Posted on 08/05/2002 5:59:13 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
More accurately: If the current tax burden is exactly "correct" then a distribution of a refund should be proportional to taxes paid. Otherwise not, necessarily.
I assume you are aware that since taxes include payroll taxes and excise taxes, as well as income taxes, a porportional reduction of the latter raises the overall allocation of taxes paid by the lower income levels.
BTW, if you calculate total taxes paid as a percent of total income from all sources, which income levels do you think currently pay the proportionately higher rates?
First, you don't have the vaguest idea what income class I belong to. Your allegation of class envy is based on what?
Secondly, you use the term "deserve" in two posts to Age of Reason (#52 and 56). I use it in a context which no one can possibly mis interpret (except you). It is within the context of who "deserves" the tax cut. Haven't you been arguing that those who paid it "deserve" a proportional cut?
I assume you you wish to ignore that payroll taxes fund a retirement benefit and a health insurance benefit ?
BTW, if you calculate total taxes paid as a percent of total income from all sources, which income levels do you think currently pay the proportionately higher rates?
Before playing this game to we include all taxes both direct and indirect that Microsoft will pay ? Do we recognize that Gates and his stockholders will pay income tax twice on the income distributed and will pay an estate tax on income not distributed ? Do we give ample credit to the value of retirement benefits that accrue to those who pay payroll tax ?
Or do we only play the game with your defined terms ?
I don't accuse you of class envy, I accuse your presentation of being based on class envy.
Secondly, you use the term "deserve" in two posts to Age of Reason (#52 and 56). I use it in a context which no one can possibly mis interpret (except you). It is within the context of who "deserves" the tax cut. Haven't you been arguing that those who paid it "deserve" a proportional cut?
Deserve is an objective term the last time I looked. The analogies given to start this thread were based in objective data (ie how much was the check and how much each paid).
The introduction of the term "deserves" brings a moral subjective term into play and it goes undefined.
Who are we too determine who deserves what ? I readily admit I have no superior wisdom that would allow me to decide who deserves what in this world. Apparently you do. What basis do we decide ? One years income ? What if the only income in this persons lifetime was winning a 200k lotto does he deserve a higher tax than someone earning it over 10 years ?
To you it is self evident that someone "deserves" a higher tax because his income is high. I don't think I know that they do.
I might argue that he can afford it easier, I might argue that a graduated tax policy is preferable to a flat tax but I cannot argue that he deserves it more.
The introduction of that term in my mind is only done to appeal to emotions and the class envy that others have of people who make more than they do.
Let's use your terms.
P.S. I'll bet Bill Gates is happy he has you to point out about his double taxation. But are you aware, that if Microsoft expensed options they have lost money for the last 10 years
Au contraire. I'm the one arguing that the allegory (which purports to imply the "correct" way to do things) is nonsensical. You're the one who seems to think the allegory has some value.
Okay. Ping me when you finish.
All analogies are nonsensical in that they purport to demonstrate a point by making all other variables equal. This one was desgined to make a point contrary to the one that was made that an across the board tax cut is a tax cut for the rich. It did its job in that respect.
Instead of taking issue with that point (which I gather you could not )you attacked the analogy on two fronts, both of which were straw man arguments because they were points that the analogy were not designed to address.
The first was because it didn't take into consideration that the original tax was a fair allocation of the tax burden. You failed to demonstrate that the higher taxed person benefited more from Gov't services than his proportionate share. You apparently believe that its self evident.
Your second objection was we are only looking at one tax and we should broaden it to all taxes. However you conviently want to only include the payroll tax while excluding the numerous other taxes and also exluding the benefits derived by the payor of that tax.
1. If the top group currently pays 40% of the income tax but makes 60% of the income, giving it 40% of the tax cut disproportionately and inappropriately benefits that group.
2. If the income tax is more progressive than other taxes that are not cut, the net effect of an across the board income tax cut disproportionately benefits the top group.
Determining whether or not a particular group pays more or less than it should is a complex evaluation that ultimately involves subjective value judgments. You apparently believe the top groups pay too much. I disagree.
How much land have they produced?
The top 10% pay 65% of the income tax. An accross the board tax cut would in theory not change the relative proportion of tax burden.
As for overtaxed, I believe every income category is overtaxed.
Shouldn't the question be how much land have they made produce ?
Yes, but the issue is: Can an across the board tax cut disproportionately benefit the top 10%. The analogy and you say "no." I say, "yes" if:
1. the top 10% makes more than 65% of the income (or are otherwise deemed to be currently underpaying, for that matter); or
2. other taxes not involved in the tax cut are less progressive than the income tax.
Conversely, if the opposite of the two statements above are true, then the top 10% is benefitting LESS than proportionately from the tax cut. SIMPLE MATH introduced to demonstrate that the analogy is nonsensical (a point that you have already agreed with). Therefore, I will drop the subject regardless of your response.
bttt
Man, that is an OLD thread.
cleaning up old bookmarks
b
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.