When we're asked to resolve a paradox or discrepancy, we need to establish three things:
1) What are the given premises?
2) What would the expected outcome be?
3) How does the actual outcome differ from the expected outcome?
In this case,
1) Given: the wealthiest 20% contribute more than 70% of tax revenue
2) Expected (Congressperson's position): the wealthiest 20% has an unjust burden placed on them
3) Actual (Senator's position): the tax system does not impose a greater hardship on the wealthiest 20%
Whenever you're asked to resolve a discrepancy with mathematical language, think about mathematical METRICS. If everyone made exactly the same amount of money, 20% of people should pay 20% of taxes. If the wealthiest people make significantly more money than other people, they could pay a lot more money in taxes (accounting for a larger percentage of the total pool of tax revenue), without necessarily paying a larger proportion of their income in taxes than anyone else does.
We're looking at two different proportions here: the proportion of the total pool of tax revenue v. proportion of each person's income. To resolve the apparent paradox, we need to say that the taxes from these 20% make up a 70% portion of all tax revenue, but that these people do not pay taxes at a higher rate (a greater proportion of their income) than anyone else.
A. Supplemented income does not answer the question of whether they are taxed at a higher rate.
B. Ability to pay taxes does not address whether they are taxed unfairly.
C. The tiered rate could give a much higher rate to the wealthy, supporting the Congressperson's claim.
D. The argument only talks about income tax revenue. Irrelevant.
E. If the wealthiest earn 75% of income but only pay 70% of income taxes, they are actually taxed at a lower rate than the total population, and thus do NOT have an unjust burden placed on them. Correct.
The answer is E.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
