Roger Odisio wrote,
> mean between $10,000 and $15,000--the last bit of bullshit you used to
> avoid addressing which tax system I posited was more progressive.)
Getting testy now, are we?
Max has an income of $100. Roger has an income of $10. I give Max $2 and
Roger $1. Roger thinks this is a progressive distribution because the $1 I
give him represents 10% of his income but the $2 I give to Max represents
only 2% of Max's income. Roger is happy because he believes that now he is
'relatively' better off. Max is happy because he _is_ absolutely better
off. The income gap between Max and Roger has now grown from $90 to $91
but Roger's income is now 10.78% of Max's instead of only 10%. That's
progress, folks!
> The point being, that yes, a price reduction will mean more dollars to
> wealthier customers, but, in considering possible progressivity, that
> effect is swamped by the larger spread between the income of the poor
> and wealthy. The savings for the wealthy are less as a percentage of
> income, which was my point and leads to the answer of the question Gene
> asked.
Ignoring for the sake of sophisticated analysis the inconvenient piece of
tricky Tom Walker devil bullshit that the income spread has become even
larger AFTER the "progressive" redistribution than it was before.
Tom "bullshit" Walker
