Questioning the math in economics article

The Perryman article in Thursday's newspaper seems like a math quiz to me. His thesis is that the current tax rate 'achieves its goal' of being a progressive source of federal revenue. A student of history might object to that statement, seeing as how the top tax rate in 1963, a time of general economic prosperity, was 91%.

Perryman's shaky perspective is not at all strengthened by his muddled support of the claim through numerical examples. He first states that the top 1% of Americans pay 25.9% in income taxes. This confused me, as I know the top tax rate is 37%. But he further attempted to bewilder by stating the top 1% income is $682,600 while the average tax paid is $653,700. I might have obtained a Bachelor of Arts at UT, but even someone who dropped calculus can multiply. 25.9% of $682,600 is $176,793.40. If the wealthiest among us really were paying 96% of their income to the government, as his example indicates, I wonder if Perryman would still think that this system represents 'the least disincentive to productive activity.'

I would counter with the fact that in 1963, the wealthiest families in the US held 36 times the wealth of the average family. They now capture 71 times the wealth of the average family. Efficient? Efficiency comes from the Latin efficere, which means to accomplish. What exactly is being accomplished with keeping 11.5% of Americans in poverty?

Chase Norris