OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions

Von Fugal von at fugal.net
Fri Jun 27 23:30:40 MDT 2008

<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Fri, 27 Jun 2008 at 23:09 -0600">
> Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> writes:
> > But the average IS 30.8%, with a much lower median thanks to the
> > progressive scale, but an average is an average, and on average
> > americans would have 40% more income to throw around. That is a lot even
> > if not for you personally. I promise the economy deeply feels the effect
> > of 30.8% taxation. All of us indirectly feel it, too. Lucky for the
> > government it is indirect (I think they planned it that way) because now
> > everyone just blames it all on greedy oil companies and greedy
> > developers. We wouldn't even be having this discussion about lame homes
> > if the economy was in decent shape.
> You're not paying attention.  If 'average' meant what you seem to
> think it does, the average American would also have a partial child.
> You also brought the 40% number back, which is clearly *not* what the
> average American pays in income tax.  I am in a higher income bracket
> than the average American, and thus I pay more income tax than the
> average American.  Thus, the average American must pay well under 30%.

Average is average. If you want to talk about median I'm all ears.
That 40% was clearly a typo. Did you not see the other 30.8% figures?

> If you look at an income distribution graph for the USA, it will
> become quite clear why a progressive tax guarantees that the average
> American (which is not the mathematically average American, because
> that's skewed by the income distribution) pays far less than the
> mathematical average income tax.

You are below average. Sorry to break it to you. You are above median
though. Congratulations!

> > I was just noting the amusement that 40% was in wikipedia and I pulled
> > 40% out of the air. Amusement. The figures I'm referring to *are* way
> > different from what wikipedia is talking about. I'm referring to the
> > total effect of all taxes.
> So, it's amusing that a number you pulled from an orifice happened to
> match a mostly unrelated number somewhere else?  Okay, you must be
> easily amused.

So be it.

> > Yes, discredit me with attacks on my sanity. I have worked through many
> > tax forms. They are a horrendous waste of time for everybody involved.
> > Yet another drop in the net effect of US taxes. I stand by that forty
> > percent as a rough figure. After seeing that net tax collection is 30.8%
> > of net income, I still say I can't be far off, esp factoring in
> > inflation and other indirect tax effects.
> I'm not questioning your sanity, I'm questioning the validity of your
> arguments.  For one thing, you're pulling grossly inflated numbers for
> income tax on us, which calls into doubt your estimates on other
> taxes.  For another, you keep screwing up your mathematical analysis.

I'm talking about general net effect on the economy, and average *is*
very relevant there. I'm also talking about the net effect on median
american of taxes, which also is astonishingly high. You mention my
numbers, but I haven't read anything from you addressing those numbers.
I'm sure they are innacurate. Please point out the flaws so I can have
sounder figures. I think it's a good ballpark, again correct me if I'm
wrong (don't just say I'm wrong).

> You're also presenting the argument that if things were as you'd like
> them, we'd have all that money back, which would only be the case if
> the government was funded by some means other than a tax, in which
> case we'd have to pay for its services some other way.

I'm saying I don't like paying a lot of money to pay for imperialists. I
don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable government.

> You're also assuming that your assertions about the economic benefit
> of minimal government are correct, and that pretty much everything
> would be the same except we'd all have x% more cash to spend, where x
> is how much we're paying in taxes now.  I think that's highly
> unlikely.

You are assuming that minimal government would not work.

> In short, you're arguing with random numbers about a hypothetical
> situation that relies on premises that haven't been proved.  I.e.,
> you're off in another world.

So steer my ship, levi. I don't mind being corrected with facts and
figures. Your logic is at least as opinion based as mine. I don't say
you are in another world.

Von Fugal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080627/fe0c74b5/attachment.bin 

More information about the PLUG mailing list