Federal Tax Question

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:28 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Federal Tax Question

by mysseo » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:38 pm
Between 1977 and 1989, the percentage of income paid to Federal taxes by the richest one percent of Americans decreased, from 40 percent to 25 percent. By the end of that same period, however, the richest one percent of Americans were paying a larger proportion of all Federal tax revenues, from 12.7 percent in 1977 to 16.2 percent in 1989.

Which of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the discrepancy described above?

A.Between 1977 and 1989, the Internal Revenue Service increased the percentage of its staff members responsible for audits and tax collection.

B.Between 1977 and 1989, the before-tax income of the richest one percent of Americans increased by over 75 percent when adjusted for inflation.

C.Between 1977 and 1989, many of the richest one percent of Americans shifted their investments from untaxable to taxable assets.

D.Between 1977 and 1989, the top tax rate was reduced from 70 percent to 31 percent and several tax loopholes were eliminated.

E.Between 1977 and 1989, the amount of Federal taxes paid by the richest one percent of Americans increased by $45 billion, while the amount paid by all Americans rose by $50 billion.

It was on Kaplan CAT. The answer is B. I still don't understand about B. Does inflation have something to with Federal tax here? I am confused about "paid to federal tax" and "federal tax revenue". "Paid to federal tax" is by richest one person and "federal tax revenue" is by IRS? Please help..
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:55 pm
B is the only explanation (of those given) as to how a percentage decrease in tax rate among the top 1% might still result in that same group paying a higher proportion of federal taxes.

Adjusted for inflation just means in real terms, i.e. comparing apples to apples. Federal tax revenue refers to total taxes paid to the federal government by all American citizens and entities.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:28 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by mysseo » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:44 pm
Thank you so much. Now I got it. Even though the tax rate decreased, the tax payment increased. The only explanation is that the taxable income dramatically increased. So, the answer is B.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:14 am
[/quote]B is the only explanation (of those given) as to how a percentage decrease in tax rate among the top 1% might still result in that same group paying a higher proportion of federal taxes.

Adjusted for inflation just means in real terms, i.e. comparing apples to apples. Federal tax revenue refers to total taxes paid to the federal government by all American citizens and entities.[/quote]


1 min for B. When the pretax income of richest people increase. However, I think reasoning in this question is not tied if the lawmaker set the tax on the tax-rate. Whenever pre-tax income increase, the percentage of income paid to Federal taxes also increase in the same rate. So, the necessary information must be presented here is that the tax put on income based on fixed tax or the percentage of tax on income decrease when the income of the rich increase (for example: tax rate decrease 5% when pre-tax income increase from 2 mil/year to 4 mil/year).

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:19 am
I think the reasoning behind B is:

No. of person remain same so the percentage decreased but as the income rose by 75% so the tax revenue increased.

Am I right?

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:44 am

by prasoonagrawal » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:01 am
I find it hard to understand why the answer is B.... because after inflation adjustment, if the taxable income increases, then so is the tax paid ... thus the ratio of tax paid to that of the income will change... not sure about definite decrease...
Also the option B does not explain the increased contribution from 1% richest people to the Federal taxes....

I think the option D as the answer...

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:58 am
The answer really is B. The explanation is below.

1977 vs 1989

The before-tax Income of 1% richest people: $100 vs $175 (increase 75%)

Tax paid by 1% richest people: 40% x $100 = $40 (12,7%); 25% x $175 ~ $44 (16,2%)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:45 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by shubhamkumar » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:34 pm
prasoonagrawal wrote:I find it hard to understand why the answer is B.... because after inflation adjustment, if the taxable income increases, then so is the tax paid ... thus the ratio of tax paid to that of the income will change... not sure about definite decrease...
Also the option B does not explain the increased contribution from 1% richest people to the Federal taxes....

I think the option D as the answer...
Pretax income(x)* Tax Rate(y)= Tax paid(z)

The stimulus says that y(percentage of income paid to Federal taxes) decreased and Tax paid(z) increased.This is only possible if Pretax income also increases.
choose B