Dec 052012
 

One of the things holding up negotiations on the so-called fiscal cliff is a certain party’s insistance that the Bush tax cuts be extended for the top 2%. They want to prevent the rate from increasing from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

This is for the top marginal tax rate. You are an idiot or a liar if you think that this small increase will be at all burdensome on the lives of the very rich. They want to fool you into thinking that a tax increase affects everyone the same, so that you might have some sympathy for those at the very top. The truth is different levels of income lead to different levels of lifestyle stability.

Lifestyle Stability Curve: Why it is Moral for the Very Wealthy to Pay Higher Taxes

Past a certain level, your everyday life is not really affected by changes in income. On the other end of the spectrum, the same change in income/wealth creates more dramatic differences in one’s life. On the chart, if a new tax burden moves you from Point A to Point B, your lifestyle does not change. If you move from C to D, you will feel the sacrifice.  A move from E to F has a more catastrophic effect. That’s why we’ve set up tax brackets in the first place.

I agree that there is a problem with that top bracket. The people at the $250,000 line would be impacted by our need to increase taxes on multimillionaires. The solution is add a new bracket. This is not unprecedented; we used to have dozens of them. I’ll present my idea for a new bracket in another post.

Today, know that a major part of the holdup on a fiscal cliff deal is one side’s demanding a tax break for people who don’t need the help. If they budge on the issue, they are demanding on so-called “entitlement” cuts — from the people who can’t afford to give up those very services.  If such a deal goes through, everyone will sacrifice something, but think about how their day-to-day lives will be affected.  The top 1% won’t notice a thing, while the cost of the “entitlement” service cuts will have to be paid out of the pockets of the people further down the income scale.

I’m so sick of hearing the “Crazy Rich,” their paid mouthpieces, and delusional wannabes complain about paying 39.6% Look at what they used to pay:

 

Historical Tax Rates

from visualeconsite

 

There was plenty of investment going on and paying the top marginal tax rate never sent anyone to the poorhouse. Do the math. Almost all millionaires who pay their taxes are still going to be millionaires. So quit your damn crying.

Digg This
Nov 042011
 

It sure does sound fair:  Everyone pays the same tax rate.
 
It takes just a little bit of thinking to figure out it does not work out so fairly in practice.  I guess that’s what they are counting on.  It is easy to say a flat tax is a good idea.  Explaining how it is a scam takes many more words.  The old saying goes “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”  Similarly, a simple lie can usually beat a complicated truth.  Open your minds to the complexity… 
 
 Flat Tax Scheme
 
Think of the flat tax like a fly swatter.  If I use the swatter on a tiny fly, the fly dies.  Using the same swatter and the same swing speed, if you swat a cat, it will probably screech, run off and avoid you for a week (possibly leaving a little gift in your shoe later).  Now, again, using the same swatter and swing, if you swat future hall of fame linebacker Ray Lewis, he might only laugh at you (if you’re lucky).  Now, the fly, the cat, and Ray Lewis encountered the same amount of punishment.   Would you say it was fair?

 

But, some flat tax scammers say, that fly swatter analogy works for absolute taxation arguments (everyone pays $500), but what about percentages?  
 
Stick this in your pipe and smoke it:  the Seinfeld haircut.  Jerry wins a bet (not that “master of your domain” bet again. Get your mind out of funny gutters for now.) and gets to cut off 30% of the hair from the heads of his friends Elaine, Kramer, and George.
 
 
 
Now, Elaine has a lot of hair.  Give her a 30% haircut and there’s not much difference, just a sassy new ‘do.   Kramer has a good and tall head of hair.  Give him a 30% haircut and he looks quite different, but still presentable.  George is not blessed with much hair.  Give him a 30% haircut and he loses his grip on the term “balding” and goes almost completely bald. 
 
The same percentage has a greater impact on some people, and a far lesser impact on others.  You have to think about how much they have left.  Treating them with an equal flat tax is not really treating them equally. 
 

The flat tax is really just a way to trick people into giving the rich another big tax cut.

 

 

See http://news.yahoo.com/mayor-simpleton-223900842.html for another excellent discussion of the flat tax.

Digg This