Let’s talk federal income tax. Say a retired comfortable person has $1 million in dividends and interest. Say a working executive has the same million. but all in earned income. With no deductions of any kind, the retired guy gets to keep $850,000. The working stiff who puts in 60 hours a week and lot of stress, gets to keep about $600,000. Fair? In other words, hard work, even for the well-to-do, doesn’t pay as well as playing golf and collecting dividends and gains. How about the guy who earns $75,000 a year and works hard for it. He’s 50-years-old and wants to save for a comfortable retirement, but has three kids who want to go to college, and they’re smart enough to get into top schools. Say $50,000 a year for each of them for four years. He’s in a 30 percent bracket, where the retired guy with the same $75,000 is in a 15 percent bracket. The so-called Bush tax cuts clearly favored the well-to-do. By a lot. They don’t have to be super wealthy, but how much money in dividends and gains will the $75,000 working stiff have? $4,000? $6,000? How much does he save with the preferential dividends/gain treatment save him? Only amounts to 8 percent of his income to which the savings would apply. Now, Romney wants to eliminate federal estate tax altogether. It’s a $3 million exemption now, but we need to perpetuate the rich. Get it?
Why in the world won’t the Democrats illustrate this? Why is it fair to tax earned income at a higher rate then dividends and capital gains? Beats me.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.