The Rich pay 4x More than Middle
And we still need to take more from them right? I’m thinking I could use a few more bucks from Uncle Iris.
I’ll try to figure out exactly how much of that “Rich Tax” money I’m going to get. It will be tough to figure though.
Fair Share? IRS Data Says Millionaires Pay 4X Higher Tax Rate Than The Middle Class
Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney have managed to create one of the enduring myths of our tax debate: that the rich pay a lower rate than the rest of America.
This may be individually true. Buffett pays a lower rate than his secretary and Romney pays a lower rate than most of us who make our living from salaries.
But nationally, the tax code is still broadly progressive. The more your make, the more taxes you pay as a percentage of your income.
According to new data from the IRS, people who make $1 million or more had an average tax rate of 20.4 percent in 2010. Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an average rate of 4.8 percent, while those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7 percent. Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits.
Put another way, millionaires pay a rate that’s more than four times that of the middle class.
All you Liberal/Progressives/Democrats/RINO’s who believe this will help with our national debt need to think a bit. Just a bit. Let me help:
Rich people, even people like Warren “Tax me” Buffet and Mitt “Its my money” Romney will tell you, tax them more doesn’t mean you will see a dime of it. Matter of fact if YOU pay taxes at all, taxing the rich will actually hit you.
Here’s why: Rich people own businesses and/or buy big ticket items. High end items. MOST High cost items are manufactured here in America. America can’t compete with the cheap good market in China but we can make the BEST out there. What happens when you take disposable income from someone? They cut back. A rich person who has a budget, while it may be 20k a month, if it’s decreased something isn’t going to get bought. IF it’s not bought, there’s no need for people to make it…. pretty simple huh?
Then think about it like this. A yacht owner may decide he doesn’t want a bigger one. OR he can’t afford to keep the one he has.. Who just lost their jobs? You may say the yacht workers, partly. How about the food/fuel delivery? The decorators, the staff who man the yacht, the people at the ports those yacht owners buy things at.. See just like the Democrats use GM as a “Saved millions” of jobs because of what’s tied to it. So is the Rich people’s purchasing power.
We tend to not notice what the rich do for an economy. Little hint. They’ve been hanging on to a lot of cash during the last 6 years. They are buying things at cut rates, but once the government decides to TAKE more, these rich folks are going to hang on harder. Then think about the not-so-rich business owner. Well, we have an entire new scenario.
Rich business folks aren’t generally stupid people. They get a thousand dollars a month taken from them by the feds, what do you thin they’ll do? Raise prices/cut costs to make up the difference. Cutting costs=labor cuts. Hours/jobs. Elimination of anything deemed excess. Raising prices hurts YOU the consumer. But don’t worry, the government will tell you it’s fair.
Wake up and see the class war is a loser for everyone.
10 Replies to “The Rich pay 4x More than Middle”
Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone were smart enough to understand what you just wrote.
You cannot even BEGIN to “make up” the deficit on the backs of the so-called “rich” or even the “super-rich.” When you’re talking 16 — almost 17 TRILLION dollars now — those are numbers that simply won’t program.
This is nothing more than “get back” and purposeful re-distribution.
BZ
Woody, yeah it would. It would be nicer if they voted smarter too.. I think we’re on the path to destruction and while many of us try to stop it, over half of the nation is pushing down the path… Sad really.
BZ, EXACTLY! Get back or payback is all it is. Obama is the example of lowering the bar. Things need to be easier and more fair. the basic meaning of that is if you do drugs hang out late and barely pass high school, you are as entitled to a job as the kid who studied, worked hard and passed with straight A’s.
This ideology is a wrecking ball to our nation. Our founders would be in the streets by now.
The top 4% of states pay 30% of the all Income Taxes, while the Top 8 States pay over 50%. I live in one of those states and I’am all for making you poor states pay more.
Keith. I don’t know where you think I live, nor do I understand what you’re trying to say. States? Um, states don’t make anything. The state is in existence because of the taxpayers in that state. Without them there is no state.
So you want the states to pay the feds more? Exactly where do those states get the money to pay the fed? please elaborate.
It seems that the “conservative” position is that Federal Funding of State budgets, Federal Aid and transfer payment are inherently inefficient because the result in systemic deflationary pressures.
Essentially, “Conservatives” seem to advocate for a rigid fiscal policy, wherein systemic inequities are seen to be a positive driver of GDP, and thus should be encouraged.
Therefore, according to this model the ideal tax policy would be one that would result in the greatest amount of GDP, and the least amount of Federal Expenditures.
The most efficient means to accomplish this would be to decrease the effective tax rate for the highest revenue generating states, and increase the effective rate for the lowest revenue generating states.
In one respect this is basically entitlement reform, in that the federal subsidies for things like education, air line tickets, cable television and cell phone service, would be ended, by shifting the cost burden to the residents of the state in which those services are offered.
If GDP is really the “wholly grail” of economics, then simply cutting the Tax burden on the States that have the most efficient economy’s in terms of there ability to generate NET Federal Revenue, is the only methodology under such a theory that would result in GDP growth.
Okay, So states like _____? Need to pay more to the fed? You haven’t addressed where the “poor states” will get that money? States can’t print money. Cutting funding for things for the state? I’m good with that. Cutting federal grants? cutting all federal ties to states? Hell, I’m good with that too… Matter of fact, after this debacle here in CA I think CA should be sold to pay off part of the national debt.
A little curious though. GDP growth is brought upward when more people are working in the private sector. So you would rather cut federal monies to poor states than get more people working by cutting federal obstruction? Sounds kind of heartless…just sayin.
First the “poor states” are really not poor in real terms as experienced by an individual, just poor in terms of economic efficiency.
Secondly, California, and Florida where I live are actually the ideal model under the “GPD is everything” economic theory. The reason that you perceive California’s economy negatively is because a negative savings rate is an indicator of economic efficiency.
The predicate upon which the theory, wherein a decrease in effective tax burdens will lead to increased consumption, thus increasing Federal Revenues due to an expansion of the taxable base is the assumption that a multiple of the increase in personal income will be expended, instead of saved.
In other words, it is assumed that the entirety of the increase in personal income will result in additional debt financing of discretionary income, thus the negative savings rate.
I lived in a welfare state for a spell, Omaha, NE, and and my biggest observation other than I was never more than 5 miles from a corn field were that, (1) The budget of my hometown school district back in Florida was larger than the budget for the entire state. (2) more people lived in US prison’s than they did in the entire state, and most of North Dakota.
>>GDP growth is brought upward when more >>people are working in the private sector.
In “poor states” economic inputs are insufficient to generate enough federal revenue to cover Federal Expenditures.
If maximizing GDP is the sole goal, then the most effective policy would be to.
1) Decrease the effective Tax burdens in people living in “rich states” this would result in an increase in discretionary income that would increase GDP by a multiple of the decrease in taxation.
2) Increase the effective Tax burden on people in “poor states”, in an amount equal to the excess of federal revenue generated and federal expenditures received. There would be a higher normal unemployment rate, but it would be a Net Gain from a GDP perspective because consumer, state and municipal debt would replace federal subsidy, and the state would become revenue neutral from a Federal Balance of Accounts standpoint.
I don’t think that GDP growth is the push. I think its an INDICATOR of how the economy is doing as a whole. GDP growth measurement is in part gained by how many people are working and how many people are on the state/fed dole.
California WAS a place many people ran to in the past. NOW they are running from it. WHY? Because of the lack of opportunity. Unless you are a teacher union/SEIU employee. The reason CA is dying has nothing to do with GDP growth but it is a an example of how to destroy STATE GROWTH. Florida on the other hand has some benefits and a stronger leadership that keeps the liberal philosophies from destroying a great state. It has to do with the population.
IN CA, older folks can’t afford to live here unless they were very well to do prior. They end up in places like FLA. My mom is a perfect example of that. CA her whole life had to move to FLA to make ends meet. Cost of living/taxes/gas prices etc. When she left what did she take? her spending money.. what does that money go to? Right, purchases, what else? Sales taxes gone…Multiply that by millions and you see the problem.
Your ideas about taxing poor states more seems counter to the liberal mindset except for your poor state examples are mostly in states that went red. I’m interested in your voting record? Are you conservative/Liberal/Dem or Rep or Indy?
The theory that I have described is the one that has lead to the sorry state of economic insecurity that we all feel. I totally believe that the reason we are all pissed off each other is because we all fearful that we will not have the standard of living that we desire to have. While I think some “conservatives” are employing disingenuous economic arguments as means to further there agenda on social issues, I think the vast majority are genuinely trying to fix an economy that is systemically broken.
Basically, I believe that aside from social issues aside, we are all trying to fix the same problem.
Everything I have said, is merely a restatement in economic terms of the statement that “taxing the rich will actually hit [hurt]” us. There is actually an equation that describes the effects that any particular tax policy will likely have on the marketplace. Just replace states with people in what I have written, the context changes but the theory underlying it the same. I suspect your reaction would be the same as mine if someone walked up to you and said, “screw you buddy, your a waste of state”, in that he would be hustling off to his proctologist for an emergency boot removal procedure.
You correctly stated, at least in the sense I agree completely,that (1) GDP is a measure of the the health of a marketplace, and that (2) GDP is nothing more than the numerical solution to a mathematical function.
Without, knowing the assumptions, variable weighting, or even whether an income or a consumption methodology was employed,the only thing that GDP evidences is that addition and subtraction is that math is a law and not just a theory.
Removing the word states from the last paragraph in my prior post and you get this:
Increase the effective Tax burden on [poor people] in an amount equal to the excess of federal revenue generated [taxes paid] and federal expenditures received [Entitlements and Federal Aide].
There would be a higher normal unemployment rate,[the unemployment will continue to decrease but will stabilize but at a higher rate than we had pre-2007] but it would be a Net Gain from a GDP perspective because consumer, state and municipal debt would replace federal subsidy [People will just have to rely more heavily on Credit Cards, Second Mortgages, and Financing to purchase discretionary items] and the state would become revenue neutral from a Federal Balance of Accounts standpoint.
The fatal flaw with the Theory, is that the Federal Reserve already pays banks to borrow money, at least in the sense that interest rate charged is less that the rate of inflation [Inflation = Net change in GDP], it is also the reason that banks can and are charging a fee to let you watch your relative purchasing power wither before your eyes.
I disagree with the scope of the Federal Reserves and Treasury Department’s intervention in the Marketplace, and find the idea of “too big to fail” absurd, However, I also view the position Government found itself in as being akin to having Vinny the trigger, and Sammy Sadist handing you a shovel while pointing a gun at you, and telling the length of time you can dig and your life expectancy just became intimately correlated.