Morris Dovey wrote:

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.


Wasn't intending to imply that you did not -- your work on CNC equipment
and other endeavors show otherwise. I was directing that more at main
stream media and various congressional propagandists who, when tax cuts
were announced (as an across-the board percentage) complained that
the "rich" were going to benefit more, citing how the "rich" would be able
to buy a car with their tax decrease while those with only lower incomes
would be able to buy a muffler. That both groups received the same
percentage decrease was lost on (or ignored by) these propagandists,
labeling this as unfair to those with lower income.

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.


Looking at the current tax burdens, I would say we are getting close to
that threshold. At some time, the burden is going to have to be shifted
back downward -- the current setup is open to the abuse I described
previously -- the tyranny of the majority. A majority that demands, it pay
little or nothing and that all the burden be carried by the minority (upper
25%). If nothing else, by shifting that tax burden more equitably, those
in the lower tiers will begin demanding accountability and frugality from
their government -- that's not a bad thing. Unfortunately, that's not an
easy thing to accomplish. Nobody in the lower tiers is going to willingly
accept a greater tax burden. The only way to make this work is to start
cutting government largesse and granting tax cuts to the upper tiers while
keeping the lower tier tax rates unchanged. This will be treated with
howls of protest, but it's going to have to happen sooner or later. If it
happens later, it very well could be that it happens by those toting the
load giving up and either voting with their feet or becoming members of the
receiving class as well.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough