Take a look at 2000 and then at 2004.
The highest went from 39.6% to 35%.
Let me give you a very rough example: We have 100 people
You have 98 people making $100. Their tax rate is set at 50%.
You also have 2 people making $10,000, their tax rate is set at 25%
In this example, 98% of the population makes little money and they are taxed at TWICE the rate of the top 2%. However, let's look at the total share of taxes:
We end up with $9,900 in total tax revenue, with $5,000 of that being paid by the top 2%. Oh my god, only 2% of the population is paying for OVER HALF of all taxes. That's totally unfair I guess we should lower their tax rate?
Numbers are very easily to manipulate, be careful. Obviously the real life situation is a little more complex than this, but this demonstrates how using the same statistical measure rush quoted there is misleading.
except you would have to completely change your numbers to even FIT with reality.
we will make this easy and say that the total hypothetical taxes are $100,000 (just to make it easy)
50 people pay in a total of $3,460 or 3.46% of the total bill ($69.2/person)
of the 50 remaining who pay the rest of the $96,540
- top 5 pay $54,360 ($10,872/person)
- the next 5 pay $11,480 (2,296/person)
- the rest (40 people) pay $30,700 (767.5/person)
so the burden to pay that $100k is on the top 5 people, now if we could shift it so that more people from the lower come up to the higher brackets by cutting the % that the top 10 people pay who then create more jobs for those bottom 50 or better yet make it so it's easier for those bottom 50 people to start their own companies to move up into the top 50 which in turn make it easier for them to hire people from below them than the % of taxes gets spread around more evenly between more people.
I support Cain, and have arranged to give monthly contributions.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|