Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.

In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You surely
are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes raised
and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where the
top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the dictatorship
of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get something for
nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than themselves and
distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

Math isn't a serious problem for me until you move significantly beyond
partial differential equations. It was my major area of study.

You can shift the burden downward in either of two ways: either by

[1] introducing a relative increase in the rate of taxation on those
with lower incomes, or by

[2] introducing a relative decrease in the rate of taxation on those
with higher incomes.

However, without regard for the specific tax rates du jour, if the
middle class contracts beyond some 'healthy' threshold, then the entire
social structure (not just its financial or economic aspects) becomes
unstable.

I'm definitely not a socio-economics guru, so I can't specify where that
threshold lies - but not even a geek like me could miss the historical
pattern or doubt the irrelevance of specific tax rates if/when that
threshold is crossed.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/