Looking for a Straight Answer on Trickle-Down Economics?
Trickle-down economics designates a simple promise made to voters: if governments lower the taxes paid by top earners and corporations, the money they keep will flow down to everyone else.
In this view, the rich invest more, companies hire more and wages rise, until growth becomes strong enough to replace the tax revenue that the state gave up at the start.
Its defenders rarely use the expression themselves and prefer the term supply-side economics (a school of thought centered on taxes and incentives for producers rather than on consumer demand).
The label matters less than the content, and trickle-down economics always combines the same three measures: lower top income tax rates, lower taxes on capital and profits, and lower taxes on large inheritances.
We judge trickle-down economics on its own terms, by checking each promise against what happened once the policy was applied. Three questions are enough: did revenue rise, did growth and jobs accelerate, and did the gains reach ordinary workers?
Our answer is detailed below, section by section and source by source. None of the three promises of trickle-down economics has been kept where the policy was tried and then measured.
Where the Trickle-Down Theory Comes From: Bryan, Mellon and Laffer
The idea is older than its name, and its critics described it long before its supporters gave it a scientific vocabulary.
In his Cross of Gold speech of 9 July 1896, the future Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan already summarized it in one sentence:[4]
There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below.
The word trickle appeared during the Great Depression, in a column published by the humorist Will Rogers on 26 November 1932 against the relief policy of President Herbert Hoover:[5]
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.
Between these two dates, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon applied the recipe in practice, bringing the top federal income tax rate from 73% in 1921 down to 25% in 1925.[6]
In 1982, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith gave the same mechanism a less flattering name: the horse-and-sparrow theory. You feed a horse enough oats, and some will pass through for the sparrows.[5]
The Laffer Curve and the Napkin of 1974
The modern version of trickle-down economics was born at a restaurant table, at the Two Continents in the Hotel Washington, on 13 September 1974.[7]
That evening, the economist Arthur Laffer spoke with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, then senior aides in the Ford White House, and explained that a tax rate can be so high that it reduces the revenue it brings in.
The journalist Jude Wanniski, who was also at the table, popularized the story and gave the curve its name in 1978, while Laffer himself has always denied drawing it on a napkin.[7]
Note that Laffer was then an associate professor at the University of Chicago, and that he only joined the University of Southern California in 1976.[8]
The Laffer curve (a graph linking the tax rate to the revenue it raises) rests on an obvious fact. At 0%, the state collects nothing, and at 100%, nobody has any reason to declare income, so the state also collects nothing.
Between these two extremes, there is necessarily a rate that maximizes revenue, and that is all the curve proves.
The curve never says where this peak is located, and Laffer never put a figure on it, which allows anyone to claim that taxes are too high, whatever their actual level.
When economists do estimate that peak, they place it well above the top rates in force in the United States since the 1980s, and Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez put the revenue-maximizing top rate, all taxes combined, around 73%.[9]
From Campaign Slogan to Admitted Strategy
During the 1980 Republican primaries, George H. W. Bush called Reagan's program a voodoo economic policy, a few months before becoming his vice-president.[10]
The most revealing admission came from inside the administration. In December 1981, Reagan's budget director David Stockman confided in the journalist William Greider for an article published by The Atlantic:[11]
It's kind of hard to sell “trickle down.” […] Supply-side is “trickle-down” theory.
In the same interview, he said that the 1981 tax cut “was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate”, which is exactly what the law did in the following months.
Thus, the expression that supply-side economists reject today was used by one of their own, at the very moment trickle-down economics was being applied.
The Leaders Who Applied Trickle-Down Economics, From Reagan to Macron:
Trickle-down economics is not a marginal idea, since it has guided the tax policy of several major democracies for more than forty years:
- 1979 – United KingdomMargaret Thatcher's first budget cuts the top income tax rate from 83% to 60%, then a second wave brings it to 40% in 1988.[12]
- 1981 – United StatesRonald Reagan signs the Economic Recovery Tax Act, and the top federal rate falls from 70% to 50%, then to 28% in 1988.[6]
- 2001 – United StatesGeorge W. Bush cuts income tax rates and schedules the repeal of the federal estate tax for 2010.[13]
- 2012 – KansasGovernor Sam Brownback cuts state income tax rates and exempts business pass-through income entirely.[14]
- 2017 – United StatesDonald Trump signs the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowers the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.[15]
- 2018 – FranceEmmanuel Macron replaces the wealth tax with a tax on real estate only, and creates a 30% flat tax on capital income.[16]
- 2022 – United KingdomLiz Truss announces the abolition of the 45% top rate, then abandons it ten days later.[17]
- 2025 – United StatesThe One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes the 2017 individual tax cuts permanent.[18]
Reagan, Thatcher and the Founding Promise
Ronald Reagan presented his 1981 tax cut as an incentive for business to produce, hire and invest.
Inflation and unemployment had both climbed at the end of the 1970s, which made this promise attractive to a large part of the electorate.
In London, Chancellor Geoffrey Howe called the 83% top rate an absurdity in his 1979 budget, and the same logic guided Margaret Thatcher's governments for the following decade.[12]
Emmanuel Macron and the “Premiers de Cordée”
Emmanuel Macron offers the clearest contemporary example, because he applied trickle-down economics while rejecting its name in public.
In his first televised interview as president, broadcast by TF1 on 15 October 2017, he declared “Je ne crois pas au ruissellement” (I do not believe in trickle-down).[19]
In the same interview, he defended the abolition of the wealth tax and praised the “premiers de cordée” (the lead climbers of a roped team), warning that throwing stones at them would bring the whole team down.[19]
Whatever the image chosen, the mechanism remains the one Bryan described in 1896: help those at the top first, and the others are supposed to follow.
A Label Rejected, a Policy Repeated
Of course, almost no elected official describes his program as trickle-down economics, and the economist Thomas Sowell even wrote in 2012 that this theory cannot be found in the scholarly literature.[5]
That objection confuses the name of the policy with its content.
What we examine here is a policy that has been voted, applied and measured, whatever the word used to sell it.
Reagan's Record: What Trickle-Down Tax Cuts Did to US Finances
The Reagan years are the founding experiment of trickle-down economics, and also the best documented one, which makes them the first test to run.
The 1981 Tax Cut and What It Cost
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) cut individual income tax rates by roughly a quarter over three years, and it lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%.[6]
The Treasury's own Office of Tax Analysis estimates that ERTA reduced federal revenue by an average of 2.89% of GDP over its first four years. GDP (gross domestic product) measures the value of everything the economy produces in a year.[20][21]
Federal receipts fell from 18.7% of GDP in 1981 to 16.5% in 1983 and 1984, and they had still not returned to their 1981 level when Reagan left office in 1989.[22]
Did the tax cut pay for itself? No, and the administration drew the consequences as early as the following year.
The Tax Increases Reagan Signed Afterwards
Faced with a widening deficit, Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which raised revenue by about 0.98% of GDP per year on average over four years.[20][21]
A former official of the Reagan administration, Bruce Bartlett later described TEFRA as the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.[21]
Further tax increases followed in 1983, 1984 and 1987, so the same president partly reversed his own trickle-down tax cut within six years.[23]
Debt, Deficits and the 1986 Reform
The gross federal debt nearly tripled under Reagan, from $994.8 billion in fiscal year 1981 to $2,867.8 billion in fiscal year 1989.[2]
Measured against the size of the economy, the debt held by the public rose from 25.2% of GDP at the end of 1981 to 39.1% at the end of 1989.[24]
Unemployment reached 10.8% at the end of 1982, the highest level since the Second World War at that time. The recovery only started once the Federal Reserve began to ease its very tight monetary policy.[25]
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 then lowered the top rate to 28%, but it was designed to be revenue neutral, closing enough loopholes to offset the lower rates, so it cannot be counted as a further tax cut.[23]
Reviewing that reform in 1997, Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod found that its strongest effects concerned the timing of transactions and tax planning, rather than work, saving or investment.[26]
Test 1 – Does Trickle-Down Economics Pay for Itself?
Revenue fell as a share of GDP and the gross federal debt nearly tripled. Reagan then signed four tax increases after 1981 to limit a widening deficit.
Trickle-Down Economics Under Contemporary Leaders: The Measured Results
Since the 1980s, several governments have applied trickle-down economics again, and each time official agencies have measured what happened next.
Kansas 2012: A Trickle-Down Experiment Promoted by Its Governor
In 2012, Governor Sam Brownback cut the top Kansas income tax rates from 6.45% to 4.9%, and he also exempted pass-through income (business profits taxed on the owner's personal return) entirely.[14]
Growth offset only 10% to 30% of the initial revenue loss, and fiscal 2016 revenue was still $420 million below the level of the year the cuts took effect.[14]
Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's credit rating in August 2014 and again in February 2017.[14]
Meanwhile, school districts shortened the school year, enlarged classes and cut staff.[14]
Kansas job growth lagged behind its neighbors, and on 6 June 2017 the Republican-led legislature overrode the governor's veto to raise taxes again.[14]
The experiment lasted five years.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the United States
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and cut individual income tax rates, while its sponsors promised faster growth, more investment and higher wages for American workers.[15]
In April 2018, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan budget agency of Congress, estimated that the law would add about $1.9 trillion to deficits over ten years, growth effects included.[27]
Federal receipts fell from 16.9% of GDP in 2017 to 16.1% in 2018.[22]
In 2018, real wages grew by 2.0% against 2.9% for GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service.[15]
Corporate tax revenue came in 16% below projections the same year, according to the same report.[15]
The White House Council of Economic Advisers had projected annual gains of $4,000 to $9,000. A 2024 study by Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick puts the actual gain at roughly $500 to $1,000 of earnings per worker.[28]
We remain honest on one point: the same study finds a real increase in business investment, but it also concludes that this increase is far too small to offset the cost of the reform.[28]
The United Kingdom in 2022: Forty-Five Days
On 23 September 2022, the government of Liz Truss presented a mini-budget that abolished the 45% top rate on income above £150,000, alongside other tax cuts that the government had not funded.[17]
Bond markets reacted so violently that the Bank of England announced on 28 September an emergency program of up to £65 billion of gilt (UK government bond) purchases to protect pension funds.[29]
The abolition of the top rate was withdrawn on 3 October, and the chancellor was dismissed on 14 October, and Liz Truss resigned on 20 October, 45 days after taking office.[17]
France Since 2018: The Official Evaluation
In 2018, France replaced its wealth tax (ISF) with a tax on real estate assets only (IFI), and it introduced a 30% flat tax on capital income (PFU, prélèvement forfaitaire unique).[16]
An official evaluation committee hosted by France Stratégie, the policy agency attached to the Prime Minister, published its fourth report in October 2023.[16]
Dividends received by households rose from about €14 billion a year over 2013–2017 to about €23 billion a year over 2018–2020, and the richest 0.1% of tax households received 62% of them.[16]
The committee detected no effect of the flat tax on investment or wages in the most exposed companies. Meanwhile, the yearly revenue loss from abolishing the wealth tax probably exceeded €4 billion in 2022.[16]
The United States in 2025: The Same Recipe, Made Permanent
In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which made the 2017 individual tax cuts permanent and, according to CBO, adds about $3.4 trillion to deficits from 2025 to 2034.[18]
Analyzing the version passed by the House in June 2025, CBO found that the poorest tenth of households would lose about $1,600 a year in resources. These losses come mainly from cuts to Medicaid and food aid, while the richest tenth would gain about $12,000.[30]
Test 2 – Does Trickle-Down Economics Raise Growth, Jobs and Wages?
In Kansas, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, the measured effects on growth and wages were small or absent, while the cost for public finances appeared immediately.
The Real Effects of Tax Cuts for the Rich, Country by Country
A single episode can always be disputed.
That is why the strongest evidence comes from studies comparing dozens of tax changes across countries and decades.
Fifty Years of Tax Cuts in Eighteen Countries
David Hope and Julian Limberg, of the London School of Economics and King's College London, studied major tax cuts for the rich in 18 OECD countries over fifty years.[3]
Each major cut raised the share of pre-tax national income going to the top 1% by more than 0.7 percentage points, with no significant effect on GDP per capita or on unemployment.[3][5]
A 2015 IMF staff study reached a compatible conclusion on growth itself. When the income share of the top 20% rises by one point, GDP growth is 0.08 point lower over the next five years.[31]
When the income share of the poorest 20% rises by one point, growth is 0.38 point higher instead, which is the exact opposite of what trickle-down economics predicts.[31]
Studying US states, Owen Zidar showed in 2019 that tax cuts for the bottom 90% of earners drive employment growth, whereas the effect of tax cuts for the top 10% is small.[32]
The Richest Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Ordinary Citizens
The second effect is less visible, because it only appears once every tax is counted: the richest households pay a smaller share of their income than the average citizen.
In the United States, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman calculated the effective tax rate (taxes actually paid divided by income) of every income group. In 2018, the 400 richest families paid 23%, while the bottom half of households paid 24.2%.[33]
The same 400 families paid 47% in 1980, and the calculation covers federal, state and local taxes, corporate taxes included.[33]
Economists at the White House also counted unrealized capital gains (the increase in value of assets that have not been sold). On that basis, the 400 wealthiest families paid an average federal income tax rate of 8.2% from 2010 to 2018.[34]
Using leaked IRS records, ProPublica showed in June 2021 that the 25 richest Americans paid $13.6 billion in federal income tax from 2014 to 2018. Over the same period, their wealth grew by $401 billion, a true tax rate of 3.4%.[35]
In France, the Institut des politiques publiques found that the overall tax rate climbs to 46% for the richest 0.1% of households, then falls to 26% for the 75 wealthiest households.[36]
Commissioned by the Brazilian presidency of the G20 in 2024, Gabriel Zucman's report estimates that the world's roughly 3,000 billionaires pay the equivalent of 0.3% of their wealth in personal income tax.[37]
The same report calculates that a minimum tax equal to 2% of their wealth would raise between $200 and $250 billion a year.[37]
Fortunes That Grow Faster Than the Rest of the Economy
The combined fortune of the Forbes 400 rose from about $1.27 trillion in 2009 to $2.96 trillion in 2019. Over the same decade, the average tax rate of this group fell from 27% to 23%.[38]
Worldwide, Oxfam calculates that billionaire wealth grew by $2 trillion in 2024 to reach about $15 trillion, three times faster than in 2023.[39]
Indeed, a fortune that is barely taxed grows faster than the economy around it, which is why each tax cut at the top widens inequality year after year.
Test 3 – Do the Gains of Trickle-Down Economics Reach Everyone?
The gains concentrate at the top of the income scale. In the United States and in France, the richest even end up with lower effective tax rates than the middle class.
What Supporting Trickle-Down Economics Means in Practice
Supporting trickle-down economics today means supporting a transfer of resources toward the highest incomes, whatever the intention of the person who defends it.
Who receives the money, then? The distribution tables answer that question.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that the 2017 law, as voted, would give 20.5% of its benefits to the top 1% in 2018 and 25.3% in 2025. That share would reach 82.8% in 2027, once the provisions helping middle-income taxpayers had expired.[40]
In France, about 40,000 households, the richest 0.1%, receive 62% of the dividends that grew after the flat tax.[16]
Under the 2025 US law, the poorest tenth lose resources while the richest tenth gain.[16][30]
Beyond the distribution, every dollar left untaxed at the top must be paid by someone else, through public debt, higher taxes on other households or cuts to public services.
| Promise | How it was tested | What happened | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax cuts at the top pay for themselves | US federal revenue after 1981 and 2017, Kansas after 2012 | Revenue fell, deficits rose by $1.9 trillion for the 2017 law alone | Not kept |
| They raise growth, jobs and wages | 18 countries over 50 years, US states, 2017 business tax cut | No significant effect on growth or unemployment, wages far below the promises | Not kept |
| Everyone ends up better off | Distribution of gains, effective tax rates | The top 1% share rises, the richest pay lower rates than the middle class | Not kept |
Thus, defending trickle-down economics after these results amounts to choosing to favor ultra-high incomes at the expense of public finances and of every other taxpayer.
Believing the opposite requires setting aside the data published by the very governments that applied the policy, which makes it a matter of opinion, and no longer a question of economics.
Questions and Objections About the Trickle-Down Theory
What Is Trickle-Down Economics, in One Sentence?
Trickle-down economics is the policy of cutting taxes for top earners and corporations, on the assumption that the benefits will reach everyone through investment, jobs and higher wages.
Does Trickle-Down Economics Work?
Who Invented Trickle-Down Economics?
Is the Laffer Curve False?
From a mathematical point of view, the curve is correct: above a certain rate, raising taxes reduces revenue.
But note that none of the 40 leading economists polled by the IGM Forum in 2012 agreed that a US income tax cut would raise revenue within five years, and 71% of them disagreed.[1]
Estimates of the revenue-maximizing top rate, such as the 73% calculated by Diamond and Saez for all taxes combined, are well above the top rates applied in the United States since the 1980s.[9]
Isn't Trickle-Down a Straw Man That No Economist Defends?
Don't the Rich Already Pay Most of the Income Tax?
Yes, if you look at the federal income tax alone and at taxable income only. In 2023, the top 1% paid 38.4% of that tax while receiving 20.6% of adjusted gross income, according to IRS data compiled by the Tax Foundation.[41]
But this measure leaves out unrealized capital gains, which represent a large share of the economic income of the wealthiest. It also ignores payroll, sales and local taxes, which weigh more heavily on ordinary households.[34][33]
Didn't Reagan's Tax Cuts Create the Boom of the 1980s?
The recovery started after the Federal Reserve eased its policy in 1982, following a recession that sent unemployment to 10.8%, and it was financed by deficits that nearly tripled the gross federal debt.[25][2]
Moreover, Reagan himself raised taxes four times after 1981, which is hard to reconcile with the idea that his original cut was working as promised.[23]
Didn't the 2017 Corporate Tax Cut Increase Investment?
It did, and the 2024 study by Chodorow-Reich, Zidar and Zwick measures a real increase in business investment. But the same study concludes that this increase is far too small to offset the cost of the reform.[28]
Wage gains, for their part, came in far below the $4,000 to $9,000 a year that the White House had projected.[28]
Won't the Rich Leave If They Are Taxed More?
Tax flight exists but remains marginal: in the United States, about 2.4% of millionaires move to another state each year, against 2.9% for the general population.[42]
In France, the official evaluation counted about 950 departures a year among wealth tax payers between 2011 and 2016. Under the new real estate tax, departures fell to about 260 a year, numbers the committee describes as low.[16]
Are There Tax Cuts That Actually Work?
Yes: according to Owen Zidar, tax cuts aimed at the bottom 90% of earners have a clear positive effect on employment. This result is consistent with the fact that these households spend most of what they receive.[32]
What Is the Difference Between Supply-Side Economics and Trickle-Down Economics?
Supply-side economics is the academic name of the doctrine, focused on incentives to work, save and invest. Trickle-down economics is the name given to the same policy when it targets the top.
David Stockman, who ran Reagan's budget office, treated the two expressions as the same thing in 1981.[11]
Is a Minimum Tax on Billionaires Realistic?
Yes, at least on paper: in their Rio de Janeiro declaration of 26 July 2024, the G20 finance ministers committed to work together so that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed.[43] This commitment followed the 2% minimum tax that Gabriel Zucman proposed in his report to the G20 presidency.[37]
How Were the Figures on This Page Selected?
We use official budget data, statistics agencies, parliamentary research services and peer-reviewed studies first. The press is cited only to date an event or to reach a public document.
Each figure is linked to its source in the list below, and this page is updated when new official data is published.
Still Convinced Trickle-Down Economics Works After These Figures?
Trickle-down economics made three promises, and the governments that applied it have tested each one with their own statistics.
Revenue fell instead of rising, growth and wages did not respond as announced, and the gains concentrated at the top while the richest ended up paying lower tax rates than ordinary citizens.
Believing the opposite today requires setting aside the US Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, the French government's evaluation committee and fifty years of comparative research.
The record is public, dated and verifiable.
Trickle-down economics is not a theory waiting for its proof. It is a policy whose results are known, and the only remaining question is who chooses to keep paying for it.
Sources and Method
Sources are numbered in the order of their first citation on the page. Official data and peer-reviewed studies come first, and a press article or an encyclopedia is cited only when it reproduces or dates a primary document. Figures were last checked on 30 October 2026.
- IGM Forum Economic Experts Panel (University of Chicago Booth), Laffer curve question, 2012, reported by Oklahoma Policy Institute. okpolicy.org
- FRED, Gross Federal Debt (FYGFD), billions of dollars, fiscal years, source OMB. fred.stlouisfed.org
- David Hope and Julian Limberg, “The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich”, Socio-Economic Review, 2022 (LSE summary). www.lse.ac.uk
- William Jennings Bryan, “Cross of Gold” speech, Democratic National Convention, Chicago, 9 July 1896 (transcript). www.gold.org
- “Trickle-down economics”, Wikipedia: Will Rogers column of 26 November 1932, J. K. Galbraith, “Recession Economics”, New York Review of Books, 4 February 1982, Thomas Sowell (Hoover Institution, 2012), Hope & Limberg (2022) figures. en.wikipedia.org
- Tax Policy Center, Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913–2026. www.taxpolicycenter.org
- Smithsonian Magazine, article on the Laffer napkin kept by the National Museum of American History (dinner of 13 September 1974). www.smithsonianmag.com
- “Arthur Laffer”, Wikipedia (academic positions: University of Chicago 1967–1976, University of Southern California 1976–1984). en.wikipedia.org
- Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, “The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(4), 2011, pp. 165–190. econpapers.repec.org
- Barry Popik, “Voodoo Economics” (George H. W. Bush, 1980 Republican primary campaign). barrypopik.com
- William Greider, “The Education of David Stockman”, The Atlantic, December 1981, quoted in “David Stockman”, Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org
- New Statesman, chart of the UK top rate of income tax (83% in 1978–79, 60% after the 1979 Budget, 40% after the 1988 Budget), March 2012. www.newstatesman.com
- Congressional Research Service, Estate Tax: Legislative Activity in 2002 (RS21224) – EGTRRA phase-down and repeal for 2010. www.everycrsreport.com
- “Kansas experiment”, Wikipedia (sources: Kansas Legislature, NPR, Reuters, New York Times, Topeka Capital-Journal, Rickman & Wang 2018). en.wikipedia.org
- Congressional Research Service, The Economic Effects of the 2017 Tax Revision: Preliminary Observations (R45736), May 2019. www.everycrsreport.com
- France Stratégie, Comité d’évaluation des réformes de la fiscalité du capital, quatrième rapport – avis du comité, October 2023. www.strategie-plan.gouv.fr
- Euronews, “Truss resigns: a timeline of key events in three months of UK political chaos”, October 2022. www.euronews.com
- Reuters via The Star, “Trump tax law to add US$3.4 trillion to US deficits” (CBO estimate), 23 July 2025. www.thestar.com.my
- Public Sénat, “Les principales déclarations de l’interview d’Emmanuel Macron”, TF1, 15 October 2017. www.publicsenat.fr
- US Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills, Working Paper 81 (2006, updated 2011). webarchive.library.unt.edu
- “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982”, Wikipedia (Bruce Bartlett, National Review, 2003; Treasury OTA Working Paper 81). en.wikipedia.org
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S), source OMB. fred.stlouisfed.org
- “Reagan tax cuts”, Wikipedia (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 2015: later tax increases, revenue-neutral design of the 1986 reform). en.wikipedia.org
- FRED, Federal Debt Held by the Public as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYGFGDQ188S). fred.stlouisfed.org
- FRED, Unemployment Rate (UNRATE), US Bureau of Labor Statistics. fred.stlouisfed.org
- Alan J. Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, “The Economic Effects of the Tax Reform Act of 1986”, Journal of Economic Literature 35(2), June 1997, pp. 589–632. ideas.repec.org
- Congressional Budget Office, “How the 2017 Tax Act Affects CBO’s Projections”, April 2018. www.cbo.gov
- American Economic Association, Research Highlight on the study by Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick on the 2017 business tax cuts, 2024. www.aeaweb.org
- Full Fact, “The Bank of England hasn’t already spent £65 billion following mini-Budget” (programme announced 28 September 2022). fullfact.org
- Congressional Budget Office, letter to Brendan F. Boyle and Hakeem Jeffries on the distributional effects of H.R. 1, 12 June 2025. content.govdelivery.com
- Era Dabla-Norris et al., Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective, IMF Staff Discussion Note, June 2015, quoted by Tax Justice Network. taxjustice.net
- Owen Zidar, “Tax Cuts for Whom? Heterogeneous Effects of Income Tax Changes on Growth and Employment”, Journal of Political Economy, 2019 (Journalist’s Resource summary). journalistsresource.org
- Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, The Triumph of Injustice (2019), figures reported by the Associated Press, October 2019. bangordailynews.com
- Greg Leiserson and Danny Yagan, “What Is the Average Federal Individual Income Tax Rate on the Wealthiest Americans?”, White House CEA and OMB, 23 September 2021. bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov
- Jesse Eisinger, Jeff Ernsthausen and Paul Kiel, “The Secret IRS Files”, ProPublica, 8 June 2021 (republished by CT Mirror). ctmirror.org
- Laurent Bach, Antoine Bozio, Arthur Guillouzouic and Clément Malgouyres, « Quels impôts les milliardaires paient-ils ? », Note IPP n°92, June 2023. www.ipp.eu
- Gabriel Zucman, A Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals, report commissioned by the Brazilian G20 presidency, 25 June 2024 (executive summary). www.taxobservatory.eu
- Common Dreams, report on Forbes 400 wealth and tax rates, 2009–2019 (calculation by Gabriel Zucman), 26 November 2019. commondreams.org
- Oxfam, Takers Not Makers, January 2025 (reported by ThisDay). thisdaylive.com
- PolitiFact, fact-check citing the Tax Policy Center distributional analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, October 2018. politifact.com
- Tax Foundation, federal income tax data for tax year 2023 (IRS Statistics of Income). taxfoundation.org
- Cristobal Young, Charles Varner, Ithai Z. Lurie and Richard Prisinzano, “Millionaire Migration and Taxation of the Elite”, American Sociological Review 81(3), 2016 (ScienceDaily summary). www.sciencedaily.com
- G20 Rio de Janeiro Ministerial Declaration on International Tax Cooperation, 26 July 2024. worldjpn.net