<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Fri, 27 Jun 2008 at 23:09 -0600"> > Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But the average IS 30.8%, with a much lower median thanks to the > > progressive scale, but an average is an average, and on average > > americans would have 40% more income to throw around. That is a lot even > > if not for you personally. I promise the economy deeply feels the effect > > of 30.8% taxation. All of us indirectly feel it, too. Lucky for the > > government it is indirect (I think they planned it that way) because now > > everyone just blames it all on greedy oil companies and greedy > > developers. We wouldn't even be having this discussion about lame homes > > if the economy was in decent shape. > > You're not paying attention. If 'average' meant what you seem to > think it does, the average American would also have a partial child. > You also brought the 40% number back, which is clearly *not* what the > average American pays in income tax. I am in a higher income bracket > than the average American, and thus I pay more income tax than the > average American. Thus, the average American must pay well under 30%.
Average is average. If you want to talk about median I'm all ears. That 40% was clearly a typo. Did you not see the other 30.8% figures? > If you look at an income distribution graph for the USA, it will > become quite clear why a progressive tax guarantees that the average > American (which is not the mathematically average American, because > that's skewed by the income distribution) pays far less than the > mathematical average income tax. You are below average. Sorry to break it to you. You are above median though. Congratulations! > > I was just noting the amusement that 40% was in wikipedia and I pulled > > 40% out of the air. Amusement. The figures I'm referring to *are* way > > different from what wikipedia is talking about. I'm referring to the > > total effect of all taxes. > > So, it's amusing that a number you pulled from an orifice happened to > match a mostly unrelated number somewhere else? Okay, you must be > easily amused. So be it. > > Yes, discredit me with attacks on my sanity. I have worked through many > > tax forms. They are a horrendous waste of time for everybody involved. > > Yet another drop in the net effect of US taxes. I stand by that forty > > percent as a rough figure. After seeing that net tax collection is 30.8% > > of net income, I still say I can't be far off, esp factoring in > > inflation and other indirect tax effects. > > I'm not questioning your sanity, I'm questioning the validity of your > arguments. For one thing, you're pulling grossly inflated numbers for > income tax on us, which calls into doubt your estimates on other > taxes. For another, you keep screwing up your mathematical analysis. I'm talking about general net effect on the economy, and average *is* very relevant there. I'm also talking about the net effect on median american of taxes, which also is astonishingly high. You mention my numbers, but I haven't read anything from you addressing those numbers. I'm sure they are innacurate. Please point out the flaws so I can have sounder figures. I think it's a good ballpark, again correct me if I'm wrong (don't just say I'm wrong). > You're also presenting the argument that if things were as you'd like > them, we'd have all that money back, which would only be the case if > the government was funded by some means other than a tax, in which > case we'd have to pay for its services some other way. I'm saying I don't like paying a lot of money to pay for imperialists. I don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable government. > You're also assuming that your assertions about the economic benefit > of minimal government are correct, and that pretty much everything > would be the same except we'd all have x% more cash to spend, where x > is how much we're paying in taxes now. I think that's highly > unlikely. You are assuming that minimal government would not work. > In short, you're arguing with random numbers about a hypothetical > situation that relies on premises that haven't been proved. I.e., > you're off in another world. So steer my ship, levi. I don't mind being corrected with facts and figures. Your logic is at least as opinion based as mine. I don't say you are in another world. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
