Losing it, Fox Style

Okay, so I seem to only be popping in to write about politics these days. There are only 7 days left until the election; deal with it.

I just watched a video that Fredrik linked me; it's a clip from Fox News of anchor Megyn Kelly losing any shred of maturity in the face of a very calm Bill Burton, Obama adviser. The topic of discussion was the claim that Obama is a "socialist" that wants to redistribute wealth, and whether or not this is a fake controversy being drummed up by Fox News. (Check it out here.) Her nonsense during this interview (in which, like so many Fox interviews, she talked and expected her interviewee to listen) included many crimes against sound statistics, but there's one in particular that I'd like to focus on.

"I get e-mails from Republicans, Democrats and independents alike who are concerned about that notion; who understand that right now in this country, the top 25% already pay 67% of the income taxes and they're worried about shifting that balance even more."

It's not kind to take advantage of the fact that most people suck at math. But in her defense, I bet she genuinely sucks at it, too.

Let's do a little experiment.

Let's say we have 4 people in America. One earns $10,000 a year, one earns $25,000 a year, one earns $50,000 a year, and the last guy earns $200,000 a year. Now let's also say that we don't even have a progressive tax system, but rather, that pipe dream of all libertarians and reactionaries everywhere: a 15% flat tax.

With a 15% flat tax, we collect a total of $42,750 in income tax from our four participants. The guy who makes $200,000 is our top 25%, and his share of the income tax is $30,000. This is over 70% of the total income tax that we have collected.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, our tax system is really really seriously and, like, totally unfair!

No, of course it's not; he pays more taxes simply by virtue of the twin facts that he makes more than 70% of the income and that this isn't feudal Europe. And this despite the fact that the example uses a flat tax, a system that very few actually advocate as the absolute most fair. Most people believe in a progressive tax system in which a higher percentage is paid by people who earn more (bloody socialist pigs, all of us).

The income distribution in my example is pretty modest compared to the extremes that exist in the U.S. An income of $10,000 is about what a person makes if they work full time at minimum wage, and an income of $200,000 is, I dare say, not an exaggerated representation of the actual average for the top 25% of income-earners.

Of course, not surprisingly, her statistic isn't correct to begin with anyway. According to the IRS, in 2006 the top-earning 25% of taxpayers earned 67.5% of the nation's income. Note -- not that they paid 67% of the income tax, but that they earned 67.5% of all the income. In light of this fact, do you suppose people would react the same way to hearing that they pay 67% of the income tax? Of course not. It would be sort of a "duh" moment (well, for most people; some people really suck at math). But what if I now tell you that the top 25% actually pay 86% of all the income tax? When tempered with the information that they also earn 67% of all the income, I still contend that many people would take a moment to reflect and decide that this isn't so bad (and some would still have the presence of mind to let out a good, loud "duh.").

And again, that's most people. The kind that actually can make a logical and consistent connection between what they believe, what they think they believe, and an actual real-life situation. Okay, so maybe that's not so many people. But that's okay; there are smart people with calculators who can help the rest of them out.