WSJ doesn't understand progressive taxation.
-
ughhhh...
my personal favorite quote:
"If you make even $300,000 a year, the cash-strapped Empire State will consider you a millionaire."
with the runner up:
"You get people picturing some greedy Wall Street fat cat whose pockets are stuffed with TARP money, but you end up hitting the guy who owns the local hardware store whose income is also his working capital."
/this entire topic is an excuse to post the above picture which has been sitting on my laptop for about a month. -
I don't understand why the article is wrong according to the progressive tax thing. If a state adds on an extra tax for "millionaires" but makes it so it kicks in when someone earns 500k and makes it continue to kick in harder as they earn more, then I don't think it should be called a millionaire's tax anymore. I guess its only semantics but the article isn't dead wrong.
-
QUOTE (Evestay @ Apr 9 2009, 12:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't understand why the article is wrong according to the progressive tax thing. If a state adds on an extra tax for "millionaires" but makes it so it kicks in when someone earns 500k and makes it continue to kick in harder as they earn more, then I don't think it should be called a millionaire's tax anymore. I guess its only semantics but the article isn't dead wrong.
Slightly misleading is worse than dead wrong imo. -
A Millionaire is not a person who makes a million dollars/year. It is a person who has a million dollars. Making 300k/year means you probably qualify. And if you don't then Christ you don't know how to handle money. The entire article is a snarky commentary about the semantics of the tax, which are not incorrect.
The thing about progressive taxes, is when you make 300k/year, and the extra taxes kick in at 250k (say an extra 5% on income) then you pay 5% on 50k, not 300k.
"Likewise, Connecticut Democrats have just released a plan that would jack up taxes on millionaires by 60%."
That may not be technically incorrect, but with all that loaded language it's kind of irresponsible not to explain what that actually translates to. My guess is this was an intentional omission, since I've noticed it in the WSJ damn near every time I read about taxes there.
edit: and no, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the WSJ readership understands that. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Apr 9 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Okay gotcha. I didn't think about the fact that a 300k/year earner could easily be a millionaire.
An easy oversight. Really, I just wanted to post that picture. Which gives me a case of the lulz.
-
Shat surprises me the most is that "income" and "private property" are written in English. Are there not Japanese words for these?
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!