As you might know, I am the last person to defend the government for its tax policies. However, I am surprised to listen to the talk about the current Bush-era tax cut extensions and how tax cuts for the "rich" will not be included. The fact is that the tax increase will only be applied to taxable income above whatever the threshold is for the highest bracket.

Since we have a graduated tax code, everyone who pays taxes (only about half of Americans pay any income taxes at all) pays the same percentage for each bracket. Using hypothetical tax brackets and rates, here is how income taxes of various taxpayers would get screwed:

Taxable Income ___ 5% up to $50k ____ 10% from $50k to $100k ___ 15% above $100k ___ Total Tax
Payer A @ $30k ___ .05*$30k=$1,500 _____________________________________________ $1,500
Payer B @ $75k ___ .05*$50k=$2,500 ____ .10*$25k=$2,500 __________________________ $5,000
_____________________________________________________________________________ (not .10*$75k=$7,500)
Payer C @ $135k ___ .05*$50k=$2,500 ___ .10*$50k=$5,000 _______ .15*$35k=$5,250 ____ $12,750
_____________________________________________________________________________ (not .15*$135k=$20,250)


So, that means the "rich" still do not pay any more for the lower part of their earnings than do the non-rich.

The fact is, though, that people with very high incomes have the means to deduct or shelter a lot more of their income than do lower income people, so effectively their total tax rates are much lower even than indicated above.

I think everybody should pay some amount of income tax because everyone benefits from those of us who pay the way for the rest. Even proposed flat tax schemes allow a huge percentage of people to pay nothing for the services they receive.

I find it interesting that you never see news reports of "the rich" marching in the streets to protest all the fruits of their labor being confiscated from them, but we see almost daily those who pay nothing protesting that they are not given enough, and of course never issue any sort of public "thank-you" to the people who pay their way.

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster

The Rich don't need to march in the street. They go to private, $10k/table dinners directly with politicians to make their voices heard....

Yes, the super-rich do enjoy such priviliges. However, now "rich" is being redefined as $250k or even $200k per year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' online inflation calculator, earning $250k in 2010 money is equivalent to earning $196k in 2000, and $149k in 1990.

The term "millionaire" doesn't mean what is used to mean, especially to a 50-something person like myself. For a sobering perspective, in the year I was born, 1958, earning $33k would buy you what $250k buys today. To work it in the other direction, a person worth $1.0M in 1958 had the buying power of someone worth $7.5M in 2010.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1000000&year1=1958&year2=2010

Sure a million bucks is still a lot of money, but the definition of "rich" keeps going down in while the buying power of the earnings goes down as well, so it is a double insult. This is all part of a class envy campaign. The government make as many people as possible dependent on it for sustenance, and then blames the "rich," who, by definition, is anyone making more than you do.

It is a nefarious scheme that has destroyed countries throughout the ages.

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster