3 ms·
And the top 1% earn 2x as much of the income as they did 50 years ago, but don't pay 2x more of the share of income tax. Meaning that income tax is less progre
by learc83 7y ago
And the top 1% earn 2x as much of the income as they did 50 years ago, but don't pay 2x more of the share of income tax.
Meaning that income tax is less progressive now.
Also the 38% number that right wing groups like to throw around is very carefully crafted to avoid FICA taxes, which account for a much larger percentage of the tax burden for lower income earners. And the social security component goes away after the first $130k in income.
- WalterBright 7y agoIf you express FICA in terms of benefits received / contributions paid, it is quite progressive.
- learc83 7y agoIf you're only considering direct first order benefits then nearly all taxes are quite progressive. Even a flat 10% income tax would be progressive using that model because people's direct consumption of government services doesn't scale linearly with income. The only way to have a non-progressive tax was to charge everyone a flat rate. "Why should I have have to pay a penny more in taxes than that teacher over there. It's not like I'm consuming more units of military protection than they are." Hopefully you can see the problem with that.