’s office to research the cost of this house. If you just want to look at the record, it’s free, as it’s a public record. But if you want a copy, or even want to write something down, they charge you 50 cents a page.

78

I think they certainly do contradict one another. Saying that real wages increased by a 15% (adjusted for inflation) rate over a ~10 year time period but that real income only increased by +8% over the same time period in the middle quintile is very strange to me. The only way real wages can increase by 15% but real income increase at a rate about half that is if we assume the middle quintile is earning a significant portion of income from non-wage sources. I don’t know about you, but most middle class people I know earn the vast majority of their income from their wage. I imagine the truth of the matter is the two different studies analyzed inflation in different ways.

FWIW looking at my numbers in constant 2004 dollars income saw an increase of around 13.9% from the period 1992-2002.

The only source I’ve seen to actually suggest that they are no longer increasing is the newsobserver, but again, it bases its claims on a very short time window. It’s not unheard of, even in a healthy economy, for wages, income, et al. to fail to increase significantly one year to the next, the real problem would be if the stuff EC and Der Trihs were saying was true, that over decades of time real income was not increasing. That isn’t true, and that was actually the relevant-to-this-thread discussion, as the thread was originally about why people could survive on one income in the 50s but can’t today.

79

Actually, according to the table in your link, these seem to be the figures in billions of current dollars, not constant FY 2000 dollars. I think the figures you meant to use were these:

But if we look at some of the years outside this range, the pattern doesn’t seem anywhere near as clear as you are suggesting. For example, from 1961 to 1962, when the top marginal tax rate remained at 91%, the total revenues (in billions of constant FY 2000 dollars, as before) jumped from 528.8 to 552.8. That was a bigger increase than the 1963-64 jump that you claim was due to the cut in the top marginal tax rate.

Moreover, although in 1968 (when the top marginal rate was re-raised) total revenues did fall to 727.4—seemingly supporting your thesis that raising the rate reduces the revenue—in 1969, when the top marginal rate was re-raised even higher, revenues actually rose quite sharply to 838.0. Then when the rate was cut again in 1970, revenues fell to 815.9.

Obviously, there must be other factors causing revenue fluctuations here. I am not convinced that we can detect any clear signal indicating a reliable inverse correlation between changes in the top marginal tax rate and changes in total tax revenue.

But again, only one of the two articles is talking about the middle quintile. The other refers to an unquantified “vast majority of households”.

80

You’re correct, I’ve read a lot of charts for this thread and it’s easy to mess a single column up, for that I’ll apologize. Luckily, in providing the link it’s easy enough to clear up the confusion.

I would agree, and have not ever made the claim the only thing affecting revenue fluctuations is the top marginal tax rate (health of the economy is a bigger factor, less income for the people is less income for the government, even if every one is paying their taxes honestly and/or isn’t discouraged from earning by high tax rates.)

My only point in posting the link was we weren’t talking about a situation where the rich were paying a greater share of a “smaller revenue pie” (as you claimed) because in general that revenue pie has continuously trended upwards despite year-to-year fluctuations. In spite of consistent tax rates much lower than they used to be for the top bracket.

“Vast majority of households” suggested to me that their 15% figure was not an average meaning it would be applicable across most of the first, second, and middle quintiles–and possibly the fourth quintile. The “vast majority of households” is represented by the 1st/2nd/3rd(middle) quintile, the top two quintiles are extremely small household-wise.