Comments on: Progressive Enough For You? http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/10/progressive-enough-for-you/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:02:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: doinkicarus http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/10/progressive-enough-for-you/comment-page-1/#comment-988 doinkicarus Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:02:30 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1630#comment-988 Nice angle on Social Security -- I've read a bit of your work before and that seems to be a common thread. I have to agree though, that the Social Security reform is likely to benefit the "working poor" much more than a change in the income tax (which they don't pay). <br /> <br /> Social Security/FICA whatever it's called drains something like 13% out of your check. Which, for someone earning $24,000/year is just over $3k/year. That's a nice car payment; a lease, no doubt, with warranty. On the other hand, they already get back nearly (if not) all of the "income tax" they pay, so lowering the income tax rate isn't likely to benefit them in any noticeable way. <br /> <br /> Keep up the good work. Nice angle on Social Security — I've read a bit of your work before and that seems to be a common thread. I have to agree though, that the Social Security reform is likely to benefit the "working poor" much more than a change in the income tax (which they don't pay).

Social Security/FICA whatever it's called drains something like 13% out of your check. Which, for someone earning $24,000/year is just over $3k/year. That's a nice car payment; a lease, no doubt, with warranty. On the other hand, they already get back nearly (if not) all of the "income tax" they pay, so lowering the income tax rate isn't likely to benefit them in any noticeable way.

Keep up the good work.

]]> By: Tom Chatt http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/10/progressive-enough-for-you/comment-page-1/#comment-987 Tom Chatt Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:56:43 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1630#comment-987 I've seen these sorts of "statistics" put out often in this argument, and unfortunately, these stats don't tell me how progressive the tax is. It would be enlightening to add the missing column in this table, which is percentage of total income, and then we'd have a better picture of progressivity. I strongly suspect that the tax would be revealed to be progressive but substantially less so than this table suggests. (Unless of course your notion of "progressive" includes even a completely flat tax, and anything other than a *per capita* tax.) <br /> <br /> <i>[Kip replies: This is an extremely intelligent observation, which unfortunately is 100% wrong. The distribution of income in the U.S. is far less skewed than the tax burden. For example, the top 5% of households receive something like 20% of total income, but pay over 50% of the total tax burden. Also keep in mind that these percentages are for tax returns filed, not households, so those who are so low-income that they don't even file a tax return aren't even counted as the "lower half" in this table, so the progressivity is even greater than one might initially think. Still, I appreciate the comment.]</i> I've seen these sorts of "statistics" put out often in this argument, and unfortunately, these stats don't tell me how progressive the tax is. It would be enlightening to add the missing column in this table, which is percentage of total income, and then we'd have a better picture of progressivity. I strongly suspect that the tax would be revealed to be progressive but substantially less so than this table suggests. (Unless of course your notion of "progressive" includes even a completely flat tax, and anything other than a *per capita* tax.)

[Kip replies: This is an extremely intelligent observation, which unfortunately is 100% wrong. The distribution of income in the U.S. is far less skewed than the tax burden. For example, the top 5% of households receive something like 20% of total income, but pay over 50% of the total tax burden. Also keep in mind that these percentages are for tax returns filed, not households, so those who are so low-income that they don't even file a tax return aren't even counted as the "lower half" in this table, so the progressivity is even greater than one might initially think. Still, I appreciate the comment.]

]]> By: john pike http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/10/progressive-enough-for-you/comment-page-1/#comment-986 john pike Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:54:25 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1630#comment-986 I can't wait for all of the idiots to declare you wrong, "facts be damned!". That is what I get every time I post similarly on this subject (again, armed only with inconvenient facts). <BR /> <BR />Bush just HAS to be screwing the poor...he just HAS to be!! I can't wait for all of the idiots to declare you wrong, "facts be damned!". That is what I get every time I post similarly on this subject (again, armed only with inconvenient facts).

Bush just HAS to be screwing the poor…he just HAS to be!!

]]>