Saturday, February 28, 2009

An Editorial from NYtimes

This is an editorial from NYTimes about the "Mobility Myth"

12 comments:

publius said...

I have a small problem with the following quote from this article. “Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.” Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this is true, and let’s say that the unnamed percentage of tax on their income is 15%. He says that $87 million is on the low end of these earners so let’s see what their actual tax would be under this scenario. 15% of $87 million is $13,050,000. The low end of the other group is $50,000 which at the same tax rate is $7,500. The more you make, the more you pay, so how is taking the same percent unfair? I would venture to say that most of us in class are well below the $50,000 earning level, no? If that is the case, than does it not seem a little narcissistic to drive to school on roads we did not pay for, sit in a building that we did not pay for, listening to an instructor that we did not pay for, and then with our financial aid check that we did not earn burning a whole in our back pocket, demand that all the people that are paying for these things pay even more? Someone please explain to me the inequality of an equal percent.
-Matthew

Eric Manzo said...

I see your point mat but it seems to me that the equal percent affects more people in a lower income. I will play with your percentage you said 15% of 87 million is is 13.05 million write so that leaves 73.95 million. That is still a lot of money for the rich guy even after his expenses. True that the 15% leaves the people earning 50,000 with 42500 dollars which seems like a good amount of money. You forgot to mention the expenses that families have. A House, Maybe they have health care, kids money for their colleges kids education. Who ends up having more money in their savings at the end of each year the rich guy or the low income guy? So I say its not fair having the same percentage and if I was rich I would gladly pay a little more. But I don't so I can't afford to.

publius said...

I hear you Eric, but how much is enough? 20%? 30% 60%?? I agree that that is way more money than anyone could ever need, but who decides? That's the problem with "fairness", it truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Eric Manzo said...

I understand where your coming from Matt. There is a point where it is unfair but I still believe that the rich should pay more taxes, not overdoing it of course.

Melody said...

Why should the rich pay more? Why shouldn't they pay the same as everyone else? I'm just asking. I actually think taking a certain percentage of their income is a good and fair idea. The rich shouldn't have to pay more percentage and the poor shouldn't be allowed to pay less, as long as its a reasonable percent.

Luke said...

Using Matthew's numbers:

That 7500 in taxes is going to hurt someone in the middle class a LOT more than that 13 million is going to hurt Joe Millionaire.

Dianna said...

Yes, why should the rich pay more, like they say on the streets, do hate appreciate! lol I am sure that most of the rich give as much as they can back to our society. You may not hear about it, but look at all the celebrities starting funding and Angelia saving all her babies.

Dianna said...

The Gates set a terrific example of hyper rich giving back to society. They are trying to do as much as they can, but your forgetting that its a business and they have expenses and a family to care for. Maybe we are being unfair and making the rich pay more, why? Its only making businesses cut employees and/or outsource American jobs because why? We come from a land built on greed, starting from our founding fathers and taking land from others.

Dianna said...

Bullies thats what we are, invading other countries that dont need our help, Bush just wanted his stupid oil because he had investments. Here's a bright idea, all the money we spent or spending on the war on terror could have been invested by making biofuels and converting vechicles and products needing oil. No, Bush wanted to be a bully and not loss his money. Its all about greed ad unfortantaly its all about yourself now. If I was rich, hyper or super rich, I would apply for to become a resident of another country that wouldnt take my HARD EARNED MONEY!!! THATS WHAT THEIR MONEY IS HARD EARNED!!! They were the ones that worked for what they have and gave up hours to build success and we want to push our citizens to become rich, well its a scam, they only want you to become rich so they can take our money and sell senate seats on ebay. I would leave this country, Mexico is sounding nice, though we might have to invade that country too!

Kirsten said...

I really liked the quote at the end of the article "I may look middle class. But I'm not. My boat is sinking fast". I think this statement is probably true for a lot of people during these hard times.

Barry W. said...

i agree with diane some super rich people do give back money. the gates example she uses is really good.

Abby said...

Well, Bill Gates is one example... One example out of how many?

I'm an anarchist, so I agree with Manzo. :)

"For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000."

Holy crap. That's the problem. Right there. Maybe we could base the percentage that they're being taxed on the percentage that their wages are increasing. Seems fair to me.