2 ms·
> Consider the following: 10 people earn $10 and pay $1 in tax. 10 people earn $20 and pay $5 tax. This is way out of proportion to real-life values, and the s
by vacri 10y ago
> Consider the following: 10 people earn $10 and pay $1 in tax. 10 people earn $20 and pay $5 tax.
This is way out of proportion to real-life values, and the semantics of this equation change quite a bit with even minor changes.
For example, after your high-earner tax hike, the low earners are left with $9 and the high earners are left with $12. This is absurdist nonsense that does not match up with what happens in the real world. A person on $40k and a person on $80k have vastly different spending capacity after tax.
A person on $80k (~66k after tax) doesn't pay eight times the absolute amount of tax the $40k (~36k after tax) person does, and they retain their approximately two-times spending capacity.
- amscanne 10y agoI'm only demonstrating that the assertion that increasing marginal rates always means a larger share of the tax burden is put on the rich -- this is not true. The example is given to be demonstrative, not to represent a real world scenario. Everything depends on the specific numbers, clearly. That's the point I'm trying to make as well.