In '71 there were 25 different rates.
In '90 three. In '71 74.6 million returns $903.5 billion in income - AGI of $742.8 billion. In '90 113.7 million returns $4878.6 billion in income - AGI of $3798.4 billion. With the top one percent being over the top rate entry point at a total of 1.3 million there is no way those at the bottom could make up the difference based on rates.
Also between '71 and '90 there were there reductions in both the top and bottom rate!
Appears population growth had more to do with income than tax rates. I still say that for tax policy we should dispose of the IRS and institute the FairTax!

Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.

Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.

The net result was:

In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%

I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.

My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.[/QUOTE]