Part 1 of the answer is that there’s a big difference between the absolute amount a guy pays in taxes and the comparitive percentage of weath a guy pays. The marginal rate of income taxes insures that while someone might be paying more absolute dollars they’re probably paying less if their total wealth. Also, someone at a high marginal rate probably has more than one stream of wealth besides income (equity, investments, personal property, etc.). Getting knocked down from $500 a week to $400 a week is a serious hit.

The second point is that you’re thinking about taxes (at least the way I understand you’re thinking about them from your statement) in the wrong way. Income taxes get paid into a general fund which is distributed out to various programs. It’s not that your boss is paying 90% and you’re paying 10% for a single resource you share 50-50. You and your boss are paying a percentage of your income for ALL SERVICES FOR EVERYONE. For taxes tied to particular uses, like property taxes, well, that goes to show you the inequity built into the system. Local property taxes for schools stays in the local school system (plus some of that general fund). I know, I know, you conceeded the point, but we’re not talking about Beverly Hills, CA vs. Lizard Lick, NC here, it’s different school/water/fire/ districts in the same town. So yeah, the boss has quicker emergency response time and his water is cleaner (and it might be hotter too, but that’s just because he has a better hot water heater than you).

I’m glad you feel that you’re getting a good deal from your public servants. I’m a public servant in my state and I like to think we provide extrememly good value for what we’re paid. The state has a unique position and responsibility to provide for everyone, and it costs a relatively small amount from everyone to provide for services like public safety.

I agree with most everything you wrote, and yet still my central point is not addressed.

“Higher taxes on the rich is one way to avoid people getting richer purely because they’re rich.” Though I agree this is true, it still doesn’t quite get at my point (and had I known that so many would react as such to my point I wouldn’t have posted in the first place).

I’m not arguing on the merits of our taxation system. I’m simply arguing that it is a difficult proposition to prove, one way or another, who the greatest beneficiary is of that system.

Jonny, if I’m not mistaken you are making the point that this tax system serves to distribute funds in such a way that helps to benefit those in lower income brackets. I agree with that, but it is rather off target.

The fundamental point is that the state should serve and care for all its people. The way to look at it is that people in lower income brackets should pay less because they are able to pay less, rather than those in high places having to pay more. To help more people develop skills and abilities needed to contribute more, the state must help those with less more than those with more. Very few people get the chance to improve their lot in life dramatically, and free market capitalism, as a system, can tend towards preserving the status quo. Higher taxes on the rich is one way to avoid people getting richer purely because they’re rich.

Oh, and edc, Andrew Foley, to the best of my understanding, doesn’t blog about dancing shows. Mightygodking does, but tends not to overdo snark at things not overly deserving of it.

[Not meaning to make a deal of it or anything. Just wanted to straighten that last point.]

*facepalm*

But no one has attacked the point – my central one, in fact – that the rich fellow who benefits from said services is also paying my share. I enjoy benefits which I could not possibly pay for on my own, thanks to that rich fellow. I’m not certain if an equation exists for what I’m trying to say, but I pay essentially nothing and I enjoy great government services. He pays a ton and enjoys my services plus an added degree of security. Who can say which one of us is getting the best value?

@Andre, That’s OK, it wasn’t going to work anyways, due to the excellent police protection provided by taxpayer money.

The more money you have, the more you benefit from your country’s army, police etc protecting the banks that safeguard that money (or the property directly). Otherwise you’d have to start militias.

So against it is then. These people don’t lose gracefully, do they ?

Someone needs to learn how marginal tax rates work.

I’m in Connecticut and I bet if I and someone in North Philadelphia called the police to report the same exact crime an officer would be knocking on my door long before theirs.

Are you the same Zifnab who posts on Pandagon, or just another fan of Weis/Hickman books?

…you’re not, are you?