Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (142824)	10/23/2008 5:33:58 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

You want to talk real numbers? Ok. In 2005, the top 1% paid 23% taxes, on average. So, in the example, it is more like $500K x 23% = $115K Also, you forgot a tax that hits the $42K guy much harder than the $500K guy - SS. 7.65% for the $42k guy = $3213. But, for the $500K guy, where the 6.2% stops at $96K (2007), that's: $96K * 7.65 + $404K * 1.45% = $14010. So, with fed and SS, $42K guy pays $7105. $500K guy pays $115K + $14K = $129K. So, the numbers go down to 12x income and 18x taxes. Progressive tax - seems fair. BUT...when you figure in other taxes - local sales on basic items and services, gas, etc - these also hit the smaller guy harder, because he spends a higher percentage of income on these items (exception is again Shaq). Additionally, the $42K guy is much more likely to be using credit cards - another tax, with usury up to 30% and higher... So, the bottom line is, rich people don't pay much more percentage than the $42K guy, who struggles with paying for food and housing, never mind the impossible vacation home, traveling, college for the kids, etc. Time that $42K guy got some breaks.