This phrase provoked a discussion about the origin of the tax system. Finally, the experts agreed. Despite Buffett's situation, most rich Americans did not pay a lower rate of tax than the middle classes. “Is it normal? No,” replied the Politifact website, which credits the factions.

However, such confirmation should be updated: This situation is normal today.

For the first time since data collection, the 400 richest Americans paid last year, that is, taking into account the federal, state and local burdens, a tax rate lower than that of any other income group, according to the latest data.

This is a hard change since the 1950s and 1960s, when the rich paid much higher taxes than the middle class or the poor.

Since then, higher taxes for the wealthiest, such as real estate or companies, have fallen completely and tax avoidance has become commonplace.

It also has to do with the lowering of taxes that President Trump set in 2017, especially when it comes to the gift for the rich. Thanks to it, the tax rate of the 400 richest families was almost lower than that of any other person.

The total tax rate of the 400 richest families was reduced last year to 23%. This means that the sum of all taxes paid less than a quarter of their income. By contrast, the total rate was 70 per cent in 1950 and 47 per cent in 1980.

For the families of middle-class shelves, the reality is different. For them, federal income taxes have also been reduced a little, but they have not had any benefit due to the fall in corporate or property taxes. And now more social contributions are being paid than before (funded by Medicare and Social Security). In total, taxes for these groups have remained in full.

The bottom line is that over the past 75 years, the progressivity of the US tax system has been greatly reduced.

I've taken data about this from the most important book I've read about government policy some time ago: “The Triumph of Injustice”, which will be released next week. Its authors are Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, professors of the University of Berkeley in California, who have done pioneering work on taxation. Saez received the award for top economists under the age of 40 and was featured on the cover of Zucman Bloomberg BusinessWeek as a “wealth detective.”

Between the two have built a historical database that analyzes the taxes paid by families with different income levels starting in 1913, when the federal income tax began. The story they tell is outrageous, but it's also able to give a blow of energy.

“A lot of people think nothing can be done,” Zucman told me. “But we think otherwise, that’s a wrong view: look at history.” They wrote this in the book: “Companies can choose the level of tax progressivity they want.” Success has been achieved when the tax rates of the richest in the United States have risen. United States And there's been a huge fundraising effort.

And it can succeed again.

Saez and Zucman describe the history of U.S. taxes as a competition in which some want to force taxes on the rich and others try to protect the fortunes of these rich. History began in the 17th century, when the colonies of the North created more progressive tax systems than the Europeans. In addition, the Massachusetts wealth tax was established, among others, financial assets, land, boats, jewelry, livestock, etc.

On the contrary, the colonies of the South opposed taxation. Plantation owners feared that taxes would be against slavery, affecting the wealth of shareholders, historian Robin Einhorn explained. That is why the tax rates were low and the revenue was insignificant. (In short, the anti-tax attitude of the Confederation prevented him from raising funds and fighting the Civil War.)

In the middle of the 20th century, high-tax advocates dominated. The US tax code was probably the most progressive in the world, with a rate for the highest incomes of 91%; corporate tax exceeded 50%.

But in the second half of the 20th century, the low-tax pioneers won the victory. Companies sought more deductions and ways to circumvent taxes. Politicians cut all the taxes paid by the wealthiest: the taxes on the highest incomes, the taxes on investment and property and the corporation tax. The usual explanation for this was that that was going to be for the good of the whole economy.

However, it was subsequently found that this justification was wrong. The rich, but only them, have been doing very well in the last few decades. GDP education has been pathetic and middle-class income growth has been even worse.

It is clear that the American economy is not doing as well when the tax rates for the rich are low and the inequality is enormous. That's when he ended up in the Great Depression, even recently. What is happening is that the increase in taxes on higher incomes is not intended to punish the rich (who are going to remain rich). It's about getting something else, about having an economy that works better for most Americans.

Saez and Zucman draw a modern and progressive tax code in their book. The total tax rate for the richer by 1% would double to 60%. This increase in taxes would amount to a levy of some USD 750 billion a year, i.e. 4% of GDP; this would suffice with a universal childcare system, an infrastructure programme, medical research, clean energy, etc. payment. These are the policies that drive economic growth.

The main part of the agenda is to establish a corporate tax of at least 25% worldwide. A company would have to pay a tax on its profits in the United States, even if its headquarters were in Ireland or Bermuda. Saez and Zucman also advocate a wealth tax; the version of Elizabeth Warren ¹ is based on her work. And they propose the creation of a Public Protection Office that would allow ^IRS2 to fight tax avoidance.

I know beforehand that some critical voices are going to say about this argument: that the rich will always find a way to circumvent taxes. But that's not the case. Of course, some taxes will always be able to avoid them. But history shows us that true attempts to raise more taxes tend to succeed.

Ask yourself this: If the attempts to pay taxes to the wealthiest were really fruitless, why are they so harshly opposed to those attempts?

1 Elizabeth Warren is competing as a Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States.
2 Internal Revenue Service, US Treasury.