Tax consumption, not earnings
California, with soaring deficits and the usual assortment of big spenders in public office is a state in the tank looking to Washington for handout. Since California’s in the tank for Democrats, short-term relief undoubtedly will come.
Longer term, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he’d welcome a proposal from a state commission studying tax revision for a flat tax along the lines of “a 15 percent straight tax.” He told the Sacramento Bee editorial board that the existing system “doesn’t work” because income tax revenues rise and fall with the economy.
I’ve never had any objections to a flat tax along the lines of the FairTax proposed by U.S. Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) and others. Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes is also a fan of a flat tax. The only reason for not jumping on that bandwagon was the unlikelihood that Americans would embrace a flat tax as an alternative to the national income tax in my lifetime.
Now I’m not so sure. The massive spending being proposed by President Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats on new and expanded social programs threaten to destroy the middle class, which will ultimately pay the tab. When they talk about taxing the rich, it’s just talk. The rich will change their behaviors and investments in ways that preserve wealth. It’s the middle class that’ll get hit, via the income tax and hidden taxes.
A single tax on consumption would be the way to go. Eliminate the income tax on earnings. Tax consumption — everybody’s consumption.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
199 comments Add your comment
Inheritance Tax Guide UK
June 8th, 2009
7:40 am
Inheritance tax is money that is paid on the value of the property you own. There is a nil rate band and can be assessed when you send in your inheritance tax return. The nil band rates can affect your capital gains tax.
http://inheritancetaxguideuk.wetpaint.com/
William Casey
June 8th, 2009
7:43 am
I’m all for a consumption tax with a few adjustments:
1. No tax on basic food. High tax on lobster,etc.
2. Low tax on basic transportation. High tax on my Mercedes.
3. No tax on prescription drugs and medical care.
4. Low tax on homes below median price for region. High tax on McMansions.
5. Low tax on basic clothing. High tax on designer stuff.
You get the idea.
Aquagirl
June 8th, 2009
7:46 am
Taxing consumption vs. earnings has always made sense to me. Why punish hard work and reward spendthrifts?
And Jim, you should support an idea if it’s right, regardless of the majority. Otherwise everything you do will be jumping on the bandwagon. Fer God’s sake you invested mucho years of your life in writing opinions. If you didn’t advance ideas because you thought they had no support you must have little faith in your own ability.
Dave R.
June 8th, 2009
8:07 am
Mr. Casey, try reading about the FairTax proposal by John Linder. Then you’ll understand why it is called the FAIR Tax.
Churchill's MOM
June 8th, 2009
8:15 am
As usual the link to the home page is screwed up.. The AJC staff must hate you..
Churchill's MOM
June 8th, 2009
8:19 am
We need a WOMAN”S PARTY. the Republicans are not mature enough for a real woman
Sarah Palin’s on-again, off-again appearance at Monday night’s gala GOP fundraising dinner is off — again.
After being invited — for a second time — to speak to the annual joint fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Palin was told abruptly Saturday night that she would not be allowed to address the thousands of Republicans there after all.
The Alaska governor may now skip the dinner altogether, and her allies are miffed at what they see as a slight from the congressional wing of the Republican Party.
The reason given for the snub, said a Palin aide, was that NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions was concerned about not wanting to upstage former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the fundraising gala’s keynote speaker.
“A great deal of effort has been put into this fundraising event, and Speaker Gingrich has gone above and beyond the call of duty,” said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain. “It is our hope that Gov. Palin will attend the dinner and be recognized, but we understand if her busy schedule doesn’t permit her to do so.”
The disinvitation from speaking, said a campaign committee official, was done “out of respect” for Gingrich.
“You dance with the one who brung ya,” said the official, who stressed that event organizers were still happy to have Palin appear and be introduced.
Ironically, Palin was originally supposed to be the headliner for the dinner. NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas wanted the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee to speak. And officials with the two party committees thought earlier this spring that she had committed, even going so far as to issue a press release announcing her appearance.
But after public uncertainty as to whether she had actually accepted and would attend, the NRSC and NRCC decided to invite Gingrich instead.
Palin aides in Alaska say the governor never accepted that first invitation and attributed the mix-up to Washington-based advisers.
But then last week — in part due to the urging of Republican überfundraiser and Palin friend Fred Malek — the NRSC extended a new invitation for Palin to speak. The plan, Republican sources say, was to make her appearance something of a surprise for GOP donors in attendance.
Palin was in New York this weekend on a mix of state and personal business — she celebrated the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood Saturday at a large celebration in Auburn, N.Y., the hometown of William Seward of “Seward’s Folly” fame — and the idea was that she’d swing down to the capital on Monday for the dinner before flying on to Texas for energy-related events.
Palin’s staff had even been sent an agenda with the governor’s speaking slot included.
But then a finance official with the NRSC called Palin aide Meg Stapleton Saturday night to say that Sessions didn’t want Palin to speak.
Recounting the conversation Sunday, Stapleton said she told the NRSC staffer: “Why, at a time when we’re trying to build the party, would you pull a move like that on somebody who earlier in the day just attracted 20,000 people?”
Palin was to sit the table of NRSC Chairman John Cornyn of Texas, and Senate campaign committee officials were still trying Sunday to persuade the Alaska governor to attend.
“Although the governor was unable to commit far enough in advance to be confirmed as the keynote, Sen. Cornyn has a great deal of respect and admiration for Gov. Palin, which is why he invited her to be his guest at the dinner,” said NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh. “He hopes she will be able to attend but recognizes she also has a lot of competing demands on her schedule, so he also understands if she is not able to make it. Regardless, she is an important leader in our party and is someone who Sen. Cornyn thinks very highly of.”
Malek, for decades a major behind-the-scenes player in the GOP, made note of his disappointment that Palin was not coming.
“Sarah Palin is one of the most popular and magnetic figures in the Republican Party, and it would have been great to see her at the House-Senate dinner,” Malek said. “But I guess it’s just hard in the final days to adjust a program that has been carefully developed weeks in advance.”
Niceties aside, this latest snafu involving Palin and the national party apparatus has left both sides deeply irritated.
Tired of being derided as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, Palin officials want it known that they were not responsible for this latest mix-up. They say the governor was happy to appear and fire up party loyalists, but that, yet again, GOP operatives and officials in Washington would just as soon try to marginalize her.
But the dinner’s planners are equally exasperated with Palin. The NRCC, especially, is still irked about how she handled the original invitation in March, leaving the two committees scrambling to find a fill-in for what is their chief money-raising event of the year.
“It was Pete who had invited her to the dinner early on,” carped one campaign committee official about the initial process. “And she accepted, then unaccepted.”
It was Cornyn’s decision to move on and invite Gingrich, say House Republican officials, and his attempts to still bring her to the dinner are being seen by some as an effort to make amends with conservative activists who are miffed at him now in part because of his intervention on behalf of the more moderate candidate in the Florida GOP Senate primary.
But beyond one scheduling issue, this latest dust-up speaks to the ongoing turmoil within a beleaguered GOP. Palin is still a major draw — hence her original invitation — and many in the grass roots of the party think she’s got incomparable charisma and just-folks appeal. As Palin appeared in Auburn and elsewhere in Central New York this weekend, locals and even some who’d traveled long distances to see her encouraged her to mount a White House bid.
But many in the party establishment, mindful of her polarizing persona and the devastating caricatures that emerged last fall, would prefer she remain in Alaska and leave the party rebuilding to others who may appeal to the broad middle of the country.
Copyleft
June 8th, 2009
8:27 am
You can always tell a diehard Reagan-era Republican; they still buy into this trickle-down, supply-side nonsense, no matter how many times it’s proven to fail.
A consumption tax is automatically regressive, of course; and the millionaires who promote it (and its current hooded mask, the “Fair Tax”) know that perfectly well.
I expect that Wooten’s current title just BARELY beat out his original version: “Tax the Poor, Not the Rich.”
lovelyliz
June 8th, 2009
8:58 am
There’s taxing earnings and then there’s taxing “earnings”. As it stands now wages are taxed, taxed, taxed while income from other sources are taxed much less. When did we decide to burden those who actually work for a living giving the majority of tax breaks to those who have the most? We shouldn’t overly burden anyone, but…….
How about the “REALLY FAIR TAX”? My RFT would give everyone a standard deduction and then tax all income above a certain level at the same rate. Whether you work for a living or live off of your grandparents $$$ or live off of $$ you smartly invested, you would pay at the sme rate OR does that make too much sense?
jconservative
June 8th, 2009
9:18 am
Fair Tax will not happen. We now old guys tried to get this through in the early 1960s. Letters to congressmen & senators by Young Republicans were just ignored. Same as today except a few people are
making $$ off the attempt. Good for them.
Peadawg
June 8th, 2009
9:22 am
I don’t agree w/ the “fair tax.” There’s no way I (who makes 31,000/yr) should be taxed the same as Bill Gates (maybe an exaggeration, but you get my point).
zeke
June 8th, 2009
9:23 am
GEEZE! What kind of nuts, copyleft, lovely liz, churchhill’s mom? The proposals coming from the nut in Washington is a value added tax, not a consumption tax! That means whe a farmer sells milk or eggs a tax is added, then when the distributor sells those same milk or eggs another tax is added, then when a processor sell those same milk or eggs another tax is added, then when the grocery distributor sells those same milk and eggs another tax is added, then when the grocery store sells those same milk or eggs to the consumer ANOTHER TAX IS ADDED! IDIOTS ALL! The only “fair share” is the “fair tax model” propsed by Linder. It will never happen unless voters actually threaten the elected morons to pass it and save our great country! TRICKLE DOWN DOES WORK! IT HAS ALL THROUGH OUR 200+ YEARS AS A COUNTRY! Reagan’s tax policies created the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy, the middle class and the lifting up of the lower income groups in history! IT MUST BE CONTINUED, NOT KILLED BY THESE ABSOLUTE SOCIALIST POLICIES OF OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS!!!!
Claire
June 8th, 2009
9:27 am
The Fair Tax makes the most sense. In addition to taxation FAIRLY, (God knows our current administration won’t get behind it), think of the additional revenue that would be brought in by the millions of illegals currently not paying taxes. California would benefit greatly from the Fair Tax plan. Note to Churchill’s Mom: Your comments need not be someone else’s articles. Limit it!
Redneck Convert
June 8th, 2009
9:31 am
Well, they ought to call it the Miser Tax Break. If you don’t spend anything you don’t pay taxes. If you spend what you make on silly stuff like food and housing and Drs. and such, you get taxed to the hilt.
Sounds like a great way to get Trickle Down going again. Only the Trickle Down is coming from the people that don’t make the big money. Anyhow, when they pass this Fair Tax, just tell me which butt to kiss and when. I’ll be there all puckered up. But I ain’t kissing Whiner’s pile-on cyst.
Have a good day everybody.
Gerald
June 8th, 2009
9:32 am
@William Casey – Sir, maybe you don’t get it. It’s about consumption. The debate on what to tax and what not to tax can go on for years!
booger
June 8th, 2009
9:32 am
A consumption tax would be fine if it replaced income tax. However if income tax is not banned by law, how long do you think it would be before congress decided the “rich” were not paying their “fair share” [defined as more than they pay now]. The income tax would then be reinstated.
Any tax change we see in the near future will for sure result in more money into the govt. and out of folks pockets. The current admin. is on a totally out of control shopping spree and as with California, the bill will come due. I suspect we will see all kinds of tax reform in the near future. This translates into tax increases aimed primarily at the doers in our society as the transfer of wealth to the do nothings builds steam.
Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST
June 8th, 2009
9:36 am
I saw that you left oud Daddy’s campaign promice to get the National Sales Tax passed. Well Saxby has better things to do, as you know derivitives are governed by the ag committee, so Saxby is getting all the expensive golf trips & money the bankers can come up with. He would like to thank all you fair tax fools that voted for him. As you know with Saxby money talks and promices walk. Have a great day.
BDAtlanta
June 8th, 2009
9:36 am
Reagan’s tax policies created….the middle class and the lifting up of the lower income groups in history!
What are you talking about? Reagan’s work practically killed the middle class. He shifted the majority of the tax burden to the middle class who were, in effect, stuck doling out welfare to the poor AS WELL AS the rich.
Corporate wellfare is a very real concept. The poor don’t own shares of companies. The middle class (to some extent) and the wealthy (primarily) do. Regarding individuals and families, tax breaks for inheritance, capital gains, etc. is all welfare.
007
June 8th, 2009
9:40 am
Wasn’t the fair tax dreamed up by a Texas oil billionair as a way to get the poor to pay taxes rather than the poor. I’m all for it.
lovelyliz
June 8th, 2009
9:41 am
Calling a tax system Fair does not make it so. Just ask the man paying tax for a gallon of milk for his kid or buying a desk for his business vs the one who pays no tax for his 2 month old USED Bentley.
007
June 8th, 2009
9:42 am
that’s “rather than the rich.” I am such a fool but rich anyway.
Ga Values
June 8th, 2009
9:45 am
The problem is not tax collection is is out of control spending, it was under Bush and is the same under Obama. We need term limits.
pbear
June 8th, 2009
9:46 am
I’m all for a consumption tax INSTEAD of income tax. I mean, the people here illegelly don’t have to work or pay income taxes, but they do have to eat! The government should get some of that money in exchange for taking such good care of them.
BDAtlanta
June 8th, 2009
9:46 am
And don’t let wealthy folks fool you with their talk about taxes being fair. They don’t give a rats azz about fairness, what they care about is paying less. End of story. It is “fair” if they are paying less. Simple as that.
For example, wealthy folks enjoy the services of the police (who protect their stuff) and the firemen (who protect their houses). But they want those who don’t make a lot and, thus, have less stuff and fewer houses, to share the burden of paying for those services.
Tax funds go to municipal road crews to repair potholes created by trucks carrying products produced by corporations – which are owned by wealthy and some middle class stock holders. But the wealthy folks in those corporations don’t want to help pay for taxes that go to street crews.
How about health inspectors. Those are government workers who get paid with tax dollars. But wealthy stock holders don’t want their food corporation to pay taxes that go to paying food inspectors that check their products for unhealthy bacteria so that they can sell their products.
JBizzle
June 8th, 2009
9:47 am
Peadawg @ 9:22– when Bill Gates buys a yacht for $2mil he would pay over $500k in taxes on it under a fair tax system. When George Soros buys a $700k Lamborgini he would pay over just under $200k in taxes. The Fair Tax taxes the rich too.
Big Bucks GOP doing the Lords work
June 8th, 2009
9:51 am
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department has failed to provide adequate oversight over tens of billions of dollars in contracts to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, says a new report by an independent commission investigating waste and fraud in wartime spending.
U.S. reliance on private sector employees has grown to “unprecedented proportions,” yet the government has no central database of who all these contractors are, what they do or how much they’re paid, the bipartisan commission found.
In its first report to Congress, the Wartime Contracting Commission presents a bleak assessment of how taxpayer dollars have been spent since 2001. The 111-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, documents poor management, weak oversight, and a failure to learn from past mistakes as recurring themes in wartime contracting.
BDAtlanta
June 8th, 2009
9:52 am
Republicans are a party for the wealthy.
That is why their undying mantra and rallying cry is “Will someone please give me a tax break already?”
It’s no coincidence their mantra is the same cry of the wealthy classes: “Will someone please give me a tax break already?…or I will take my money and move it offshore and out of the US banking system (if it was in the American banking system it would help the American financial system)”
Big Bucks GOP doing the Lords work
June 8th, 2009
9:53 am
The Obama administration plans to require banks and corporations that
have received two rounds of federal bailouts to submit any major
executive pay changes for approval by a new federal official who will
monitor compensation, The New York Times reported, citing two
government officials.
Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General
Motors and its finance arm, GMAC, which all received two taxpayer
infusions, will face the strictest scrutiny from the new federal
official charged with vetting compensation, Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is
known for overseeing payouts to the families of the victims of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The proposal is part of a broad set of regulations on executive
compensation expected to be announced by the administration as early as
this week. Some of the rules are required by legislation enacted in the
wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and they
would apply only to companies that received taxpayer money.
Others, which are being described as broad principles, would set
standards that the government would like the entire financial industry
to observe as banks and other companies compensate their highest-paid
executives, though it is not clear how stringent regulators will make
them.
ByteMe
June 8th, 2009
9:54 am
And it’s this comment from Ahnold that tells you it’s crap:
“He told the Sacramento Bee editorial board that the existing system ‘doesn’t work’ because income tax revenues rise and fall with the economy.”
As anyone in any state government will tell you, sales taxes ALSO rise and fall with the economy. People spend less during a recession; people spend more during good times.
Once again, the solution addresses the only side of the problem that’s not really the problem. The problem is not about collecting revenue for the government; we do that well enough. The problem is that we — as a nation — continue to ask the government to spend more on things (roads, trains, health care, war, whatever) but then refuse to pressure the politicians to raise taxes to cover what we asked for.
And if you think the so-called “FairTax” is really fair, think about what a 26% tax on the sale of your house will do to the value of — and demand — for your house. Think the housing market is slow now?
Officer Rivieri
June 8th, 2009
9:54 am
If we tax what we buy instead of what we make, won’t that just prompt Obama Supporters to STEAL…. even MORE?
Fred
June 8th, 2009
9:55 am
But without the income tax, we can’t fund our world empire. That would restrain the government and decentralize power. No way. Can’t be having that. It would hurt the poor.
Big Bucks GOP doing the Lords work
June 8th, 2009
9:56 am
Merger advisory fees in May totaled just $837 million, the lowest
monthly level since 1998, according to Thompson Reuters and Freeman &
Company.
Knuckle Sandwich
June 8th, 2009
9:58 am
Copyleft…I’m sorry, I’m a mere simpleton. When EVERYONE is taxed on what they buy, how do the poor get taxed more than the rich? Please explain, in detail. In my simple mind, I reason that the rich can afford to buy more things, so logic would have it that those with means would contribute more tax than those without. I notice that liberals like to shoot down conservative’s proposals “because they don’t work”, but never offer any solutions of their own.
Big Bucks GOP doing the Lords work
June 8th, 2009
9:58 am
The private equity industry is facing a “maturity bubble” from 2012 to
2014, when about $430 billion in senior buyout debt will need to be
refinanced. It may not be pretty.
JBizzle
June 8th, 2009
10:00 am
ByteMe– think how much house you could afford when Uncle Sam doesn’t take a big, wet, 40% bite out of your paycheck each week. If you make $1,000/week that’s and extra $1600/month!! IN YOUR POCKET
JR
June 8th, 2009
10:01 am
The rich could (and would) avoid the So Called Fair Tax by forming corporations to buy their high cost items. The SCFT also would kill the housing industry. You would need a down payment plus the amount of tax at closing.. How many people will save up 60,000 plus to buy a house. Also read the bill and get an understanding of how section 801 works, you might just get a rude awaking!
Big Bucks GOP doing the Lords work
June 8th, 2009
10:01 am
Lawyers for a group of Bernard L. Madoff’s victims are asking a judge
to reject the way their losses in the fraud are calculated, and base
them on Madoff’s fictional balances instead.
BDAtlanta
June 8th, 2009
10:04 am
Do Linder’s proposals address corporate purchasing? Or do corporations not pay taxes on the raw materials, office supplies, etc that they purchase under the Fair Tax system?
And anyone who is going to argue that corporations need those tax breaks so they can compete are, in effect, for government bailouts. It’s not much of a stretch of imagination to see that. If a comany can not sell a product at a certain price, then it should go out of business. Giving it tax breaks and subsidies so it can keep its price competitive is corporate welfare, same as Bush and Obama writing them a blank check.
Big Bucks GOP doing the Lords work
June 8th, 2009
10:05 am
The Tribune Co. and its creditors are in talks for a reorganization
that could transfer control of the media conglomerate from Sam Zell to
a group of banks and investors.
booger
June 8th, 2009
10:05 am
BD,
The idea that owning stock is a rich man’s game is absurd. Ask the various teachers groups now who are suing to block the Chrysler reorg. These lower income groups are discovering they have quite a stake in the stock market. Much of their pension funds are being lost in the Obama directed reorg. designed to protect the UAW.
As for the fair tax. This is not what congress is mulling over. They are discussing a VAT which is on top of income tax and is much more incidious.
Copyleft
June 8th, 2009
10:06 am
Knuckle: That’s because our solution–a progressive tax system–already DOES work, although there are currently way too many loopholes and exemptions disproportionally favoring the wealthy.
As for your simple explanation: I’ll be happy to oblige.
Person A is poor. He earns $20,000 a year. $19,000 goes to basic living expenses–food, clothing, housing, utilities, and urgent medical care only. That’s 95% of his income affected by a “consumption tax.”
Person B is rich. He earns $200,000 a year. Living in comfort and splurging occasionally, he pays $60,000 a year on his most basic living expenses (the vacation home and boat are luxuries). That’s only 30% of his income affected by the “consumption tax.”
95% of Person A’s income is affected by a pure consumption tax; only 28.5% of Person B’s income is. Because the poor spend a much larger portion of their income on basic living expenses than the rich do, a consumption tax hits the poor much harder then the rich. That’s regressive. See?
Copyleft
June 8th, 2009
10:09 am
(Sorry, should’ve adjusted that last 28.5% to 30%.)
Kent Woodward
June 8th, 2009
10:09 am
Copy Left refers to it as “trickle down nonsense.” There’s not a liberal in the state that can explain how trickle down economics works.
So if you don’t know how it works, how do you know it DOESN’T work?
You got left behind in the 80’s because you weren’t prepared, have no skills the makrket needs, and you expected the hand of Providence to reach down and hand it to you.
Move to Cuba. It works really well there.
tinsel
June 8th, 2009
10:12 am
will the bleeding heart dems be doling any of that flat tax out to deadbeats wooten? if not, sign me up as a supporter. this class warfare garbage has got to end. it’s creating a resentment among the populace that won’t end well. the power to exploit remains in the hands of the pols.
sd
June 8th, 2009
10:16 am
A national sales tax would cause municipal bond prices to fall on the secondary market, and make the primary market more difficult for municipalities.
The potential for black markets to emerge for certain products would also increase.
The loss of jobs in the fields of tax planning, auditing, and to some extent retirment planning would also be detrimental.
However, even with those calamities, it still may be the better way to go.
Shawn D.
June 8th, 2009
10:17 am
It’s pretty clear many of you (ESPECIALLY COPYLEFT) have *not* read the FairTax proposal. It is *not* regressive. Under the FairTax, everyone (yes, even Bill Gates) is reimbursed for the amount of tax spent on purchases up to the poverty level. Thus, someone at poverty level spending PAYS NO FEDERAL TAXES. See: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf
BDAtlanta
June 8th, 2009
10:17 am
Hypothetical economy where there is only one thing to spend money on – calories. A human being can only consume so many calories in a day – let’s say 2,000 calories. Each of those calories cost $.01. The wealthy represent less than 17% of the poulation. So, the majority of taxes on purchase of those 2,000 calories is coming from the middle and lower classes.
Now, the wealthy who are small in number hold the majority of the nation’s wealth and they have no shortcomings when it comes to finding the best way around paying a tax. So, let’s assume the wealthy will form offshore partnerships and buy what they need through offshore companies. So, the wealthy’s money is going around in circles between the offshore company (which they own) and their own personal bank accounts. So, no taxes are being paid by the wealthy. Now you have the wealthy, who are not paying taxes, enjoying all the benefits of what the poor and middle class taxes are spent on.
Hey, just like they do now!
Jeff
June 8th, 2009
10:19 am
Peadawg
June 8th, 2009
9:22 am
I don’t agree w/ the “fair tax.” There’s no way I (who makes 31,000/yr) should be taxed the same as Bill Gates (maybe an exaggeration, but you get my point).
You still don’t get it. You & Bill Gates will be taxed at the “same rate” on purchases you make. That doesn’t mean you’ll pay the same amount in taxes. I suspect with more money to spend Mr. Gates will pay a lot more in taxes than you will with an income of $31k. Because he spends more, he pays more taxes.
Jake
June 8th, 2009
10:20 am
Knuckle – The very rich only need to spend 5 or 10 or 20% of their income to live, wheras the poor spend 100% of their income. So the rich pay say 20% on 20% of their income, a tax rate of 4%, while the poor pay 20% of 100% or 20% overall.
BDAtlanta
June 8th, 2009
10:21 am
Copy Left’s explanation is spot on. If you can’t understand that then you are wealthy and “choose” to not understand it cause you need a dang tax break this week, already. Got to get that fix taken care of.
Jake
June 8th, 2009
10:24 am
Jeff – Total dollars isn’t a FAIR measure, percentage is. When W decreaseed the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 15% it meant people that are so rich they don’t work they just invest had a marginal rate of 15% where a working stiff like me has a marginal rate of 28%. You think that’s fair?