That’s not what this paper says. This document states that because we’ve cut the taxes, the wealthy are more wealthy and there isn’t a substantial change in savings/investment.
That is what it claims, but the methodology is effectively the same as the "proof" for global warming: the marginal tax rate went down, but income inequality went up.
Both changed over time: one generally declined, while the other generally increased. But, does that prove that one caused the other?
This ought to be a good read. Right off the bat, what you highlight them purporting makes no sense. If there’s no substantial change in savings or investment, then they’re really not wealthier, are they?
” This document states that because we’ve cut the taxes, the wealthy are more wealthy and there isn’t a substantial change in savings/investment.”
Nobody ever paid 90% in taxes. Back then, you could deduct almost everything as an “expense”....right down to your clothing as a “uniform expense”.
Just one example. The rest makes no sense whatsoever.