The Wealthy Will Be Tapped To Pay For health Care
by Big Dog on Jul 8, 2009 at 05:10 Political
How many ways can the wealthy (those making more than 200k or 250 k depending upon who in the administration is speaking) be taxed to provide for all the grandiose schemes that Obama has come up with? It has already been shown that if all the income of all the wealthy were completely confiscated it would not pay for the massive increases in spending so taxes will trickle down to those below the stated threshold.
The Obama administration (in its redistribute the wealth philosophy) keeps talking about raising taxes on the wealthy as a method to pay for “things.” It is a given that their regular income taxes will increase though Obama has delayed that until 2011 (just after the midterm elections). Now the House Ways and Means Committee is looking at adding a surtax to the wealthy as a way to pay for health care. The surtax, favored by tax CHEAT Charlie Rangel, will be applied to adjusted gross income before any itemized deductions are allowed.
So what we have is a person making over 250k who already pays taxes at the highest tax rate. Then, the government will raise that tax rate on these people so that they will pay more in income taxes. Then, to add insult to injury, the government will add a surtax to the AGI of these same people who pay about half of the taxes in this country (the data breaks down at 1% and 5% where 200k would be at about 3%). The bottom 50% of wage earners, by contrast, pay only 2.99% of the income taxes in this country and yet that group stands to benefit the most from the health care plan.
The “rich” (and 250k is by no means rich) are a tapped out resource. They are continually robbed of their money in order to pay for schemes that Congress devises. They are robbed of their money by people who do not pay their own taxes and then that money is redistributed to pay for the well being of others. It is not the job of the rich to pay the bills of the poor. If a person does not pay his own way he should be deprived of the vote. One should not be allowed to vote in a system which benefits him financially when he does not contribute, has nothing to lose and when he lives on the largess of the wealthy people in the country.
Is it any wonder that people who make just over the 250k mark are looking for ways to reduce income to avoid taxes?
Why should they continually pay for schemes that Congress comes up with?
How long will they continue to be raped before the backlash comes?
One way or another we are going to hit a tipping point where people say enough is enough and then things are going to get very, very nasty.
We can start being nasty by voting all these people out of office.
Tax and spend is no way to run the country.
Source:
Bloomberg
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Obama, rangel, surtax, tax an spend
“Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011.”
–Bloomberg article (ibid)
DAR
This is outrageous, quick, grab your teabags, let’s have a party!
BIGD: “The “rich” (and 250k is by no means rich) are a tapped out resource.”>>
DAR
Well obviously they aren’t tapped out, or they wouldn’t be rich. QED.
As with most of your material, I must say: you can’t be serious. As your own article shows, “households” with a net taxable income of $250k represent the top 4.3 million of the total 150 million households.
So, of all households, graded by income, this bracket represents the very top, 2.8%.
How is this “by no means rich?”
D.
———————-
ps. Reminder. This is a return to the rate under Clinton, and is lower than this bracket was under Reagan. We have bills to pay (i.e. Bush’s war). This is hardly going to put a dent in it. We are going to need a surtax or GST and it will need to be a doosey.
In 1991, Canada was struggling with deficits so they added a 7% GST which hit nearly everything (since lowered to 5%). They are now the most solvent country in the G8.
DAR
Oops, I made a boo. The “4.5 million” mentioned above referred to those in the $200k bracket, not $250k bracket as I wrote. Thus, those in the 250k bracket are even a smaller percentage of the very rich.
Factcheck has this:
“Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year…”
And: “Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes…”
LINK.
D.
If Factcheck is reporting that “Those folks will earn 24.1% of ALL INCOME, and pay 43.6% of all personal federal income taxes….” at this present time, don’t you think it would be more fair to these people who make 24.1% of the money, to pay 24,1% of the income taxes, instead of this onerous taxation?
Barama breaks his “promises” fairly regularly, so I wouldn’t take his word, it’s like quicksand.
I understand you aren’t in the 250k bracket, so you have no worries—yet– but as soon as he comes down to your level and you need to sell your goats, well…..
Blake,
Are you in the 250k bracket? I’m certainly not. If I could be, I would jump at the opportunity. Even if I were taxed at 40% I would still be clearing over $10,000 a month in take home pay!
As far as Big Dog’s statement that, “Is it any wonder that people who make just over the 250k mark are looking for ways to reduce income to avoid taxes?”, I am not sure that it is true that they are. Why would they? If a person makes just over $200,000 (250,000/household) per year, they are only taxed at the higher rate on the money OVER $200,000 (250,000/household) that they report as income. They would be cheating themselves out of money.
It astounds me that you would willingly, without a peep, allow anyone to take almost half of what you worked hard for, and give it to someone who didn’t work for it.
When you give voluntarily, it’s called charity, and is to be admired, when it is involuntary, it is coercive taxation, not unlike extortion, and is to be reviled.
Income tax rarely goes down, and when it does, it is Republicans who are more likely to do the reduction.
When Income tax began, it was 1%- look at it now.
And the government WASTES it- it doesn’t matter which side of the aisle does the wasting, it’s all the same there- but the waste and criminal robbery of our treasury continues unabated, and you are alright with this?
Now, YOU are some kind of severely indoctrinated liberal, if this behavior is alright with you.
I’ve been trying to understand why so many people want to emulate the European economies
(high tax nanny states). But I’ve reconsidered. The one aspect that I’m most
anticipating is the penchant for tax evasion.
In Italy it’s known and the national past-time, exceeding football. That’s one import
that’s going to bring a wry smile.
Yes Darrel,
The bottom 50% pay 3% of our taxes. They are not paying their fair share.
The 250k people are not rich. Hell, the people who make over 150k pay 60% of the taxes in this country and that is the top 5% of wage earners. Once again a small minority is carrying the load of everyone else.
If you took all their income you could not pay the bills. So that means that the people he promised not to tax will be taxed, another broken promise.
I am sorry you all feel that a few people should pay for everyone else but that is not fair. Obama keeps saying that things need to be more fair so let’s start making that bottom 50% pay their share.
BTW Darrel, have a nice vacation.
BIGD: “The bottom 50% pay 3% of our taxes.”>>
DAR
That’s not true. There are lots of taxes hidden in plain sight, as I’ve covered before.
BIGD: They are not paying their fair share.>>
DAR
It’s called progressive taxation and goes back, in the US, about 130 years. Perhaps it’s where the phrase “you can’t get blood from a stone” came from.
Bigd: The 250k people are not rich.>>
DAR
What a curious notion. I’ve shown that they are the top 2%.
If you randomly take 1,000 American households and pick THE top wealthiest 20 of them, you wouldn’t define this group as “rich?” We have (had) 9 million millionaires btw, so they’re almost all millionaires (not counting primary residence). Link.
Let’s consider a little context.
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
About “80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.” Link.
Your group, the elite wealthiest 2% earn nearly $700 every day. They represent the nosebleed pinnacle wealthy of the planet.
Yet this isn’t even “rich?”
Bizarre.
Bigd: “the people he [Obama] promised not to tax will be taxed, another broken promise.>>
DAR
Two problems with this:
a) the promise was clearly with regard to income taxes (as specified by the mention of “brackets”
b) He hasn’t broken it yet and he even delayed the tiny (still lower than Reagan’s) increase!
Bigd: Let’s start making that bottom 50% pay their share.>>
DAR
When I pointed out that Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest person in the US said “he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff,” Blakes only rebuttal was to call him a liar. I didn’t find that very persuasive.
Bigd: “BTW Darrel, have a nice vacation.”
DAR
Thanks. If you would like a postcard, I’ll need an address.
D.
——————
“Curious how countries with typically high taxes, Canada, Sweden, Japan etc. also have high standards of living and countries with low taxes and/or incompetent collection practices (Russia) also have high levels of disfunction and poverty.” –Me
It constantly amazes me how some people feel that they should be the arbiters of who’s wealthy and who’s not- and then tax the snot out of those who have made their money, as if the have- nots have a right to get their money free, and the wealthy have no right to what they earned.
I find it to be the height of hypocrisy that most Democrats give very little to charity, such as Joe Biden’s giving 369 dollars in one year, but they are real generous with other people’s money.
I favor a flat tax, so that everyone can feel the pain equally, even Buffet- if his rate is lower, its because of loopholes, and Buffet is not stupid- he will take advantage of them, as I would, or anyone with a brain IQ above ambient room temp.
And, Randy- no- I no longer enjoy the $250,000 bracket, since I have been disabled, but I still earn enough to pay my bills- all of my bills.
Let me reply to the Buffet comment. I can’t believe that people still believe this lie that is truly designed to deceive people. Warren Buffet has a salary of $175.000 a year on which he pays income taxes. That is his earned income.
He made 46 million dollars in unearned income. The tax rate on dividends (most of his unearned income) is 15%. One cannot compare earned income to unearned income when comparing tax rates. Buffet pays the same tax rate on his earned income as anyone else who works for him and makes 175k a year. I imagine that after all his deductions (in his business there are bound to be many) he has very little taxable EARNED income. Since his secretary is not in that position and more of her earned income is taxed and at the earned income rate then her tax rate will be higher than any person who has lots of UNEARNED income. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
It is sinful to tax unearned income because taxes were already paid but to make claims that his rate is lower is disingenuous and deliberately misleading.
Links available upon request.
BIGD: “I can’t believe that people still believe this lie that is truly designed to deceive people…. One cannot compare earned income to unearned income when comparing tax rates.”>>
DAR
Nice try but your attempt to make a distinction between “earned” and “unearned” income is quite beside the point and completely irrelevant to how much tax people pay, on the money they make.
That is the question. Your categories are irrelevant. What matters is “income” and tax paid, NOT the name of what particular box the IRS has us put a artificially created category of our income in. There are lots of other boxes too. Irrelevant.
Buffet makes an income of X, and it is taxed.
Buffet’s staff members makes an income of X, and it is taxed.
Buffet’s staff pays a HIGHER rate of tax, on their income, than he pays, on his income.
You don’t even deny this, because you can’t.
You can put all of your phony categories of “income” aside. What matters is, tax paid, on income. Buffet’s right (and I trust him to know a wee bit more about such things than you). He and the billionaires like him, shouldn’t be paying a lower rate of tax on the money they make than regular folks do. They should be paying a higher rate. A lot higher rate.
D.
Randy, this is America. You can be in that earnings bracket if you find something you can do that people will pay you for.
I understand and appreciate that. Who knows? One day I might find that something. If I do, I will be happy to contribute just a little bit more to the country that offered me the opportunity to earn such a comfortable income.
I still would like the question answered though, why would folks be seeking to reduce their income to avoid paying the higher tax rate. It seems they would be cutting off their noses to spite their elected government.
They pay the highest rate and it will be increased. Then they will have a surtax added. Then their charitable deductions will be reduced, then they will be tapped the next time the government wants to get more money.
Perhaps they are tired of footing the bill for everyone else. We should have a flat tax so it is fair but given that we have a progressive tax then the top earners should pay their tax and not have it continually raised.
I am not sure that the tax would apply to income only over the limits but if it did and you made 255,000 and reduced work to be at 249,500 you would not be taxed at a higher rate. Maybe they are just tired of paying the bills and seeing it wasted.
If you had a person show up at your house, one you did not know, and then move in and demand you pay for his life, food, health insurance, stipends etc, how log would it be before you threw him out?
If single person made $200,001 in one year, they would pay the higher tax rate on $1. That’s the way those tax brackets work. To offer some perspective on where I am coming from, I will say this: A person who makes over $200,000 per year will always be able to afford food, a roof over their head, and quite a few luxuries. A person making less than $20,000 per year will struggle to pay for their necessities. I might agree with your perspective a little more if rich people were rich because they worked hard all the time and poor people were poor because they did something wrong to deserve to be poor, but that isn’t reality.
Randy, some (not all) people do deserve to be poor, because they consistently make the wrong choices, and that IS their fault.
When you see someone who is actually wrestling with the decision of whether to buy his baby’s diapers, or that 18 pack of beer, you can just see the mental train wreck coming. This is why some people remain poor.
Poor choices make for poor people.
Perhaps those people didn’t vote for the current Resident, Randy- Perhaps they feel unfairly taxed in an environment where there retirement has lost almost half its value, and Barry wants to tax them some more, in addition to the hidden taxes on other things.
Who cares how they got rich? It is their money whether they earned it or inherited it.
The surtax will be on their adjusted gross income. If they have an AGI of 200,001 they will have a surcharge on all of it on top of the taxes they pay.
Reducing income will reduce the AGI. And this is if it is only on the amount over the 200k or 250k.
Buffet pays the same rate on his unearned income as his employees pay on their unearned income. He pays a higher rate on his earned income, assuming he makes more than a secretary.
Bigd: “Buffet pays the same rate on his unearned income as his employees pay on their unearned income.”>>
DAR
You’re playing the same game of trying to hide income in different boxes for the purpose of avoiding addressing it.
Hey, that’s the same game the rich have gotten away with for the purpose of avoiding pay taxes on that money! Nifty.
Bottomline: Mr. Buffet pays a far lower rate on what he made, than his staff does on what they made. Nearly half in fact. That’s not right.
I’ll let Mr. Buffet respond:
***
“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.”
TimesUKonline
I’ll let this guy explain it to you.
You obviously have trouble differentiating between truth and deception.
Not once did Buffet tell anyone his taxes were lower because he deliberately worked to ensure that he got a small salary and took the rest in income that is taxed at a lower rate. He is being disingenuous.
Buffet also manipulated his money so the inheritance tax he wants raised would not hurt him.
If he wants to pay more taxes why does he not take a larger earned income salary? Why does he not send a check to the treasury? They will gladly take it and apply it to the debt. Most of these people who say we do not pay enough in taxes don’t voluntarily pay more.
In fact, Buffet is pushing for the tax rate on earned income to go up. That will still not affect him.
BIGD: “I’ll let this guy explain it to you.”>>
DAR
All song and dance that accomplishes nothing and none of it addresses the simple, undeniable, fact, of Warren Buffet’s claim.
Buffet made $46 million in one year and paid a tax of 17.7% on it.
His secretary made $60,000, and paid a tax of 30% on it.
Your fellow wrote a 2,098 word article futilely trying everything he could to obfuscate this simple fact that even a child can understand.
Your article says:
“Capital gains are taxed at 15% versus income from your job that is taxed at 25% to 40%. So Buffett was comparing completely different tax rates. He was comparing apples to oranges.”
DAR
Well that is the point isn’t it? All this is just as irrelevant as when you copied this argument from this guy the first time. You can call these income categories apples or you can call them oranges. It doesn’t matter because in the end what we are talking about is “fruit” (making money). People making “fruit” and paying some of that “fruit” to the government.
Time to stop letting the rich get away with paying *a lower rate* on their fruit, no matter whether they are paid in apples, oranges, or Blake’s favorite: bananas!
D.
Sorry that you are too dense to understand the difference between incomes and how they are taxed. The rich are not getting a lower rate. The rate on unearned income is the same for everyone. The rate on earned income is progressive and he pays a higher rate on his earned income.
Buffet wants the tax rates increased because they will not hurt him. He is misleading people and dolts fall for it.
Dividends should not be taxed in the first place.
Bigd: “Sorry that you are too dense to understand the difference between incomes and how they are taxed.”>>
DAR
Sorry that you don’t have an argument and have to resort to calling me dense instead. Putting incomes in different boxes is a ruse which allow the rich to avoid paying tax, as Mr. Buffet is honest enough to admit.
Bigd: The rich are not getting a lower rate.>>
DAR
If 17.7% is lower than 30%, and I dare say it is, then the rich are getting a lower rate. As Buffet correctly said.
Bigd: The rate on unearned income is the same for everyone.>>
DAR
That’s nice. Who benefits from this ruse of calling vast amounts of wealth creation “unearned?” The rich, as Buffet said. As a link I think I already gave you pointed out:
“The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent.”
And note, even St. Reagan knew this:
“Back in 1986, a turning point in the federal tax reform debate came when President Ronald Reagan realized (with a little help from Donald Regan) how absurd it was that he should pay a lower income tax rate than his secretary. The subsequently-enacted 1986 Tax Reform Act got rid of special tax breaks for capital gains that were helping to make this possible, and brought our federal income tax system back where it should be: taxing wages and capital gains at exactly the same rate.
Twenty years later, the capital gains tax breaks are back with a vengeance– the top tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, less than half the 35 percent top rate on regular income– and Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett is ringing the same bell:
Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.”
Link.
Bigd: “The rate on earned income is progressive and he pays a higher rate on his earned income.”>>
DAR
That’s nice. You can put the fruit in whichever basket you like (earned or unearned) but at the end of the day, Mr. Buffet made $46 million and paid 17.7% tax on it. His secretary made $60k and paid 30% tax on it. That’s not fair. A monkey can see that’s not fair. Mr. Buffet agrees. It should be the other way around. If the rates were reversed, Mr. Buffet would then still have kept $32 million that year and his secretary would have kept $49k instead of $42k. But maybe that wouldn’t be fair either. Maybe the 15% needs to come up and/or the 30% come down. How can it be fair to have the poorer working stiff paying at nearly twice the rate? How can your conscience and sense of fairness be so dull?
People aren’t born with this inherent lack of ability to understand fairness. I think this kind of warped sense of fairness you have developed has to be indoctrinated over time. You have to work at it.
BIGD: Buffet wants the tax rates increased because they will not hurt him.>>
DAR
You don’t know that. He is pointing out an obvious inequity. He is OBVIOUSLY pointing to a remedy which would involve either lowering the rate paid by those like his staff member, or raising his.
D.
So sense of fairness is important? So why not have everyone pay the exact same rate on earned income? Why a progressive system that is unfair? It is a system designed to be unfair and make those with wealth pay more. Where is this sense of fairness you talk about? How is it fair that the top 2% pay nearly 15 times that percent of all taxes?
Paying any taxes on unearned income is unfair. You already paid on the money you invested and now you have to pay on the return of that money.
I bet Buffet had millions in write offs because of business losses and his charitable donations. That effectively reduces the tax rate. We need a capital gains tax of 0%.
There is no inequity when like incomes are compared. Wait, there is inequity, rich people pay more on their unearned income.
Bigd: Why a progressive system that is unfair?>>
DAR
A progressive system is fair. The rich should pay more.
Jesus understood this principle too:
Luke 21:1. “The He looked up ans saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all: for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings to God, but she our of her poverty has put in all the livelihood that she had.”
Bigd: It is a system designed to be unfair and make those with wealth pay more.>>
DAR
Well then it fails, as has been shown. The secretary paid a higher percentage than the billionaire. That’s not fair. That’s the opposite of fair.
Bigd: How is it fair that the top 2% pay nearly 15 times that percent of all taxes?>>
DAR
That’s progressive taxation, and fair. Time to get rid of the loopholes that let the rich escape and hide most of their money from this.
Bigd: Paying any taxes on unearned income is unfair.>>
DAR
Reagan disagreed. And you don’t say why? Why should the rich have this huge tax loophole that lets them pay far less tax than the regular folks that scrape for their money? It’s absurd.
Bigd: We need a capital gains tax of 0%.>>
DAR
Good point. Buffet needs to pay less taxes. The closer to zero the better! We can then shift those taxes over to the secretaries, nurses and piano technicians. And then if that isn’t enough to pay our national bills, we can just borrow the rest from China. That makes a lot of sense. What is important is that Buffet and the fat cat billionaires get to keep even more of their money. Nearly all of it.
This is you’re ideology not allowing you to think straight. You can’t see it but others can.
Bigd: There is no inequity when like incomes are compared.>>
DAR
Thanks for making my point. When you compare secretaries and working stiffs, they get hosed a similar amount. When you compare millionaires and billionaires, they escape from paying vast amounts of taxes in a similar manner in relation to each other.
The problem is, as Buffet has outlined. When you compare the ultra rich (like him) and his staff, he pays a MUCH lower rate on the money he makes.
That’s wrong. The rich should pay a higher rate.
D.
——————-
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” –John Kenneth Galbraith
Continuing to say that Buffet paid less does not make it true. Compare only his earned income to hers. Compare only his unearned income to hers.
Besides, why shouldn’t Buffet, who will pay more in raw dollars in one year than she will in a lifetime, not be able to keep the money he made. He is the one who took the risks. He is the one who put up his capital.
And do you really think tax laws will be rewritten to disfavor the rich when many in Congress are rich?
A flat tax that we all pay on all income. That will allow us all to pay our fair share.
Jesus did not say the poor woman should not pay her “gifts” to the treasury (was it a tax or charity), only that hers meant more because she had less to give and still did so.
Those who enjoy the benefits from government should pay for them.
Bigd: “Continuing to say that Buffet paid less does not make it true.”>>
DAR
I didn’t say he “paid less” because he didn’t pay less. I said he paid a lower rate. Which is true. 17.7% is a lower rate than 30%. The rich shouldn’t pay a lower rate.
Bigd: Compare only his earned income to hers.”>>
DAR
Haven’t you tired of your little games now that they’ve been exposed? The rich shouldn’t pay a much lower rate than the middle class. That’s backwards.
Bigd: Besides, why shouldn’t Buffet,… not be able to keep the money he made.>>
DAR
Our nation has bills to pay. Wars to pay for. Interest to pay on the debt incurred to pay for those wars. When a person makes $46 million in a year, they can afford to pay the same rate as a middle class person. They can, and should in fact pay a higher rate than the middle class person. So says Mr. Buffet (he should know). So says every clear thinking person. So says John McCain. Here is how he explained it once to a little girl in a Town Hall meeting:
***
Audience member: “Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he’s a doctor.”
McCain: “I think it’s to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more.”
Audience member: “Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?”
McCain: “Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”
***
John McCain gets it.
Bigd: “And do you really think tax laws will be rewritten to disfavor the rich when many in Congress are rich?>>
DAR
Yes. It’s happened many times before.
Bigd; A flat tax that we all pay on all income.>>
DAR
Flat taxes are very unprogressive and depending on how you jigger them usually hit the poor and middle even more. This is why the rich favor them. They are the only ones who talk about this. This is not by accident. If you change the system so the rich can pay less, which flat tax does, more money is going to have to come from the not rich. That’s dumb.
Bigd: That will allow us all to pay our fair share.”>>
DAR
“Fair share” begs the question. You have provided no good reason, because there is no good reason, for why Buffet should be paying a lower rate than his secretary who made 1/766th of the amount he did.
Bigd: Jesus [said]… only that hers meant more because she had less to give and still did so.>>
DAR
Right. Exact same principle. The secretary pays less but is credited more per dollar because the sacrifice for her is greater. We adjust for this principle today by charging the rich a higher rate. Thus the perversion of actually charging the rich a *lower* rate. It’s ridiculous.
Bigd: Those who enjoy the benefits from government should pay for them.”
DAR
And those who enjoy the benefits from our system to the degree they become exceedingly wealthy should pay for these benefits at a higher rate.
D.