posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:22 AM
When people speak of regressive taxation, they're usually speaking of income taxes. This includes all state level taxes, and I don't think
*anyone* would deny that sales taxes and property taxes are highly regressive. They are.
Still, I think this is a case of lies, damn lies and statistics. Take Tennessee as an example. Forget the percentages and look at absolutes.
Here's what the average person in each bracket pays:
Bottom 20%: $1,194
Second 20%: $2,495
Third 20%: $3,535
Fourth 20%: $4,351
Next 15%: $6,289
Next 4%: $10,291
Top 1: $45,071
(The average of the top 20% is $9,029)
This means that the top 20% is paying 43.8% of all the state taxes. The top 1% is actually paying about 11% of the total taxes. The bottom 20%?
Although the writer wants to use the study to justify more taxes on the rich, in reality, what this study proves is that the rich aren't the
problem. No, the problem is that as structured, property taxes and sales taxes are inherently regressive, and that has nothing to do with rich
vs poor or class warfare. The way you solve this isn't by raising taxes on the rich. The way to solve it is by eliminating these taxes for the
poor entirely, as it really doesn't make a huge dent in tax receipts to do so.
Not to turn this into a political discussion, but this is why I hate the Democratic party's class warfare bullcrap. They attack the rich
incessantly, but doing so does not help the poor. If they actually wanted to help the poor, they would forgo that tiny 5.7% that the poor
contribute to the coffers in a state like Tennessee (its actually less at the federal level) and eliminate taxation of the bottom 20% entirely. But
of course, that's never going to happen.