Tax discussion thread (U.S. focused)

[Final-Fan]

The thing is, I don't even need to define the practical use. Discussing the third factor alone assumes that we CAN find out the average practical benefit of a certain increase in income. If a person is making 10k [edit: above bare survival income], how much better off would he be if he made an extra 1k? If a person is making 100k [ABSI], how much better off would he be if he made an extra 10k? 1m, 100k?

ASSUMING for the sake of argument that we can actually find this out [and assign it specific value], and since the goal is figuring out the relative ratios of these income increases' proportional benefits (I hope I didn't mess that up), how is the conclusion (what the relative ratio(s) are) assumed by the third measurement (finding out specific ratios at various levels)?

MOVING ON

You pointed out that people with more money have a better ability to invest it, which produces income with no additional work. (Some people also work where they have invested money, but that's different.) So, it's easier for them not only to make money, but to increase the RATE at which they make money (by reinvesting). Wasn't that your entire point? It then follows that they are less burdened by the removal of some of that income since it's easier for them to make up the difference, according to you. QED What is incorrect about this reasoning?

P.S.  Also, just because it got missed in your response and I think it's relevant to the discussion, "Still, at some point a person has more money (and income) than he would ever reasonably need for himself and his family. Do you disagree? If you don't, then there is a diminishing return for practical usefulness somewhere. I just think that it's a gradual trend instead of only applying to the superrich, but it's possible that I'm mistaken."