I am surprised that economist Charles Colgan didn’t point out the fallacy in the supposition that carried Christopher Williams’ tax story on Page 1 of the Feb. 4 Sun Journal.

I don’t know who “”Maine Revenue Services”” is, but its supposition is equally erroneous.

The story should not have been predicted on the actual dollar amounts one level of taxpayer might receive vs. another level if tax cuts occur. Those who pay the most always get the largest cuts in terms of dollars. That much is a non-story. What is most telling is what percentage of relief a taxpayer would get if the proposals were passed.

The Wall Street Journal recently carried IRS statistics that showed 10 percent of the American taxpaying public paying 67 percent of federal income taxes. That group faces a minimum tax of $92,144. The next level indicated 25 percent of the taxpaying body pays 84 percent of all federal income taxes. Their average minimum tax is $55,225.

On a simplified tax chart, a couple married filing jointly with $43,850 in income pays 15 percent, or $6,577.50. This is the top of the 15 percent bracket. If the same category of taxpayer made $100,000, they would pay $24,000. In actual dollars, a 10 percent cut in the amount of taxes paid yields $2,400 vs. $657.

Williams writes that, “”in fact, only 3,357 of the 108,916 lowest income-earning families would get any benefit”” from the proposed cuts.

If their incomes are too low to benefit, it would be interesting to know what the average income was and how much average tax was paid. According to the IRS, 50 percent of U.S. taxpayers pay 96 percent of all federal taxes. Guess why that 105,000 above won’t stand to benefit?

Robert Moorehead, Paris

Copy the Story Link