It seems the "rich" didn't do as well as the "poor" no matter how you slice it with the Bush tax cut.
Of course, that is water under the bridge, I'm just posting it for posterity folks.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Entrant #12 - Captain Capitalism's 2009 Annual Chart Contest
From Beancounter. He wanted to see if the "Evil" Bush Tax Cuts disproportionately benefited the rich not only in nominal terms, but percentage terms (because the left as you all know will pick which ever one shows the rich benefiting the most regardless of the intellectual veracity of the measure in that they know their constituents are too damn stupid to know the difference, let alone have the intellectual honesty to care);
It seems the "rich" didn't do as well as the "poor" no matter how you slice it with the Bush tax cut.
Of course, that is water under the bridge, I'm just posting it for posterity folks.
It seems the "rich" didn't do as well as the "poor" no matter how you slice it with the Bush tax cut.
Of course, that is water under the bridge, I'm just posting it for posterity folks.
The economic rationale for progressive taxation is the Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income which states that a dollar of income benefits a rich person less than a poorer person. So taxing the rich person more equalizes the loss in marginal utility.
ReplyDeleteBrushing aside the problem of interpersonal comparisons of utility and the effects of taxes on labor supply and entrepreneurship, they still can't have it both ways. The converse must be true - A dollar of tax cuts will benefit a rich person LESS than a dollar of tax cuts for a poorer person.
A proportional tax is the only fair tax. It's also the only smart tax. Our founding fathers realized this when they prohibited direct taxation and taxes disproportionate to population, i.e. anything other than a proportional tax.