chalu2, I'll try one more time...
You say: "I think the basic error is focusing on
one $10,000 tranch of income..."
No, this is the *ESSENTIAL POINT* of my argument,
and it is not a "basic error".
Again, this is *precisely* the definition of
a MARGINAL TAX RATE.
You say: "there are no conditions where taxes exceed
income". Yes, that is true of *total* taxes and *total*
income. I never said otherwise. You seem to be having
trouble distinguishing between *total* versus *marginal*.
But, my point still stands for the $10,000 tranch
of *incremental* income.
If the father (with 4 kids) got a $10,000 raise,
then $7,100 would be lost to taxes.
If the father (with 7 kids) got a $10,000 raise,
then $10,100 would be lost to taxes. He would lose
all of his raise, and then some! Yes, his *total*
taxes would still be less than his *total* income,
but he would have lost *all* of his raise (i.e.,
his *incremental* income).
Finally, I have to say that I find your arguments
that "most families are smaller" and "most people
make well under 100K" to be extremely weak.
Just because upper-middle-class large families are
in the minority, does that mean it is "open season"
to screw them on taxes with no mercy? I'm beginning
to think so. |
