Progressive tax

A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate in-creases as the taxable amount increases.[1][2][3][4][5] Theterm “progressive” refers to the way the tax rate pro-gresses from low to high, with the result that a taxpayer’saverage tax rate is less than the person’s marginal taxrate.[6][7] The term can be applied to individual taxes orto a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime.Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce thetax incidence of people with a lower ability to pay, assuch taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those witha higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive taxis a regressive tax, where the relative tax rate or burdendecreases as an individual’s ability to pay increases.[5]

The term is frequently applied in reference to personalincome taxes, in which people with lower income pay alower percentage of that income in tax than do those withhigher income. It can also apply to adjustments of thetax base by using tax exemptions, tax credits, or selectivetaxation that creates progressive distribution effects. Forexample, a wealth or property tax,[8] a sales tax on luxurygoods, or the exemption of sales taxes on basic necessi-ties, may be described as having progressive effects as itincreases the tax burden of higher income families andreduces it on lower income families.[9][10][11]

Progressive taxation is often suggested as a way to mit-igate the societal ills associated with higher income in-equality,[12] as the tax structure reduces inequality,[13]but economists disagree on the tax policy’s economic andlong-term effects.[14][15][16] Progressive taxation has alsobeen positively associated with happiness, the subjectivewell-being of nations and citizen satisfaction with publicgoods, such as education and transportation.[17]

1 History

1.1 Early examples

In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxesconsisted of assessments on owned wealth and property.The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% of prop-erty value, and could sometimes climb as high as 3% insituations such as war. These taxes were levied againstland, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals, per-sonal items and monetary wealth. By 167 BC, Rome nolonger needed to levy a tax against its citizens in the Ital-ian peninsula, due to the riches acquired from conqueredprovinces. After considerable Roman expansion in the1st century, Augustus Caesar introduced a wealth tax of

about 1% and a flat poll tax on each adult, this madethe tax system less progressive (as it no longer only taxedwealth) and closer to an income tax.[18]

1.2 Modern era

A caricature of William Pitt the Younger collecting the newly in-troduced income tax.

The first modern income tax was introduced in Britain byPrime Minister William Pitt the Younger in his budgetof December 1798, to pay for weapons and equipmentfor the French Revolutionary War. Pitt’s new graduated(progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pencein the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,641 as of2015),[19] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings(10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the newincome tax would raise £10 million, but actual receiptsfor 1799 totalled just over £6 million.[20]

Pitt’s income tax was levied from 1799 to 1802, when itwas abolished by Henry Addington during the Peace ofAmiens. Addington had taken over as prime minister in1801, after Pitt’s resignation over Catholic Emancipation.The income tax was reintroduced by Addington in 1803when hostilities recommenced, but it was again abolishedin 1816, one year after the Battle of Waterloo. A tax onincomes over a certain amount is a two bracket graduatedprogressive tax, similar to those still in use in Sweden.Bottom brackets of 0% are almost universal, whether theyare called “earned income credits” or appear explicitly intax tables.The United Kingdom income tax was reintroduced bySir Robert Peel in the Income Tax Act 1842. Peel, asa Conservative, had opposed income tax in the 1841general election, but a growing budget deficit requireda new source of funds. The new income tax, based onAddington’s model, was imposed on incomes above £150

1

2 3 ECONOMIC EFFECTS

(£12,611 as of 2015),[19]. Although this measure was ini-tially intended to be temporary, it soon became a fixtureof the British taxation system. A committee was formedin 1851 under Joseph Hume to investigate the matter, butfailed to reach a clear recommendation. Despite the vo-ciferous objection, William Gladstone, Chancellor of theExchequer from 1852, kept the progressive income tax,and extended it to cover the costs of the CrimeanWar. Bythe 1860s, the progressive tax had become a grudginglyaccepted element of the English fiscal system.[21]

In the United States, the first progressive income taxwas established by the Revenue Act of 1862. This wassigned into law by President Abraham Lincoln and re-pealed the flat tax, which had had been brought in underthe Revenue Act of 1861. By the mid-20th century, mostcountries had implemented some form of progressive in-come tax.[22]

2 Measuring progressivity

Indices such as the Suits index,[8] Gini coefficient,Kakwani index, Theil index, Atkinson index, and Hooverindex have been created to measure the progressivity oftaxation, using measures derived from income distribu-tion and wealth distribution.[23]

2.1 Marginal and effective tax rates

German marginal and average income tax rates display a pro-gressive structure.

Main articles: Marginal tax rate and Effective tax rate

The rate of tax can be expressed in two different ways;the marginal rate expressed as the rate on each additionalunit of income or expenditure (or last dollar spent) andthe effective (average) rate expressed as the total tax paiddivided by total income or expenditure. In most progres-sive tax systems, both rates will rise as the amount subjectto taxation rises, though there may be ranges where the

marginal rate will be constant. Usually, the average taxrate of a tax payer will be lower than themarginal tax rate.In a system with refundable tax credits, or income-testedwelfare benefits, it is possible for marginal rates to fall asincome rises, at lower levels of income.

2.2 Inflation and tax brackets

Many tax laws are not accurately indexed to inflation. Ei-ther they ignore inflation completely, or they are indexedto the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tends to un-derstate real inflation. In a progressive tax system, failureto index the brackets to inflation will eventually result ineffective tax increases (if inflation is sustained), as infla-tion in wages will increase individual income and moveindividuals into higher tax brackets with higher percent-age rate. This phenomenon is known as bracket creep andcan cause fiscal drag.

3 Economic effects

3.1 Income equality

Main article: Economic inequality

Progressive taxation has a direct effect on reducingincome inequality.[13] This is especially true if taxationis used to fund progressive government spending suchas transfer payments and social safety nets.[12] However,the effect may be muted if the higher rates cause in-creased tax evasion.[13][24] When income inequality islow, aggregate demand will be relatively high, becausemore people who want ordinary consumer goods and ser-vices will be able to afford them, while the labor force willnot be as relatively monopolized by the wealthy.[25][26]High levels of income inequality can have negative effectson long-term economic growth, employment, and classconflict.[27][28] Progressive taxation is often suggested asa way to mitigate the societal ills associated with higherincome inequality.[12] The difference between the Giniindex for an income distribution before taxation and theGini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects ofsuch taxation.[29]

There is debate between politicians and economists overthe role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealthinequality and the effects on economic growth. For ex-ample, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saezwrote that decreased progressiveness in US tax policy inthe post World War II era has increased income inequal-ity by enabling the wealthy greater access to capital,[14]Conversely, a report published by the OECD in 2008presented empirical research showing a negative relation-ship between the progressivity of taxes and economicgrowth.[15] Describing the research, economist WilliamMcBride stated that progressivity can undermine invest-

3

ment, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and productivity be-cause high-income earners tend to do much of the saving,investing, risk-taking, and high-productivity labor.[30][31]Professor Robert H. Frank states that tax cuts for thewealthy are largely spent on positional goods such aslarger houses and more expensive cars, which could havebeen used to pay for things like improving public ed-ucation and conducting medical research,[32] and sug-gests progressive taxation as an instrument for attackingpositional externalities.[33]

3.2 Educational attainment

Economist Gary Becker has described educational attain-ment as the root of economic mobility.[34] Progressivetax rates, while raising taxes on high income, have thegoal and corresponding effect of reducing the burden onlow income, improving income equality. Educational at-tainment is often conditional on cost and family income,which for the poor, reduces their opportunity for educa-tional attainment.[35][36] Increases in income for the poorand economic equality reduces the inequality of educa-tional attainment.[37][38] Tax policy can also include pro-gressive features that provide tax incentives for education,such as tax credits and tax exemptions for scholarshipsand grants.[39][40]

A potentially adverse effect of progressive tax sched-ules is that they may reduce the incentives for educa-tional attainment.[16][36][41] By reducing the after-tax in-come of highly educated workers, progressive taxes canreduce the incentives for citizens to attain education,thereby lowering the overall level of human capital in aneconomy.[16][36][41] However, this effect can be mitigatedby an education subsidy funded by the progressive tax.[42]Theoretically, public support for government spending onhigher education increases when taxation is progressive,especially when income distribution is unequal.[43]

4 Psychological factors

Tax law professor Thomas Griffith, summarizing re-search on human happiness, has argued that becauseinequality in a society significantly reduces happiness,a progressive tax structure which redistributes incomewould increase welfare and happiness in a society.[44] A2011 social psychology study, using data from 54 coun-tries, found that progressive taxation was positively asso-ciated with the subjective well-being, while overall taxrates and government spending were not. The authorsadded, “we found that the association between more-progressive taxation and higher levels of subjective well-being was mediated by citizens’ satisfaction with publicgoods, such as education and public transportation.”[17]

Since progressive taxation reduces the income of highearners and is often used as a method to fund govern-

“Tax The Rich” banner at an IUSY campaign for a financialtransaction tax.

ment social programs for low income earners, calls for in-creasing tax progressivity have sometimes been labeled asenvy or class warfare,[33][45][46] while others may describesuch actions as fair or a form of social justice.[46][47] Lawprofessor Marjorie Kornhauser has suggested that muchof the opposition to progressive taxation is caused byignorance, cognitive bias, and inflammatory rhetoric, andwould be reduced if a nationwide education campaigntaught the public about progressive taxation and told themthat it benefits their self-interests.[48]

5 Computation

There are two common ways of computing a progres-sive tax, corresponding to point–slope form and slope–intercept form of the equation for the applicable bracket.These compute the tax either as the tax on the bottomamount of the bracket plus the tax on themarginal amountwithin the bracket; or the tax on the entire amount (at themarginal rate), minus the amount that this overstates taxon the bottom end of the bracket.For example, suppose there are tax brackets of 10%,20%, and 30%, where the 10% rate applies to incomefrom $1 to $10,000; the 20% rate applies to income from$10,001 to $20,000; and the 30% rate applies to all in-come above $20,000. In that case the tax on $20,000 ofincome (computed by adding up tax in each bracket) is10% × $10,000 + 20% × $10,000 = $1,000 + $2,000= $3,000. The tax on $25,000 of income could then becomputed two ways. Using point–slope form (tax on bot-tom amount plus tax on marginal amount) yields:

$3, 000+($25, 000−$20, 000)×30% = $1, 500+$3, 000 = $4, 500.

Geometrically, the line for tax on the top bracket passesthrough the point ($20,000, $3,000) and has a slope of0.3 (30%).Alternatively, 30% tax on $20,000 yields 30% × $20,000

4 7 SEE ALSO

= $6,000, which overstates tax on the bottom end of thetop bracket by $6,000 − $3,000 = $3,000, so using slope–intercept form yields:

$25, 000×30%−$3, 000 = $7, 500−$3, 000 = $4, 500.

Geometrically, the line for tax on the top bracket inter-cepts the y-axis at −$3,000 – it passes through the point(0, −$3,000) – and has a slope of 0.3 (30%).In theUnited States, the first formwas used through 2003,for example (for the 2003 15% Single bracket):[49]

• If the amount on Form 1040, line 40 [Taxable In-come], is: Over— 7,000

• But not over— 28,400

• Enter on Form 1040, line 41 [Tax] $700.00 + 15%

• of the amount over— 7,000

From 2004, this changed to the second form, for example(for the 2004 28% Single bracket):[50]

• Taxable income. If line 42 is— At least $100,000but not over $146,750

• (a) Enter the amount from line 42

• (b)Multiplication amount × 28% (.28)

• (c)Multiply (a) by (b)

• (d) Subtraction amount $ 5,373.00

• Tax. Subtract (d) from (c). Enter the result here andon Form 1040, line 43

6 Examples

Distribution of US federal taxes from 1979 to 2013, based onCBO Estimates.[51]

See also: Tax rates around the world

Most systems around the world contain progressive as-pects. When taxable income falls within a particular taxbracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of taxon each dollar that falls within that monetary range. Forexample, a person in the U.S. who earned $10,000 USof taxable income (income after adjustments, deductions,and exemptions) would be liable for 10% of each dollarearned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and thenfor 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar tothe 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50.In the United States, there are seven income tax bracketsranging from 10% to 39.6% above an untaxed level of in-come based on the personal exemption and usually vari-ous other tax exemptions, such as the Earned Income TaxCredit and home mortgage payments. The US federal taxsystem also includes deductions for state and local taxesfor lower income households which mitigates what aresometimes regressive taxes, particularly property taxes.Higher income households are subject to the AlternativeMinimum Tax that limits deductions and sets a flat taxrate of 26% to 28% with the higher rate commencing at$175,000 in income. There are also deduction phaseoutsstarting at $112,500 for single filers. The net effect isincreased progressivity that completely limits deductionsfor state and local taxes and certain other credits for indi-viduals earning more than $306,300.[52]

New Zealand has the following income tax brackets (forthe 2012–2013 financial year): 10.5% up to NZ$14,000;17.5% from $14,001 to $48,000; 30% from $48,001 to$70,000; 33% over $70,001; and 45% when the em-ployee does not complete a declaration form.[53] All val-ues are in New Zealand dollars and exclude the earnerlevy.Australia has the following progressive income tax rates(for the 2012–2013 financial year): 0% effective up toA$18,200; 19% from $18,201 to $37,000; 32.5% from$37,001 to $80,000; 37% from $80,001 to $180,000; and45% for any amount over $180,000.[54]

7 See also

• Land value tax

• Optimal tax

• Pigovian tax

• Property tax

• Proportional tax

• Redistribution of income and wealth

• Regressive tax

• Robin Hood effect

• Suits index

5

• Taxable income elasticity

• Tax evasion

• Tax incidence

• Wealth tax

8 References[1] Webster (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a

progressive tax)

[2] American Heritage (6). Increasing in rate as the taxableamount increases.

[3] Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Tax levied at a rate thatincreases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.

[4] Princeton University WordNet: (n) progressive tax (anytax in which the rate increases as the amount subject totaxation increases)

[5] Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. An-derson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), Concepts of Taxation,Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX

[6] Hyman, David M. (1990) Public Finance: A Contempo-rary Application of Theory to Policy, 3rd, Dryden Press:Chicago, IL

[7] James, Simon (1998) A Dictionary of Taxation, Edgar El-gar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA

[8] Suits, Daniel B. (September 1977). “Measurement of TaxProgressivity”. American Economic Review 67 (4): 747–752. Retrieved 28 January 2014.

[9] Internal Revenue Service at the Wayback Machine(archived August 16, 2007): The luxury tax is a progres-sive tax – it takes more from the wealthy than from thepoor.

[10] Luxury tax – Britannica Online Encyclopedia: Excise levyon goods or services considered to be luxuries rather thannecessities. Modern examples are taxes on jewelry andperfume. Luxury taxes may be levied with the intent oftaxing the rich...

[11] Clothing Exemptions and Sales Tax Regressivity, By Jef-frey M. Schaefer, The American Economic Review, Vol.59, No. 4, Part 1 (Sep., 1969), pp. 596–599

[12] Pickett, Kate; Wilkinson, Richard (April 26, 2011).The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes SocietiesStronger. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1608193417.

[13] Moyes, P. A note on minimally progressive taxationand absolute income inequality Social Choice and Wel-fare, Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 (1988), 227–234, DOI:10.1007/BF00735763. Accessed: 19 May 2012.

[14] Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. “Income Inequal-ity in the United States, 1913–1998”. Tech. 1st ed. Vol.CXVIII. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003.

[15] Arnold, Jens (14 Oct 2008). “Do Tax Structures AffectAggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence FromA Panel of OECD Countries”. OECD. Retrieved 2 Jan2014.

[16] Becker, Gary S.; Murphy, Kevin M. (May 2007). “TheUpside of Income Inequality”. American Enterprise In-stitute. Retrieved Jan 8, 2014.

[17] Shigehiro Oishi, Ulrich Schimmack, and Ed Diener,. Pro-gressive Taxation and the SubjectiveWell-Being of Nations.Psychological Science 23(1) 86–92. (Published online be-fore print December 8, 2011).

[18] Roman Taxes. Unrv.com. Retrieved on 2014-04-12.

[19] UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available fromGregory Clark (2015), "The Annual RPI and AverageEarnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)" Mea-suringWorth.

[20] “A tax to beat Napoleon”. HM Revenue & Customs. Re-trieved 2007-01-24.

[21] Steven A. Bank (2011). Anglo-American Corporate Taxa-tion: Tracing the Common Roots of Divergent Approaches.Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–29.

[22] James, Kathryn (2011). “Exploring the Origins andGlobal Rise of VAT”. Journal of Economics 35 (4): 15-22. Retrieved 3 October 2014.

[23] Philip B. Coulter: Measuring Inequality, 1989, ISBN 0-8133-7726-9 (This book describes about 50 different in-equality measures.)

[24] Duncan, Denvil, Klara Sabirianova Peter (October 2012).“Unequal Inequalities: Do Progressive Taxes Reduce In-come Inequality?" (PDF). Institute for the Study of Labor.

[25] The Economics of Welfare| Arthur Cecil Pigou

[26] Andrew Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, 2011, "Inequalityand Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the SameCoin?" IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/11/08,International Monetary Fund

[27] Alesina, Alberto; Dani Rodrick (May 1994).“Distributive Politics and Economic Growth” (PDF).Quarterly Journal of Economics 109 (2): 465–90.doi:10.2307/2118470. Retrieved 17 October 2013.

[28] Castells-Quintana, David; Vicente Royuela (2012).“Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The roleof income inequality and urbanisation” (PDF). Investiga-ciones Regionales 12 (24): 153–173. Retrieved 17 Octo-ber 2013.

[29] Shlomo Yitzhaki (1998). “More than a Dozen Alterna-tive Ways of Spelling Gini” (PDF). Economic Inequality8: 13–30.

[30] McBride, William (December 18, 2012). “What Is theEvidence on Taxes and Growth?". Tax Foundation. Re-trieved January 2, 2014.

6 9 EXTERNAL LINKS

[31] McBride, William (February 20, 2013). “Comments onWho Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systemsin All 50 States”. Tax Foundation. Retrieved January 2,2014.

[32] Frank, Robert H. “Positional Externalities Cause Largeand Preventable Welfare Losses” (PDF). American Eco-nomic Association. Retrieved March 17, 2014.

[33] Frank, Robert H. (June 2003). “Are Positional External-ities Different from Other Externalities?" (PDF). Brook-ings Institution. Retrieved March 17, 2014.

[34] Becker, Gary S. (October 15, 2013). “Becker Exploresthe Roots of Upward Mobility”. The University ofChicago. Retrieved January 24, 2014.

[35] Campbell, Mary; Haveman, R.; Sandefur, G.; Wolfe, B.(2005). “11 Economic inequality and educational attain-ment across a generation”. Focus 23 (3): 11–15. we foundthat family income and wealth have positive and statisti-cally significant links to attainment: children who grow upin families with higher income and greater wealth receivemore schooling.

[36] Mueller, Richard (May 2008). Access and Persistenceof Students from Low ‐ Income Backgrounds in Cana-dian Post ‐ Secondary Education: A Review of the Liter-ature. MESA Project. Educational Policy Institute. stu-dents from low income backgrounds are more sensitive tochanges in tuition and aid packages than their colleaguesfrom higher income families, as are students attendingcommunity colleges compared to universities.

[37] Campbell, Mary; Haveman, R.; Sandefur, G.; Wolfe, B.(2005). “11 Economic inequality and educational attain-ment across a generation” (PDF). Focus 23 (3): 11–15.[Implications of increased economic inequality:] Averageachievement goes up slightly, but so does the variability ofachievement. Average years of schooling increase by lessthan 1 percent. Inequality, in contrast, increases substan-tially, by over 8 percent when all four measures of inequal-ity are considered together. Moreover, a higher proportionof students do not complete high school or 11th grade.

[38] Checchi, Daniele (May 2001). “Education, Inequalityand Income Inequality”. Distributional Analysis ResearchProgramme Papers 52. Suntory and Toyota InternationalCentres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE. in-come inequality effectively reduces school enrollment,mainly at secondary level.

[39] “Growth in Means-Tested Programs and Tax Credits forLow-Income Households”. Congressional Budget Office.February 11, 2013. Retrieved January 28, 2014.

[40] Rachel Johnson, James Nunns, Jeffrey Rohaly, EricToder, Roberton Williams (July 2011). “Why Some TaxUnits Pay No Income Tax” (PDF). Tax Policy Center. Re-trieved January 28, 2014.

[41] Heckman, J., L. Lochner and C. Tabner, Tax Policy andHuman Capital Formation, American Economic Review,88, 293–297. Accessed: 31 July 2012.

[42] Krueger, Dirk; Ludwig, Alexander (May 2013). “OptimalProgressive Labor Income Taxation and Education Sub-sidies When Education Decisions and IntergenerationalTransfers Are Endogenous”. American Economic Review103 (3): 496–501. doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.496. Retrieved28 January 2014.

[43] Ansell, Ben (2010). From the Ballot to the Blackboard:The Redistributive Political Economy of Education. Cam-bridge University Press. p. 175. Under conditions of highincome inequality and tax progressivity, there will be evengreater support for higher education spending even if mostpeople do not receive it

[44] Griffith, Thomas D. (2004). “Progressive Taxation AndHappiness”. Boston Law Review. Retrieved March 17,2014.

[45] Powell, Jim (October 17, 2012). “Class Warfare: TheMortal Enemy Of Economic Growth And Jobs”. Forbes.Retrieved February 3, 2014.

[46] Kim, Susanna (Sep 19, 2011). “Warren Buffett Rule:Class Warfare or Tax Fairness?". ABC News. RetrievedFebruary 3, 2014.

[47] Egypt constitution panel rejects article on progressive taxa-tion, Ahram Online, 11 Nov 2013, retrieved February 3,2014

[48] Kornhauser, Marjorie (September 1, 2004). “EducatingOurselves Towards a Progressive (and Happier) Tax: ACommentary on Griffith’s Progressive Taxation and Hap-piness”. Boston College Law Review. Retrieved February3, 2014.

[49] Form 1040 Instructions (2003), 2003 Tax Rate Schedules,p. 74

[50] Form 1040 Instructions (2004), 2004 Tax ComputationWorksheet—Line 43, p. 72

[51] “The Distribution of Household Income and FederalTaxes, 2010”. The US Congressional Budget Office(CBO). 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2014-01-06.

[52] 26 USC 55. Also see IRS Form 6251 (individuals) andForm 4626 (corporations).

[53] “Income tax rates for individuals”. ird.govt.nz. InlandRevenue Department (New Zealand). Retrieved 15 May2013.

[54] “Individual income tax rates”. ato.gov.au. Australian Tax-ation Office. Retrieved 15 May 2013.

9 External links

• The Progressive Income Tax: Theoretical Founda-tions

• What’s Wrong with the Progressive Income Tax

7

• Slemrod, Joel B. (2002). “Progressive Taxes”. InDavid R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia ofEconomics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Lib-erty. OCLC 317650570, 50016270 and 163149563

• Apps, P. F., & Rees, R. (2014). Optimal taxation,child care and models of the household.

8 10 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

10 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

10.1 Text• Progressive tax Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax?oldid=676014984 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Ed Poor, Si-monP, Maury Markowitz, BL~enwiki, Rbrwr, Sannse, Ronz, Stevenj, Mark Foskey, Deisenbe, Mydogategodshat, PaulinSaudi, Furrykef,Grendelkhan, Tempshill, VeryVerily, Pakaran, Scott McNay, Naddy, Sverdrup, Henrygb, Wlievens, Kent Wang, Terjepetersen, Nikode-mos, TOttenville8, Nadavspi, Inter, Peruvianllama, Everyking, Nayuki, PeterC, Decoy, Ellsworth, Ary29, Karl-Henner, Neutrality, RichFarmbrough, Smyth, Bender235, Commonbrick, Dgorsline, MBisanz, Shanes, Sole Soul, Cretog8, Yonghokim, Xevious, Psychobab-ble, Jerryseinfeld, La goutte de pluie, Eruantalon, PaulHanson, John Quiggin, Smoothy, Wtmitchell, Fourthords, RJII, Deathphoenix,Coolgamer, Joriki, Firsfron, Vanished User 3388458, Plek, Kgrr, Wtfunkymonkey, DL5MDA, Deltabeignet, BD2412, Sjö, Rjwilmsi,DeadlyAssassin, Ligulem, Pearlg, Firebug, Wragge, Fephisto, Emiao, Getzolt, Chobot, Hermitage, Bkhouser, YurikBot, Arzel, RussBot,Gaius Cornelius, Morphh, Nicke L, Brandon, Nick C, BOT-Superzerocool, 2over0, JLaTondre, GrinBot~enwiki, Jaysscholar, SmackBot,Lawrencekhoo, Timeshifter, Gilliam, Chris the speller, TDS, Ksenon, Jprg1966, Sceptic~enwiki, BrendelSignature, Nbarth, Colonies Chris,Oatmeal batman, Famspear, Stevenmitchell, Ahallowell, Nrcprm2026, BullRangifer, Harryboyles, Dreslough, Isokrates, Hu12, Robertwb,Tawkerbot2, TreyGreene, Eastlaw, Cyrusc, Ville Lehtonen, Rowellcf, Breister, DumbBOT, Legis, Omicronpersei8, Thijs!bot, Bobble-head, Paul from Michigan, Prolog, Pro crast in a tor, Gregalton, Mack2, Laikalynx, Kuteni, EECavazos, SiobhanHansa, Toddboyle,MartinDK, SHCarter, X-factor, Bubba hotep, Benzocane, CosmopolitanCapitalist, Roy Langston, DGG, Doctors without suspenders,Richard Katz, R'n'B, Mausy5043, Nbauman, Mattnad, Rhinestone K, Jlechem, JayJasper, EditorTM, DQJK2000, Foofighter20x, Fish-bert, Someguy1221, Tanner-Christopher, Hughmanwho, MaCRoEco, ProfMike789, NHRHS2010, GirasoleDE, Carny, SieBot, Jauer-back, Erik Jesse, Grundle2600, Freedomwarrior, Sbowers3, Veddharta, Perkinsms, Faradayplank, Firefly4342, Bombastus, Capitalis-mojo, Loren.wilton, ClueBot, Admiral Norton, Roewa, Rtminner, WDavis1911, Gacole, DragonBot, Excirial, Aitias, Tang23, DumZiBoT,Doopdoop, Wiseguy316, Airplaneman, Addbot, Some jerk on the Internet, Download, Debresser, Deamon138, Dayewalker, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Darx9url, AnomieBOT, DrChill, Xqbot, Skinsfann44, Srich32977, J04n, Papercutbiology, Tobito85, Shadowjams, Fres-coBot, AnthonyBurton, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket, Peroxwhy2gen, Jonesey95, Jbsmathers, 5k61htv9l, LilyKitty, OlderIgor, Rjwilmsi-Bot, Jjsqt365, Kaiomai, Joraejean, EmausBot, Howard41, Racerx11, Alpha Quadrant (alt), Resist272727, Ubikwit, Noodleki, Sugar-Baby-Love, Sew2wiki, ClueBot NG, MoondyneAWB, Somedifferentstuff, Chrisminter, Mystery Achievement, Frietjes, Helpful PixieBot, Guest2625, ArtifexMayhem, Iselilja, Compfreak7, CitationCleanerBot, BattyBot, The Illusive Man, Thecrowsnest, Kendallestra82,VictorD7, Lugia2453, Turetzsr, Cupco, SPECIFICO, Jamesmcmahon0, Lance Friedman, Neo Poz, EllenCT, Antoine.r.bonnet, North-BySouthBaranof, MilesMoney, Nilshg, NazariyKaminski, Roccodrift, I.yeckehzaare, J Nick A Simpson, Monkbot, TheBigBlob123,Josh9611 and Anonymous: 238

10.2 Images• File:Average_US_Federal_Tax_Rates_1979_to_2013.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Average_US_Federal_Tax_Rates_1979_to_2013.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://cbo.gov/publication/44604 Original artist: USCongressional Budget Office, publication 44604

• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Originalartist: ?

• File:IUSY2011_Banner_Tax_the_Rich.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/IUSY2011_Banner_Tax_the_Rich.JPG License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Timmaexx

• File:Income_Tax_Germany_2010.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Income_Tax_Germany_2010.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Tomeasy

• File:Pitt’{}s_income_tax.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Pitt%27s_income_tax.jpg License: ? Contribu-tors:Original publication: CartoonImmediate source: http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/04/14/a-warning-to-guinea-pigs-or-how-to-avoid-a-tory-tax/ Original artist:James Gilray(Life time: 18th century)

• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domainContributors: ? Original artist: ?

10.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0