 Hillary Clinton made a couple of gaffs a few months ago when she claimed she
and Bill were "flat broke" when they left the White House after eight years.
The liberal discussion has made charges that those who are wealthy are not
paying their "fair share" in taxes. That has produced a lot of conversation
today on talk radio, network and cable news programs that tout the
President's premise that the "rich" are not paying their "fair share" in
taxes. Many in other spheres of political power are suggesting that people
who are the "richest among" us are getting a pass when it comes to paying
taxes. In the last national election cycle some who are in the class of
"Billionaires" reported they pay less tax than the secretaries who work for
them.
The truth is, for that group of people whose "net" worth is counted in the
millions and billions it is likely true in most cases they pay less
percentage in taxes. Here is the reason why: When a person accumulates that
much wealth s/he generally has assets that are diversified over a wide range
of investments and ownerships that are capable of producing money. In such
cases the individual is able to declare no income at all and therefore not
pay any "income" tax. Since their wealth is so high, the accumulation of
money comes in the form of dividends or "gains" on their capital, or capital
gains.
For example if a billionaire or millionaire had five million dollars setting
in an account that produced only 4% gains over the year, that money would
yield about $280,000.00 in a year. That $280,000.00 would be counted as
capital gains and the percentage of tax that would be owed would be around
15% to 17% of that gross gain. On the other hand, if a small business owner,
say a plumber or contractor was able to make that same amount of money
during the same year, and only $50,000.00 of it was counted as income for
the plumber or contractor, after payroll for the employees and all other
expenses of the business were paid, the "income" of $50,000.00 would require
a greater percentage in the tax bracket of income to be paid in the form of
income tax than the same $280,000.00 the millionaire made through capital
gains. This is a function of the tax code.
When we hear politicians telling us that the millionaire paid less in taxes
than the plumber or contractor, they are saying words that are inflaming to
a less rich person's ears, but the words are not entirely true. The
millionaire who accumulated $280,000.00 in capital gains would pay tax at
15%, or $57,000.00. The plumber who grossed $280,000.00 and claimed
$50,000.00 in personal income would only pay $16,800.00 in income tax, but
at an income tax bracket set at 24%.
For the capital gains revenue the taxes are at a steady, flat rate and not
progressive like the ordinary income taxes are. When we talk about "tax
brackets" we are talking about levels of adjusted gross income that is
represented in tax tables that start at the lowest levels and move to the
highest levels. Hence, for persons who are not rich and earn only a salary
of $40,000.00 would be in a tax bracket, or level that is lower than a
person who makes $95,000.00 per year. Therefore, even by taxing the richest
among us, those whose salaries are much lower will continue to pay more
taxes under our current system.
This type of rhetoric being spouted by the media and politicians is causing
a war against the socioeconomic classes. The lower socioeconomic classes are
being purposely pitted against the higher socioeconomic classes. What we are
missing in the argument is truthfulness in what will actually happen if the
so-called rich are taxed in such a way as to dismantle their structure of
capital assets. There is a lack of genuineness from the politicians
explaining who the rich really are.
The class warfare and arguments about economic inequality that currently
exists in our society is destined to squeeze out the so-called "middle
class" because in the final analysis they are the ones who will likely
suffer the most by placing pressure on the wealthy. While the President
thinks he is staking a claim to an improved economy, he needs to reconsider
his boasting since the middle class citizen is being squeezed from existence
in America as a direct result of his polities on higher taxes, lack of tax
reform, extreme debt and stifling regulations on business.
[to top of second column] |
 We have been told that eighty (80) percent of our wealth in the
United States is generated by small businesses. Those people are the
ones who are the plumbers, contractors, dentists, doctors working in
clinics, consultants, truck owners driving their own rigs, barbers
and beauticians who own their own shop and employ others, restaurant
owners, dress shops, cleaners, trash haulers, and the list goes on
and on. These are the people who take risks to start their business,
pump their capital into the business, employ people and pay
salaries, keep investing in their business with any extra money that
is earned, and deliver the services and goods in an economy that
grows with the demands created by the needs of the people. But those
are the very people the plethora of this Administration's
regulations target the most.
When a line is drawn at some ceiling level by any politician from
the government to take more money through taxes as the individual
crosses that line, the earning power is reduced, people lose jobs
and less, not more, taxes are collected. This creates a need for the
politician to borrow more money that results in a strangling-hold
debt at both the state and national level. Let me give an example to
illustrate the point.
A person gets a job at a local business, like a grocery store. The
owner of that store took all the risks of opening a store. He
invested his resources, time and energy in establishing a service to
the people in that town. He was never given a promise from anyone
that he would do well and make it in the grocery business. He risked
what he had so he could provide those services and by doing so he
hired many others to help keep his store stocked, and complete the
other jobs to help him grow his business.
Was he richer than any of the workers he hired? Of course he was;
did he risk much more than any of them did? Of course he did. But he
shared his wealth by giving them and many others a job to make a
living for their families. With the money each of those employees
were paid, each one paid their fair share of taxes that would not
have been paid without his having first given them the job with the
ability to make their own salaries. When the person who invests in
their business, grows that business, continues to hire more people
to help with that business, but makes money in the process, I
believe it is that owner's right to not only make as much as s/he
can, but keep as much as possible too.
For some reason the liberal political focus concentrated in the
democrat party now days is to demonize the people who are "wealthy"
and demand they pay "their fair share" in more and more taxes. If
the government should finally take from them more than they can
possible afford, and it begins to reverse the growth of their
business, and people are laid off because of it, will those
increased amounts taken from the "rich" in taxes offset the loss of
taxes from the amount of money that would have been paid by their
laid-off employees if they were still working? Especially if those
employees join the welfare rolls where 47 percent of the people
receive goods and services at the expense of the taxpayer?
Perhaps the President should reconsider his pivoting toward the
economy as a method to win the mid-term elections. Perhaps it would
be better if he went back to Obamacare as the premier accomplishment
of his Presidency; oh, wait a minute....
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article.
 |
