[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Scary New Wage Data
Source: TAX.com
URL Source: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.n ... alink/UBEN-8AGMUZ?OpenDocument
Published: Oct 25, 2010
Author: David Cay Johnston
Post Date: 2010-10-28 00:38:05 by lucysmom
Keywords: Reaganomics, wealth distribution, unemployment
Views: 34098
Comments: 46

Every 34th wage earner in America in 2008 went all of 2009 without earning a single dollar, new data from the Social Security Administration show. Total wages, median wages, and average wages all declined, but at the very top, salaries grew more than fivefold.

...

The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 last year. But that’s only part of the story.

The average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!

You read that right. In the Great Recession year of 2009 (officially just the first half of the year), the average pay of the very highest-income Americans was more than five times their average wages and bonuses in 2008. And even though their numbers shrank by 43 percent, this group’s total compensation was 3.2 times larger in 2009 than in 2008, accounting for 0.6 percent of all pay. These 74 people made as much as the 19 million lowest-paid people in America, who constitute one in every eight workers.

...

[Author from comments section]

Noel Chun, I think the generosity of millions of American blue collar workers who willingly and deliberately gave up their jobs so the poor in the police state called China and in the democracy called India, as well as other impoverished nations, can have a better economic life is the greatest untold story of human kindness in history.

Oh, but wait, they didn’t act out of altruism. In fact, they did not act at all. They were fired.

The trade rules, like tax rules, tend to be read by very few people and to be shaped mostly by campaign contributions to politicians, who pass laws and approve treaties. The subsidies for moving work offshore come from our elected officials, who depend on those getting the subsidies for the money to get elected.

The duty of a sovereign government is first to its own people, not to the people of another country. Read Adam Smith on policies that benefit the majority being by their nature good policies. What is going on here is not Darwinian economics, but bought-and-paid for economics.

Jim O., I am sure you appreciate my satirical comments above, but you also make an important point without quite explicitly stating it, capitalism and freedom are not linked (see China and Singapore) nor are capitalism and democracy (see India), no matter how much some people say they are.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: AKA Stone (#0)

Courtesy ping.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   0:39:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#0)

This is long and well worth the read!

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   0:39:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: lucysmom (#2)

capitalism and freedom are not linked

Pure horse-shit.

But, not unexpected for a socialist "useful idiot" like you.

Clearly, your greatest accomplishment is being a sperm receptacle.

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-10-28   2:19:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: lucysmom (#1)

Hi Lucy. Didn't Obama say he was going to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas? That was one of the few things that Obama spoke that I agreed with.

Thanks for posting this interesting and sad article.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-10-28   6:59:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#3)

capitalism and freedom are not linked

Pure horse-shit.

China isn't free but they are definately capitalistic.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-10-28   7:12:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Capitalist Eric (#3)

capitalism and freedom are not linked

Pure horse-shit.

You must be totally ignorant of Pinochet, the brutal dictator, and how he teamed up with the "Chicago boys" to transform Chile into a Milton Friedman style free market economy.

Clearly, your greatest accomplishment is being a sperm receptacle.

I'm not your mother.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   8:10:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: lucysmom (#0)

Owe-bama is very good for 'fat cats'.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-28   9:07:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: lucysmom (#0)

The average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!

Only possible with the Oct 07 BailOut that at least 85% of America was/is against.

Class War moving to the real thing.

"

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-10-28   9:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Badeye (#7)

Owe-bama is very good for 'fat cats'.

Then why are "fat cats" spending so much money to oppose his programs and support Republican candidates?

Proponents of that measure pointed to reports that health insurance providers funneled at least $10 million to the chamber last year, all of it anonymously, to oppose President Obama’s health care legislation.

...

The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics...

...others praise its leading role against Democrat-backed initiatives, like health care, financial regulation and climate change, which they argue will hurt American businesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   10:34:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: mcgowanjm (#8)

Class War moving to the real thing.

Shhhh - we're not supposed to talk about that.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   10:36:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: lucysmom (#10)

Class War moving to the real thing.

Shhhh - we're not supposed to talk about that.

;}

What I find LOLfunny is how history puts the future right in our face and we still can't see it. A Cosmic Joke.

France. Mexico. Russia lead the way.

California hot on their heels.

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-10-28   10:56:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: lucysmom (#10)

We're gonna get local. fast. watch your election results. ;}

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-10-28   10:57:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: lucysmom (#0) (Edited)

The average wage in this top category increased from $91,200,000 in 2008 to an astonishing $518,800,000 in 2009. That’s nearly $10,000,000 in weekly pay!

The Democrats "solution" is to raise taxes on "rich" people who make a lousy $250,000 year. Therein lies the problem.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-28   11:00:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: lucysmom (#9)

Owe-bama is very good for 'fat cats'. Then why are "fat cats" spending so much money to oppose his programs and support Republican candidates?

Because they need access to the next Congress, which will feature a GOP Speaker, and possibly a GOP SML.

No surprise you need 'how things work' explained to ya, goofy....(chuckle)

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-28   11:34:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: lucysmom (#9)

Then why are "fat cats" spending so much money to oppose his programs and support Republican candidates?

Once again, the actual numbers do not support your assertions. I've combined Obama's top contributor list with McCain's from Open Secrets. Obama received $13,467,800 from "fat cats" while McCain received $3,877,965.
Organization McCain Obama
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $230,095 $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $322,051 $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107 $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $192,493 $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $273,452 $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $208,379 $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
Merrill Lynch $373,595
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $167,820
Bank of America $166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596
Blank Rome LLP $154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
US Dept of Defense $144,105
FedEx Corp $131,974
Bear Stearns $117,498
Lehman Brothers $114,357
Total $3,877,965 $13,467,800


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-28   12:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: jwpegler (#13)

The Democrats "solution" is to raise taxes on "rich" people who make a lousy $250,000 year. Therein lies the problem.

A lousy quarter of a million bucks a year - can you imagine what that sounds like to the guy making the median wage, $26,261?

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   19:28:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: jwpegler (#15)

This year Republican candidates are raking in twice as much dough as Democrats.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   19:31:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Badeye (#14)

Because they need access to the next Congress, which will feature a GOP Speaker, and possibly a GOP SML.

Maybe they want to make sure they have a Republican Congress 'cause they think they can get a better deal from them than they've gotten from Democrats.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   19:33:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: jwpegler (#13)

The Democrats "solution" is to raise taxes on "rich" people who make a lousy $250,000 year. Therein lies the problem.

in the last 30 years we've seen wealth increasingly concentrated at the top, the GOP approach is to cut aid to the less well-off to preserve tax breaks on income over $250k.

Do you not see a problem with so much income concentrated in the hands of so few?


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-28   19:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: lucysmom (#18)

Because they need access to the next Congress, which will feature a GOP Speaker, and possibly a GOP SML. Maybe they want to make sure they have a Republican Congress 'cause they think they can get a better deal from them than they've gotten from Democrats.

Its more about access than anything else.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   8:43:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: go65 (#19) (Edited)

$250,000 is not $518,000,000. People making $250,000 are not rich.

The very rich can buy off politicians to write special tax breaks for them. Raising the tax rate on the "rich" does not actually raise taxes on the rich. It raises taxes on the upper-middle class, many of whom are small business people.

Make the cut off for the top tax bracket $5 million or $10 million a year, and then we can talk, otherwise forget it.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   10:12:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: jwpegler (#21)

$250,000 is not $518,000,000. People making $250,000 are not rich.

The very rich can buy off politicians to write special tax breaks for them. Raising the tax rate on the "rich" does not actually raise taxes on the rich. It raises taxes on the upper-middle class, many of whom are small business people.

Make the cut off for the top tax bracket $5 million or $10 million a year, and then we can talk, otherwise forget it.

A realistic compromise would be to restore the pre-2001 top tax rate to income over $500k, but the GOP will not accept any tax hikes whatsoever, so what we will see next year is restoration of the Bush tax cuts at the expense of social programs for the poor.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   10:16:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: go65 (#22)

...what we will see next year is restoration of the Bush tax cuts at the expense of social programs for the poor.

The poor deserve to be poor so it doesn't matter anyway.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-29   10:54:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: lucysmom (#23)

The poor deserve to be poor so it doesn't matter anyway.

Exactly!


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   11:00:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: go65 (#24)

Exactly!

That's why we're circling the drain.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-29   11:03:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: go65 (#22)

A realistic compromise would be to restore the pre-2001 top tax rate to income over $500k, but the GOP will not accept any tax hikes whatsoever

Actually, I've heard that some Dems and Republicans are talking about adjusting the top bracket to start at $1 million. I still think that it too low, but it is better than $250K.

This could be done in the lame duck session after the election. But if there really is a GOP blowout, then the Democrats will just let all of the tax cuts expire Jan 1 and let the GOP deal with it when they are sworn in later in January.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   13:00:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: jwpegler (#26)

This could be done in the lame duck session after the election. But if there really is a GOP blowout, then the Democrats will just let all of the tax cuts expire Jan 1 and let the GOP deal with it when they are sworn in later in January.

That approach is already wreaking havoc with withholding tables for next year. It's going to be a mess.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   13:02:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: go65 (#22)

what we will see next year is restoration of the Bush tax cuts

If the GOP has a big majority, watch for a push to reform taxes to lower rates and eliminate many deductions. The same kind of thing that Bill Bradley and Reagan did in 96 where they lowered the top tax rate 50% to 28%


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   13:03:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: go65 (#27)

That approach is already wreaking havoc with withholding tables for next year. It's going to be a mess.

Yes it is. I'll bet that the lame duck Congress doesn't do anything about taxes.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   13:22:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: jwpegler (#28)

If the GOP has a big majority, watch for a push to reform taxes to lower rates and eliminate many deductions. The same kind of thing that Bill Bradley and Reagan did in 96 where they lowered the top tax rate 50% to 28%

I'd still like to see a push for a NST.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   13:55:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: jwpegler (#21)

People making $250,000 are not rich.

Correct, the vast majority are small business owners. And they are the ones responsible for 80% of all 'new jobs' created the past two decades.

The assertion Owe-bama 'gave tax cuts to small business' is flat out absurd. It simply didn't happen because IT WAS DESIGNED NOT TO HAPPEN.

For example, a '$6,000 tax cut' was offered to small business's that 'hired a person that had been unemployed for two or more years'.

Hiring a full time employee COSTS AT LEAST $24,000 minimum for most small business's. Where in the hell are you supposed to get the other $18,000 in this economy?

Why would you hire anyone if you don't have the SALES in the first place?

Its all bullshit designed for the mainstream media to report 'technically accurate'. But in reality, there simply hasn't been a single 'Owe-bama tax cut' thats 'real'.

The irony? This is whats doomed his Presidency to failure. He won't ever admit it, but thats the 'reality'.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:00:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: go65 (#30)

I'd still like to see a push for a NST

Thats putting a gun into the mouth of the economy, and pulling the trigger TWICE.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Badeye (#31)

Hiring a full time employee COSTS AT LEAST $24,000 minimum for most small business's. Where in the hell are you supposed to get the other $18,000 in this economy?

Why would you hire anyone if you don't have the SALES in the first place?

Nice diatribe against supply-side economics.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Badeye (#32)

Thats putting a gun into the mouth of the economy, and pulling the trigger TWICE.

How so? I'd argue that replacing all income-based taxes on businesses and consumers with a national sales tax would be the biggest shot in the arm we could give the economy.

(CATO agrees).


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: go65 (#33)

Poor spin away from the fact I noted here.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:13:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: go65 (#34)

How so? I'd argue that replacing all income-based taxes on businesses and consumers with a national sales tax would be the biggest shot in the arm we could give the economy.

Hmmm. I"m willing to try that.

The problem is most on your side of the aisle won't, and we both know it.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:14:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: go65 (#30)

I'd still like to see a push for a NST.

That is what I favor as well, but I don't want a flat rate sales tax. I'd like to see a variable rate sales tax where basic necessities (groceries, medicine, etc) are taxed at a low rate and other things (tobacco, alcohol, gas at the pump, etc.) are taxed at a higher rate.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   14:19:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Badeye (#36)

The problem is most on your side of the aisle won't, and we both know it.

Your side as well Badeye, remember, Bush didn't do anything to reform the tax code when the GOP controlled Congress.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:26:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: jwpegler (#37)

That is what I favor as well, but I don't want a flat rate sales tax. I'd like to see a variable rate sales tax where basic necessities (groceries, medicine, etc) are taxed at a low rate and other things (tobacco, alcohol, gas at the pump, etc.) are taxed at a higher rate.

you could exempt things like food/rent/medicine, or pay a rebate every year of something like $3k per person.

I don't think we want to exempt fuel from taxes if we still have a national goal of weaning the country off of imported oil.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:27:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: jwpegler (#39) (Edited)

FYI:

In any case, an NST plan can be made progressive through a rebate mechanism that would shelter low- income people from paying the tax. One manner in which the NST could be made less regressive would be to exempt certain necessities--such as food and clothing--from the tax. That approach would exempt, however, the most expensive food (lobster and caviar) and the most expensive clothing ($1,000 designer suits). It is a very inefficient means of providing tax relief to lower and middle income Americans and would necessitate a much higher overall rate. [41] A more neutral and less distortive approach is to simply provide each family a level of consumption free of tax by providing a rebate of the tax on expenditures up to the poverty level. That is the device we recommend and the approach chosen by Representatives Schaefer and Tauzin in H.R. 3039. [42]

The rebate could work as follows: A family consumption refund would be established for each household at an amount equal to the sales tax rate times the poverty level. The poverty level is defined by the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and should be raised by the sales tax rate. [43] For a family of four, the HHS poverty level for 1996 is $15,800, so the sales tax poverty level would be $18,588. The annualized rebate, which would be refundable for households with earnings below the poverty level, would therefore be $2,788. Assuming the head of household was paid 26 times per year, the rebate amount included in each paycheck would be $107.23. Earnings would be reported to the Social Security Administration. Employers would pay less payroll tax, and the Treasury would reimburse the SSA for the rebate amounts provided to families in order to ensure that the balance in the trust funds was unchanged. [44] Only the source of the payments to the trust funds would change. [45]

Families with no annual wages and salaries would apply directly to the Social Security Administration for a rebate check. Table 4 indicates the applicable poverty thresholds and maximum rebates for 1996 assuming a 15 percent national sales tax rate. [46]

All workers would receive a rebate up to the maximum rebate amount shown in the table. Thus, the average tax rate for a family of four earning and spending $37,176 would be 7.5 percent. The average tax rate for a family of four earning and spending $74,352 would be 11.25 percent. Figure 1 illustrates how the average tax rate increases with spending. This assumes that the sales tax falls on the consumer. The view that it falls on the factors of production is commonly, though by no means universally, held by economists.

The family consumption allowance approach has several effects. First, it makes the sales tax applicable only to consumption beyond the necessities of life. Second, it makes the tax in effect progressive, not only because it is based on consumption, a better index of true ability to pay, but because--if one wants to continue to view progressivity through an income tax lens--it entirely exempts lower income workers. Third, unlike most state taxes, it does not undertake the complex and politicized task of determining what to tax and what to exempt, thereby minimizing administrative and compliance questions and economic distortions.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:29:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 46) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com