Quote:
Originally Posted by Karma Police  1. Middle Income Wage Earner with $80,000 Income (not rich)
<<SNIP>>
2. High Income Executive with $1,000,000 Income (rich)
However, such an individual would bear employment taxes of only 2.9% (employee and employer portions) on wage income over about $90,000. |
You are talking about the Social Security tax. I wholeheartedly agree with killing the tax after the first 90k. Why? Because that guy earning 80k will recieve a social security benefit as if he earned 80k when he decides to retire. The guy earning 1M will get a social security benefit as if he earned 90k when he decided to retire. If you want to give him retirement as if he earned 1M, then by all means, tax him for it. If not, then don't. The social in-security system is more messed up than any other tax related thing in the US. It is not a "tax" as much as it is a "forced bass-ackwards savings plan."
OR, since the money that I "put in" is used to pay people who are currently retired, and not actually "invested", one could more accurately call it a
Ponzi Scheme Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Karma Police The super-rich taxpayer who does not work for a salary pays a 35% rate on ordinary income and a 15% tax on capital gains and dividend income, which are not subject to employment or self-employment taxes. |
When I was earning less than the 80K that you list as being a "Middle Income Wage Earner", I saved more than 10% of my money, and I paid capital gains tax. The capital gains tax isn't for the rich, it is for the smart.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Karma Police From the heir's perspective, it hardly seems like "punishment" to receive $10 million for doing nothing instead of $20 million for doing nothing. |
?? From the heir's perspective, guido said, "Your old man had an 'accident.' We found 20M under his bed. Here's your 10M. I'm sure you won't mind our 50% handling fee. Have a nice day. It was a pleasure doing business with you."
Brutha: Yes, they are citizens. The "statistic" usually stated is that 2% of estates are subject to the estate tax. You can't count the people that don't die. It's kinda like saying that since 8% of all cars are sold are subject to the gas guzzler tax, then 8% of the entire population pays the gas guzzler tax. No.... the correct would be that 8% of the population that happened to buy a new car had that vehicle subject to the gas guzzler tax. But you could skew the results by saying that only .2% of people who bought a car paid the tax (because of used car sales). Or .003% of the population was subject to the gas guzzler tax last year (because of the entire population, that's how many bought such a vehicle). Statistics are all about what you decide to include or not. ie: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (note: numbers are whipped out of my butt, and only as an example of how messed statistics are)