Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Remember_Salamis
Assume everyone at 100,000 and above spends 100,000 per year. The tax is clearly regressive in this case: 23% for the taxpayer at $100,000, but 2.3% for the taxpayer at $1 million, and 1.15% for the taxpayer at $2 million.

The consumption will not be flat at $100,000, to be sure, but the more one makes, the smaller their portion of total income is consumed in a year. A regressive tax is inevitable in the higher income brackets.

297 posted on 08/01/2004 8:48:33 PM PDT by Petronski (Edwards threatening al Qaida is like Pee Wee Herman threatening Luca Brazzi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]


To: Petronski

That's assuming an undividual at $1m per year has the same lifestyle as the person who makes $100k. You and I know that's simply not true. While many do save a lot of it, most simply buy more expensive homes, cars, clothes, food, boats, trips, etc.

I guarantee you John and Theresa don't save. Why do they have any reason to save? They have enough money to make $30 million a year in tax-free bonds. They splurge.


308 posted on 08/01/2004 8:55:34 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson