Certainly! Let's analyze the given scenarios one by one to determine which one adheres to the ability-to-pay principle.
The ability-to-pay principle suggests that people should pay taxes based on their ability to pay, meaning those with higher incomes or greater financial capability should pay more in taxes.
1. Jamie paid [tex]$2 in taxes for $[/tex]40 worth of gasoline.
- This scenario describes a consumer tax on gasoline, which is typically a flat tax per unit of the item purchased. It does not take into account the individual's ability to pay, but rather it is dependent on the consumption of gasoline.
2. Heather paid [tex]$1 in taxes for a $[/tex]5 pack of cigarettes.
- Similar to the first scenario, this describes a consumer tax on cigarettes. This is also a flat or excise tax applied to the item regardless of the purchaser's income or financial capability.
3. Shawn received a raise at work but had to pay a higher tax rate, which cut into his new raise.
- This scenario indicates a progressive tax system where tax rates increase with higher income levels. Since Shawn had to pay a higher rate after receiving a raise, this exemplifies the ability-to-pay principle. Here, the tax system adjusts based on Shawn's increased ability to pay due to his higher income.
4. Lisa paid 5 cents in tax for a $1 candy bar.
- This is another example of a consumer tax, specifically a sales tax on a candy bar, which is applied at a flat rate regardless of the buyer's income or financial capability.
Given these analyses, the correct scenario that applies to the ability-to-pay principle is Shawn received a raise at work but had to pay a higher tax rate, which cut into his new raise.
Thus, the correct choice is:
3. Shawn received a raise at work but had to pay a higher tax rate, which cut into his new raise.
