The mega-rich in the US continue to receive extraordinary tax breaks, as of August 2011.

The claim is judged as of August 2011. True: US federal tax law then gave the highest earners substantial benefits that ordinary wage earners did not get, such as the 15% top rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends, carried-interest treatment, and the 2001/2003 tax cuts having just been extended (December 2010). The test is whether these left many very-high-income taxpayers paying effective federal rates at or below those of many middle-income taxpayers, as shown by IRS or CBO data. Mostly true: the preferential provisions existed and favoured the mega-rich, but the data show they paid lower effective rates than the middle class only in some cases. Mixed: the preferences existed, but on average top earners paid clearly higher effective rates and the benefits were modest. Mostly false: the preferences were minor or had mostly expired by August 2011. False: no such preferences for the very wealthy were in force in August 2011.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 T12-0018 Average Effective Federal Tax Rates By Cash Income Percentiles, 2011 Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center · 8 February 2012

   “Source : Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0411-3).”

2. E2 T12-0018 Average Effective Federal Tax Rates By Cash Income Percentiles, 2011 Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center · 8 February 2012

   “The breaks are (in 2011 dollars): 20% $16,812; 40% $33,542; 60% $59,486; 80% $103,465; 90% $163,173; 95% $210,998; 99% $532,613; 99.9% $2,178,886.”

E1 and E2 come from a Tax Policy Center table titled for 2011 average effective federal tax rates, but the quoted parts give only the model version and the income cutoffs for each percentile. Neither quote states an effective tax rate for any income group, and neither mentions the capital gains rate, carried interest, or the extension of the 2001/2003 tax cuts. The criteria require evidence comparing the effective rates of top and middle earners, and none is given, so the claim cannot be judged on this evidence.