"Don't know what I'd do without CC. You keep me in the loop on the real events in our world." Beth - Dallas, TX
Monday, October 1, 2012
Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren Debate (Full Video)
The US Senate debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown at UMass
Lowell. Hosted by NBC's David Gregory, host of Meet The Press. Monday
October 1, 2012:
Boston Herald / UMass Lowell US Senate Debate
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I don't understand Ms. Warrens logic.
If a person makes $1M in a year and pays a 15% tax rate, that person is paying $150,000 in taxes AND would have had to have made charitable donations amounting to over 25% of their net income to acquire the tax credits to lower that rate from 35%.
A person making $35K (eg, the secretary of the aforementioned millionaire) would be taxed a 25% rate, which would be $8750 assuming that the person is not married (in which case the rate would be a baseline 15%, potentially 25%, depending on the spouses income) and does not have a child/children (opens the door to two huge, common credits).
In what universe is $150,000 "less" than $8750? Or, more accurately, $8450 after EITC credit that the former taxpayer is not eligible for?
For the record I make about $28K in a state where the minimum wage is $8, and I am a college graduate with a degree in business administration.
It's less in the fact that they're paying less of a percentage of their income than the secretary. My Dad makes the same argument you made all the time.
Of course the person making $1M is going to more in terms of actual dollars. If he paid 1% he'd still pay more, but is that fair to lower income workers that higher income workers (and let's be honest, the person who makes $1M in dividends is actually just letting their already accrued wealth make that money for them) don't have to pay their fair share in order to enjoy all the same benefits and protections (police, fire, schools, roads, etc)?
2 comments:
I don't understand Ms. Warrens logic.
If a person makes $1M in a year and pays a 15% tax rate, that person is paying $150,000 in taxes AND would have had to have made charitable donations amounting to over 25% of their net income to acquire the tax credits to lower that rate from 35%.
A person making $35K (eg, the secretary of the aforementioned millionaire) would be taxed a 25% rate, which would be $8750 assuming that the person is not married (in which case the rate would be a baseline 15%, potentially 25%, depending on the spouses income) and does not have a child/children (opens the door to two huge, common credits).
In what universe is $150,000 "less" than $8750? Or, more accurately, $8450 after EITC credit that the former taxpayer is not eligible for?
For the record I make about $28K in a state where the minimum wage is $8, and I am a college graduate with a degree in business administration.
It's less in the fact that they're paying less of a percentage of their income than the secretary. My Dad makes the same argument you made all the time.
Of course the person making $1M is going to more in terms of actual dollars. If he paid 1% he'd still pay more, but is that fair to lower income workers that higher income workers (and let's be honest, the person who makes $1M in dividends is actually just letting their already accrued wealth make that money for them) don't have to pay their fair share in order to enjoy all the same benefits and protections (police, fire, schools, roads, etc)?
Post a Comment