Many of the near rich do pay more, I agree. I was just trying to illustrate that (1) that is not always the case; and (2) there are common situations where it is not the case at all. When people get caught up in "income tax" arguments they tend to lose track of how regressive some of the other taxes tend to be.
As for including the property taxes that are indirect in the case of renters, I still think that is appropriate. One state I used to live in gave both renters and homeowners a partial refund on property taxes paid if they exceeded a certain percentage of income (renters based the calculation on a percentage of their overall rent payment, which was assumed to be caused by property taxes). The theory was obviously that a renter is paying those just like a homeowner is, it's just being collected by somebody else. I would say the renters' and homeowner's tax expenses are directly analogous (they are both necessary for their dwelling), while passing through a percentage of, say, corporate taxes that get included in the retail price of a product because the business is including its tax costs in its margin calculations is too diffuse and variable to be a meaningful point of comparison.
To me, the real issue is just making sure they don't waste it. I don't mind paying for some things, like a strong defense, but some of the other things government does are just black holes for our money. And as I have said repeatedly, the marriage penalty should be nuked. |
