Why poor people should pay taxes (not lots of taxes, but some)
Bookworm on Jul 08 2011 at 2:48 pm | Filed under: Taxes
One of life’s truisms is that, on the whole, renters don’t take care of property as well as owners do. Why should they? They have no investment in the structure. If they don’t mind the aesthetics of a scuffed baseboard, stained carpet or dirty walls, it doesn’t matter. When they leave the property, they leave scuffs, stains and dirt behind.
An owner, on the other hand, has a monetary incentive to keep things nice. Even if the owner doesn’t mind living surrounded by wear-and-tear, when he or she wants to sell, those signs of cosmetic or structural decay will affect the price the owner ultimately receives for the property. One of the things I learned during many years of house hunting (we were picky) is that the new carpet that the owner installed for $10,000 results in a sale price that’s $20,000 higher than it would have been with the old carpet.
I was thinking about that today when I read somewhere that approximately 50% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes. This means that approximately 50% of Americans are renters in this country. They have no ownership interest. If the thing falls apart, so what? Their money isn’t involved.
This post is not a plea for higher taxes. I will be furious at the Republicans if they agree to Obama’s demand that they raise taxes. It’s insane to take money from the functional private sector and put it into the dysfunctional, bloated, corrupt, slow-reacting, bureaucratic, labor-controlled federal government. I’m just saying that those 50% who don’t pay any taxes now should pay taxes, even if it’s only a nominal amount. They need an ownership stake in this country, and making them dependents of the federal government is not the way to do that.
Email This Post To A Friend
54 Responses to “Why poor people should pay taxes (not lots of taxes, but some)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Boy, do you and I thnk alike on everything.
You’re absolutely right, of course.
Also, Bon voyage!
Greetings:
Actually, your “home owner” argument doesn’t quite address what economists refer to as the “externalities” problem. If a home owner lives in a nice neighborhood, he can economically let his property deteriorate to a certain degree and still benefit from the upkeep his neighbors do on their properties to keep his price at a market level.
Some refer to this scenario as the worst house in the best neighborhood.
As to the not paying taxes part, it’s a bit worst than that. Due to the miracle of Congressional malfeasance, what use to be a collection agency, the IRS, has become a wealth redistribution agency through such niceties as the Earned Income Credit. TV’s Judge Judy, the only woman who truly scares me, is not a fan.
The poor, like anyone else, should have a stake in the society and the nation. Not paying anything in means they are alien. It’s one thing to provide tax breaks to the families of those killed or wounded in combat, protecting the United States of America, but it’s another thing to use Leftist economic “class warfare” as the basis for rewarding allies and punishing enemies.
I am so totally in your corner on this. Flat tax!
What amazes me is how few people apparently realize the percentage of people who don’t pay income taxes. Anecdote: I go for drinks on Fridays with a friend who is a Blue Dog Democrat. His car is plastered with political bumper stickers. He pays attention to politics a lot more than the average bear. I asked him one time: what percentage of income taxes are paid by the lower 50% of income earners? He guessed 25%. The answer is about 3%.
Yes, more should pay a nominal amount of income tax,
Yes indeed.
I was shocked several years ago to learn from my daughter about the Earned Income Tax Credit. At the time she was a divorced mother of one, working in a SoCal hospital as an Rn. I think she made about $60-65k then. She went to H&R to have her taxes done, and came out with a nice chunk of change thanks to the generosity of the tax paying public. She was surprised and I was flabbergasted.
I absolutely agree everyone should pay some taxes, local, state, and federal.
You will only care if you have vested interests. And we will all think twice when you are paying to support someone else.
Slaves and indentured servants didn’t pay income taxes either.
Slaves and indentured servants didn’t VOTE, either…..
The older I get, the more I’m convinced that if you don’t “net” a payment to the IRS, then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Of course, these days you can’t even ask for picture ID from someone presenting themselves to vote, so the odds of my idea coming to fruition are indistinguishable from zero. But I do think our country would be a lot better off if only taxPAYERS had the vote.
BW’s post has eloquently explained why this is true.
Absolutely agree, Earl, but it ain’t never gonna happen. I’ve forgotten who said it, and I’ve forgotten the precise wording, but the sense of it was: once people figure out that they can vote themselves other people’s money, the party’s over. Far too many people – all of them democrats – have now figured it out. Obama himself has noted, if you don’t have “skin in the game” (sic) you don’t get to have much to say. I agree. “You no play-a da game, you no make-a da rules.”
To jj: The quote is commonly attributed to Ben Franklin. Whether that’s true or not I cannot say.
I have made the arguement (primarily against ObamaCare) that everyone should pay something. It is axiomatic that people only care about situations in which they have a vested interest. It is unconsciable that nearly 50% of the members of an organization should have voting rights without a commensurate responsibility. Representation without Taxation indeed. I am leaning towards means-testing irregardless of race, class, religion, or other subjecive criteria. You pay taxes, you vote. If you don’t, you don’t. This might make working for a living cool again.
Robert Heinlein visited the concept of citizenship as something earned, not automatically given, in several of his science fiction novels. As time went on, he refined the concept to account for the need to extend the protection of basic civil rights to all—trial by jury, the right to arms, free speech, etc.—while restricting the right to vote and decide upon the fate of the republic to men and women who had borne arms or made a contribution to society in the form of wealth, invention or effort.
I like the general concept. When we have the next constitutional convention—and we will after the disaster that’s building unfolds—we will know where we went wrong with the first, including giving Congress the ability to rape, pillage and plunder the commonweal while a compliant, untouchable Supreme Court stood on the sidelines cheering and nodding yes.
For the sake of argument try to wrap your brain around this concept. The takers should pay a higher rate of taxes since it is they who are principal beneficiaries of government largess and have the most to lose. I believe it was Ayn Rand who called them the “thieving poor”. I am of course referring to the able bodied and NOT the lame, halt, blind, orphan or “feeble minded”, etc. unable to care for themselves.I believe it was FDR who said there would never be a dole on his watch and in the 1930′s a good physical job was provided and I am old enough to remember when many of the old solid federal buildings had a plaque stating “Build by the WPA”. Many in my family had such jobs and were damn glad to have them during the depths of the depression. I have always found the threat of hunger and homelessness to be a great incentive for me. If you remove hunger, homelessness, medical care, and now a free cell phone with 250 minutes what incentive is there to work if you are incapable of making over $50,000. Only thing left is a free auto and Nirvana has arrived for the thieving poor as we struggle harder and harder to support the parasites.
Bookworm: Why poor people should pay taxes (not lots of taxes, but some) ,,, This post is not a plea for higher taxes.
That’s funny. You’re not for higher taxes—except for the lower classes.
Bookworm: I was thinking about that today when I read somewhere that approximately 50% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes.
That is incorrect. That refers only to the income tax, but most people pay other taxes. On the federal level, primarily the payroll tax. Even then, the percentage not paying the income tax has risen to a large extent since the recession, as people have lost their jobs, or had their incomes reduced. Income tax rates are at historical lows, while the U.S. is at war, and leading up to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The federal tax burden is more evenly distributed. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%. Most people also pay state and local taxes, and even the poorest of the poor pay sales tax.
Saying that people don’t have a monetary stake in the system is incorrect.
Caped Crusader: I believe it was Ayn Rand who called them the “thieving poor”.
Sort of the like the medieval period, where the peasants paid the taxes to the rich — for “protection.”
Caped Crusader: The takers should pay a higher rate of taxes since it is they who are principal beneficiaries of government largess and have the most to lose.
The rich have the most to lose. If you don’t recognize the principle of a living wage and a social safety net, then consider it the price the rich pay for social stability.
Zachriel
Caped Crusader: The takers should pay a higher rate of taxes since it is they who are principal beneficiaries of government largess and have the most to lose.
The rich have the most to lose. If you don’t recognize the principle of a living wage and a social safety net, then consider it the price the rich pay for social stability.
Zachriel. Methinks you have totally missed my point. Please tell me how many consecutive generations for whom YOU wish to work and slave to support simply because they will not work. And tell me how long this can continue until you destroy society. Apparently you feel if they do not wish to work for 50K (which is a living wage) they should be excused for a lifetime. I am not talking about those who CANNOT work for a limited time, but those who WILL NOT work for generations. I believe that it was St. Paul who in essence said, “Those who will not work shall not eat”.
When 50% of the people don’t pay any income tax, they have no problem voting politicians that increase income taxes on the “other” people. This is the underlying moral hazard to which Book’s post was addressed. This won’t fix itself until everyone has “skin in the game”.
Sorry, Zach, it is rich people that create the jobs and investment capital in the economy. I am not in that “top tier”, but I don’t envy anyone their wealth and I certainly don’t presume a right to other peoples’ money.
The arguments about ‘living wages” and safety nets are just straw men. For all of their bleating about “living wages”, the Democrats certainly have done their part to flood the country with illegal aliens that have served to depress wages at the lower ranks of society.
Zach has no idea how to define a “living wage” or a “safety net.” These are cliches that long ago ceased having any coherent content. Zach’s problem, which he assiduously (and typically) avoids facing is that we have run out of money. When he can invent a government-less, printing press-less way of increasing wealth, he should let us know.
Income tax rates, by the way, are not at historical lows. The top marginal rate was lower under both Reagan and George W. Bush – and your memory for the “historical” is very short indeed.
The rich people Z refers to, happens to be predominantly in his alliance group, the Left and the Democrat party in the US.
Coincidence?
How many JOBS do you think John Kerry and John Edwards and Obama and Clinton created for the US, that didn’t depend upon political favor trading?
I believe that it was St. Paul who in essence said, “Those who will not work shall not eat”.
This is a very, very ,VERY popular saying in Japan amongst the non-elite classes.
You often hear it in slice of life family talk where they talk about free loading teenagers living in and eating for free. Well, they won’t get any food if they don’t do any house chores.
Zachriel: The rich have the most to lose. If you don’t recognize the principle of a living wage and a social safety net, then consider it the price the rich pay for social stability.
Caped Crusader: Methinks you have totally missed my point. Please tell me how many consecutive generations for whom YOU wish to work and slave to support simply because they will not work.
Welfare to work has been the paradigm since Clinton. You ignored our point.
Danny Lemieux: it is rich people that create the jobs and investment capital in the economy.
And yet the economy grew, millions of jobs were created, people moved off welfare, and deficits plunged when Clinton raised taxes.
jj: Income tax rates, by the way, are not at historical lows.
Though the top marginal rate was lower for a short period during the 1980′s, the effective income tax rate, meaning what people actually pay is lower today. Another indicator is that they are the lowest as a percentage of GDP since just after WWII.
Ymarsakar: How many JOBS do you think John Kerry and John Edwards and Obama and Clinton created for the US, that didn’t depend upon political favor trading?
About 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Administration.
Zach, taxes increased during the first two years of the Clinton Administration until a Republican congress was elected to put a stop to that.
The Clinton administration didn’t create jobs. The Tech Boom did!
Whoops, almost forgot!
People moved off the welfare roles during the Clinton administration because a) the technology boom raised employment opportunities for everyone and b) the Republican congress forced Clinton to sign the welfare reform act, all benefits of which have since been destroyed by the Obama administration.
Consequently, many ofl the poor people that were empowered by being moved off of welfare support and allowed to take control of their own economic future have now been put right back on the Liberal Plantation by Obama and his crew…and that’s exactly where they want them to stay!
Zachriel “Welfare to work has been the paradigm since Clinton. You ignored our point.”
No, not a paradigm. A dishonest talking point. Clinton and his friends no more believed in that than he believed his own BS about “The era of big government is over.”
Martel: Zach has no idea how to define a “living wage” or a “safety net.”
SOP: He ignores what he cannot refute or define.
Ho hum.
The original post was that everyone should pay some tax; the idea being I believe that everyone should “buy” a stake in society.
Then Z shows up with his response which was to make the point that…hmm. what was his point? At any rate, as usual he sidetracked the conversation.
I did a little exercise for a distant Lefty relative who bitches constantly about the millionaires not paying their share. It could be useful for Z if he could grasp the point. Neither of them will, of course. Logic and reality have no place in their world; only ideology. The left blathers about tax rates. They never talk about actual taxes paid. The intent is clearly to equate in people’s minds the idea that a 10% difference in tax rate equals a 10% difference in taxes paid.
I did a simplified example for this Lefty relative.
Couple with million dollar taxable income pays $320,300.
I know from public records (they are public employees) that Lefty and his wife have a nominal income of $132,000 (which I treated as taxable for simplicity). If this were their taxable income they would pay $24,700.
Millionaire pays an effective 32% rate; Lefty pays an effective 19%. Whoa, only 13% in effective rate between him and the millionaire. Is that fair?
But, that obscures the reality, which is what the Left wants to do.
In actual dollars, Millionaire pays $295,600 more than Lefty; or 13 times as much.
I wish the GOP would give specific examples like this to help people understand the actual effect of the “progressive” Bush tax rates.
Danny Lemieux: taxes increased during the first two years of the Clinton Administration until a Republican congress was elected to put a stop to that.
Marginal tax rates were increased by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The top marginal rate went from 31.0% to 39.6%. Republicans warned that the increased taxes would destroy the economy.
Newt Gingrich (R-GA): I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.
Joel Hefley (R-CO): However Clinton wants to spin his tax plan, the bottom line is this: It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over 1 million jobs.
Wally Herger (R-CA): The simple fact is the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will not lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth. As most economists now agree, the Clinton plan must go.
Dick Armey (R-TX): The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won’t be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.
John Kasich (R-OH): Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter…This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I’d have to become a Democrat…
In fact, the U.S. experienced one of the longest peacetime periods of prosperity, a prosperity that was broad-based. And they even balanced the budget. Rates were reduced in 2001 by the Bush Administration. That was followed by a period of very poor job creation, a widening gap between rich and poor, and structural deficits. Oh, and it ended with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Danny Lemieux: The Clinton administration didn’t create jobs. The Tech Boom did!
The budget bill, by reducing the deficit, was devised to make more capital available to the markets for expansion. And, of course, Gore had been promoting the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth since the 1970′s, and provided crucial leadership in Congress to create the regulatory mechanisms to make it happen.
Danny Lemieux: the Republican congress forced Clinton to sign the welfare reform act,
Clinton ran in 1992 on welfare reform, though the Republicans certainly did apply important pressure.
Danny Lemieux: Consequently, many ofl the poor people that were empowered by being moved off of welfare support and allowed to take control of their own economic future have now been put right back on the Liberal Plantation by Obama and his crew…and that’s exactly where they want them to stay!
That’s just overblown rhetoric.
Zachriel: In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%. Most people also pay state and local taxes, and even the poorest of the poor pay sales tax.
Oldflyer: Then Z shows up with his response which was to make the point that…hmm. what was his point?
That poor people already pay taxes, and to point out the apparent contradiction in Bookworm’s remarks.
Oldflyer: They never talk about actual taxes paid.
Yes, if someone makes more money, they generally pay more income tax. However, the actual federal tax burden is rarely that high because income is not always taxed at the highest rate, especially for the rich.
Z’s a pro Obama supporter that goes around the internets trying to reclaim Conservative movement according to his own definition of what it should be. He’s never right. End of story.
The reason why Z doesn’t like flat taxes is because he needs to steal money from the rich in order to empower the super rich and keep the poor enslaved. That’s really why in a nutshell.
Z, of course, did not factor the Earned Income Tax credit in his calculations for how much the poor actually pay in taxes. Too inconvenient. I’ll have to wade through their other data at a later time.
Danny, why bother? He’s like my dog, Lily, a scamp of a boxer who is endlessly entertaining even though she is so predictable. As I tell my wife, “Lily will always be three. I mean, there will be no growth like you’d see in a human child, no advancement beyond her already deeply entrenched ways.”
Zach is the same. There will never be any change in his comprehension or his M.O.
I know, I know, he’s a fun chew toy and he keeps us sharp, but just don’t expect any improvement.
For those that may not remember, Martel didn’t have this attitude towards Z starting off. In the beginning, Charles and Danny here were writing up comprehensive arguments and sheets full of justifications in response to what Z has contended was true for America.
Now it’s gotten to this point, and Z here still doesn’t get it. He values human relationships and human nature less than he values Bush’s war in Iraq.
As for me, I’ve always had the same attitude towards Z. That hasn’t changed.
He’s like my dog, Lily, a scamp of a boxer….
Anyone know what breed Pavlov worked with? Up goes a post about taxes or weather and the drooling begins … ring the bell. open the door. let the dog out. call the SPCA.
It’s what he does, SADIE. (It’s the only thing he does.) He’s a work dog.
Ship the dogs off to the next Iditarod – MUSH!
Danny Lemieux: Z, of course, did not factor the Earned Income Tax credit in his calculations for how much the poor actually pay in taxes.
It shows as negative income tax. For the lowest quintile, in 2007, the effective federal income tax is -6.8%. Other taxes, including the payroll tax result in an effective federal tax burden of 4.0%.
The Left still don’t know how many jobs Edwards or Kerry created for the economy. So they are basing their taxation of the rich based upon the Leftist millionaires and billionaires. Except the Left, being who they are, will give loopholes and political exemptions to their rich allies, while punishing the rest. Since many small business owners and venture capital firms are based upon risk taking and conservative values, that ends up making a policy designed to control the Kerries and Soroses of the world, applied only to the competitors of Kerry and Soros.
How convenient.
Zach, your beef appears to be with how the Obama administration itself calculated the jobs creation benefits of its “stimuli”. In addition, you completely missed, whether willfully or not, the key point that it is fundamentally wrong (a moral hazard) that 50% of the population has no skin in the game, that they pay virtually no income tax but are in a position to vote increased taxes on a minority (the “rich”, however defined) to their own benefit.
Sure, people pay sales tax (most of it to local and state government) or gas taxes, but many of these taxes are “invisible” to the consumer. I guarantee you that the average citizen, especially those from lower-income brackets, have no clue how much of the price per gallon of fuel is captured in Federal and State taxes. They just accept it as part of the price of goods (as EUros blindly accept the VAT tax). It will be the same with so-called “carbon taxes”, which is why they are so pernicious.
Enough, I’m moving on.
Danny Lemeiux: your beef appears to be with how the Obama administration itself calculated the jobs creation benefits of its “stimuli”.
Um, no. The White House paper did not use simplistic division to create a straw man argument. That was done by Anderson of the Weekly Standard (from the Obama Legacy thread).
Danny Lemeiux: In addition, you completely missed, whether willfully or not, the key point that it is fundamentally wrong (a moral hazard) that 50% of the population has no skin in the game, that they pay virtually no income tax but are in a position to vote increased taxes on a minority (the “rich”, however defined) to their own benefit.
We didn’t miss the point. In fact, we directly addressed it, more than once. The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%. Most people also pay state and local taxes, and even the poorest of the poor pay sales tax.
Danny Lemeiux: Sure, people pay sales tax (most of it to local and state government) or gas taxes, but many of these taxes are “invisible” to the consumer.
Most sales taxes are right there on your receipt when you leave the store, and they are no more invisible than income taxes, which are automatically deducted from most people’s paychecks.
Z has the prototypical mindset of your regular fanatic. Inflexibility, inability to use introspection, and a certain dead tone seriousness that isn’t conducive to real humor or sociability.
Z-Team @ #42:
The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
This statement is meaningless. It is an example of the innumerate and the economically illiterate spewing out gobbledegook. What else can we expect from the supporters of a POTUS who talked about “profit-earnings” ratio?
I just remembered something while reading MLA from Japan.
The Japanese have strict delineations of proper bowing between individuals of different social ranking. For example, if you bow too low to your classmates or peers, they may interpret that as you making fun of them, because nothing in your social status would make you do so in greeting or in apology.
When it comes to the United States President bowing to a royal member of the Imperial family in Japan, things get a little bit more complicated. While a Japanese person may bow that low, especially if they are of commoner stock, why would the United States of America’s President, leader of the free world and undisputed commander of the mightiest military in the history of the Earth, bow to the non-political leader of Japan who his nation defeated in a war and then proceeded to make a dependency out of?
To make light of the situation and the historical differences? That might be how the Japanese would interpret it.
Z-Team @ #42: The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
Gringo: This statement is meaningless.
You might argument the methodology, but simply waving your hands won’t make the data go away.
Gringo: It is an example of the innumerate and the economically illiterate spewing out gobbledegook.
The Brookings Institute is hardly innumerate or illiterate.
Zach, Gringo was referring to you. Your penchant for claiming others’ work and thoughts as your own does not excuse your incredible credulousness.
Z-Team @ #42: The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
Gringo: This statement is meaningless.
Z-Team :You might argument the methodology, but simply waving your hands won’t make the data go away.
“Argument the methodology” is an example of a meaningless statement, as “argument” is not a verb, yet the Z-Team is using it as one. Perhaps a fourth grader, not knowing any better, would use “argument” as a verb.
What percentiles are you talking about? First percentile? 32nd percentile? 89th percentile?
“Percentile” is meaningless unless it is tied to a specific number.
It would appear to me that the term you might be wanting to use is “quintile.” Even “quintile” needs to be tied to a number. “Second quintile,” for example. “Sixth quintile” would be meaningless.
The issue is not the validity of Brookings Institution data per se. The issue is that your presentation of data shows gross innumeracy.
I am reminded of the story of mother who was dissatisfied with her son’s grades. “You are only getting C’s, but your IQ of 100 shows you should be at the top of the class.”
I am reminded of the story of mother who was dissatisfied with her son’s grades. “You are only getting C’s, but your IQ of 100 shows you should be at the top of the class.”
LOL!
Monday morning links…
Scrubbing your mug shot from the net is a growing business. The UN’s plan to dominate the world of energy and to redistribute wealth? “Climate change” VDH: The Great Madness of 2004-10 Met Office supercomputer tops polluting list: But the Met…
Gringo: “Argument the methodology” is an example of a meaningless statement, as “argument” is not a verb, yet the Z-Team is using it as one.
Seriously. You are reduced to arguing about grammar.
Gringo: It would appear to me that the term you might be wanting to use is “quintile.”
Notably, you understood the correct word from context. We used “quintile” in related comments. If that is your confusion, then perhaps now you can addressed the point raised.
[...] here’s a succinct post that talks about one of the biggest ‘silent’ problems our Republic currently faces: 50% of the population doesn’t pay [...]
Z-Team:
Seriously. You are reduced to arguing about grammar.
My point was that your #42 was a meaningless statement. While it may have been grammatically correct, it was meaningless because its use of “percentile” made no sense, given how “percentile” is used and defined. Your “argument ” sentence in #48 was also a meaningless statement. Are we seeing a pattern here? If you do not write in precise, meaningful English, you will not be able to get your point across. I assume you want to get your point across. Or perhaps, as the saying goes, your real goal is to “baffle them with bullshit.”
Z-Team:If that is your confusion, then perhaps now you can addressed the point raised.
I am unable to address any points raised until you write in coherent comprehensible statements which use words in their accepted manner- in contrast to the way in which you used “percentile.”While I am usually able to translate ungrammatical statements unto comprehensible English, I am totally unable to do so with a statement which misuses the word “percentile.”
My confusion relates to my being unable to understand incoherent meaningless statements. Incoherent writing is a symptom of incoherent thinking.
Z-Team @ #42: The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
I have no idea what in blazes you are talking about. Like the Modern Major General, I am very well acquainted with matters mathematical. Your statement makes no sense mathematically. As I have already pointed out, percentile needs to be tied to a specific number. You may as well have written “Jello Biafra 10.6% sweet chair drink.” It makes just as much sense.
Can you write a simple declarative sentence using only “10.6%,” to better illustrate your point, for example? Is it that difficult?
I would also point out that your data string- 4.0% et al- is undocumented.
Gringo: I have no idea what in blazes you are talking about.
Gee whiz, Gringo, you just said you understood it to be quintile, yet you just made another very long comment about it.
Zachriel: The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by {quintile, from the lowest to the highest of comprehensive household income levels} was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
Gringo: I would also point out that your data string- 4.0% et al- is undocumented.
It’s from the Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institute.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456