Roger Odisio wrote,
> By my reading, only a couple posts by Tom Walker seem to quarrel with
> it. (the definition of progressivity)
I don't quarrel with the definition, only with applying the term to
a situation where it doesn't apply. Be humble. Do the math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The question is defining "more" progressive.
Progressive is simple -- higher income, higher
share given over to taxes. But comparing two
alternative taxes is another matter. "More"
could mean different things. If *ratio*
of tax burdens as shares of income is the
criterion, as that tricky devil Walker
implies, then 10/20 is no worse than 9/18.
But suppose it is the ratio of net of tax income?
In Walker's example, the ratio changes from
(9/8)*(rich inc/poor inc) to (91/82) * (rich/poor).
The latter is smaller, which could be taken to
mean "more" progressivity. Or less inequality.
Since in the after-tax case the two are getting
the same electricity, while the ratio of rich
after-tax to poor after-tax has declined, it
is reasonable to say a rate cut is progressive
because the result is "more" progressive
(actually in this case less regressive).
So rate cuts really would be a good thing.
For the working people.
yr humble servant,
pythagoras
