"Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote in message
news:%GsAc.43555$tA6.38219@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> Ernest Schaal wrote:
>
>
> > By what definition? Please define your terms. I am curious what
distortions
> > you will make to achieve a definition that supports your premise.
> >
> > Tax burden is usually expressed as a fraction or percentage of income.
> >
> >
> Ouch... I would never define it that way. Tax burden should be measured
> in dollars. There are arguments for and against inflation adjustment. If
> one person makes $10,000 and another makes $10,000,000,000.00, a 25% tax
> rate generates very different tax burdens.
>
> This is one of the places the argument got sloppy the first time
> through. The argument keeps mixing tax rates and percentages of total
> taxes paid, rather than a consistent unit like dollars.

I agree with this somewhat. Of course Ernest's main point is that Mike's
(somewhat absurd) definition of tax burden seemed to completely ignore the
fact that the word "burden" is the key half of that phrase.

I understand your point about measuring it as a straight fraction of income,
but I don't think a dollar figure is helpful either. A $10,000 tax burden is
huge for someone who makes $50,000 a year but is miniscule to someone who
makes $5,000,000. I think a slightly better way (and this is getting into
flat tax concepts) is to express it as a percentage of some sort of
"disposable income" concept, or a percentage of income after subtracting
some standard exemption that is the hypothetical amount that is needed just
to live. Then it would be a definition that approaches at least a semblance
(though rather imperfect) of universal "burdenness" that is not captured by
a percentage of total income or a straight dollar amount. If the burden in
such a calculation ends up being 20%, the idea is that 20% of your "fun
money" goes to the government and you only get to keep 80%, but you still
have what you need to get by.

Jeff