without going into incredibly convoluted structures like one of the rebuttals out there, this on the surface, is how the system works. Yes, wealthier people, have more options to limit their tax liability, they also have an higher basic tax bill if their income is coming in in the same way.
First off, this analogy is spending all of its time talking about how much of the budget is provided by the wealthy, not looking at how much of anyone's INCOME is being taken away. For all we know, $59 represents 1% of the tenth man's income, while $1 represents 5% of the fifth man's income. For all we know, he's already getting an obscenely sweet deal, and the anger/frustration of the other nine is understandable (if not excusable
( ... )
35% is the federal tax, at least here in CA, we have 9% state tax then for the First $100k you have 13% SSI(6.5% employee contribution, 6.5% employer contribution).
And that 35% changes when you fall under the Alternative min. tax, where your ability to take deductions.
Like I've said elsewhere that this analogy is brought up, it's not a very good analogy, but it is based on how our system works nominally. But like Obama did vote to raise taxes on households over $47k in income by virtue or voting against the extension of the AMT exemption. It's all true from one point of view and all absolute bull from another.
While I will admit that most of what our elected officials spend money on is luxury, unfortunately we don't have the ability to change how they spend it other than by voting the bastards out of office. There are a lot of problems with it as an allegory but it is does have a fair bit of truth. On the other hand, our system wouldn't work under the current tax code without a progressive tax.
Comments 11
I'll see what I can do.
Reply
Reply
And that 35% changes when you fall under the Alternative min. tax, where your ability to take deductions.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But it looks good and it's funny. That's good enough for most people, unfortunately.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment