Scott Johnson, one of the Powerline philosophers, is upset. The top one per cent of income earners in the U.S. pay way more than their share of federal income tax. He seems to think you can look it up. In 1994, the top one per cent of income earners reported 13% of adjusted gross income, and paid almost a quarter of all income tax. And, whines Johnson, things are getting worse: over 40% of the tax burden will fall on the top one per cent this year, and the bottom half will pay just 3%,
What an outrage! No wonder Aristotle would demur. (Johnson finds in Aristotle's political philosophy a cryptic attack on the progressive income tax.)
Here's a concept that I guess doesn't come up in the works of Aristotle: a tax burden is not a number, it's what you have to do without on account of your obligation to pay tax. In another recent post, Johnson approvingly quotes "the Limbaugh platform," which calls for a 17% flat tax. So you see, whether you play in the NBA or work in a nursing home as a licensed practical nurse, your tax burden should be the same--"17."
Let's try out some numbers. Suppose your income is ten million dollars. You'd pay your 17 and be left with $8.3 million. If, on the other hand, your income is $30,000, you'd pay your 17 and be left with $24,900. After a few years of this, the one taxpayer can easily arrange things so that his two kids never have to work, while the two kids of the other taxpayer probably do not get enough to eat today.
But deep thinkers who have studied Aristotle understand that such considerations are irrelevant. The topic is tax fairness, and as any Gradgrind can see, the rich are paying so much that the poor get off scot-free!
Comments