I'm watching the ABC news tonight--interviewing a former Romney co-worker whose written a book about the benefit of the rich in America. The problem is that he's discussing apples while the rest of us are talking oranges. Those of us who really have a problem with the gap widening between the rich and poor don't care that Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are getting a hefty paycheck for their product--on the contrary, we're encouraging that! We're encouraging a society where anyone can create their own fortune.
What we have a problem with is WALL STREET where the rich are making millions buying barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia and selling them to the US companies so that they can process them. In other words, the middle men who aren't adding value. The word "investment" is used poorly in this case--we really need another word so that we can differentiate between those who directly put their money into businesses and those who put their money in intangeble ideas.
Look, I know you feel like a good citizen when you buy stock, but Sharpie doesn't see a dime of your money no matter how many shares you have. But some stock-broker sure did enjoy the 10% they made buying your shares for you.
The argument is that any business wouldn't exist if there was no added value. But are we better off because in tax-language, an investment is an investment is an investment no matter whether you opened a restaurant, bought a share of stock, or bought a house, put in $10,000 worth of work and sold it for a $50,000 profit.
This week, Congress was forced to choose whether to raise the interest rate on student loans or reduce women's health care or charge "technically unemployed" individuals the social security tax.
Before you blow a gaskit on that last one, let me explain. Mitt Romney is technically unemployed, even though he put, what, 20 million dollars into his bank account last year. Since he's "technically unemployed," whatever money he recieves isn't considered "income"--it's "investments"--it's taxed at 17% (you know that the highest "income" tax is 35%, I'm sure). So, even though he's not going into work, he's making more than most people will make in a life-time, and paying half the taxes. **Emphasis** He's making money the same way your 401K is. I'll let you make the decision as to whether you think your money is actually making jobs on main street while it's in your 401K...but please re-read the third paragraph if you're unsure. Anyway, since he's "technically unemployed", he doesn't have to pay social security taxes (which even the poorest employee doesn't get back on tax day (well, if there wasn't an earned income credit, but I'll discuss that later). That means, he's still entitled to social security when he's old, but doesn't have to pay in...and we wonder why that program is in danger.
It's not like this compromise would hurt "middle America"--people would be taxed the same social security as though they were earning that income as "income" not "investments". So even if you're making the average wage, you wouldn't pay more than your compatriot who has to go into the office everyday. And of course, all investments which go into retirement funds are tax exempt. And they still wouldn't be paying as much in taxes as they would if they made their money the old fashioned way. And again--I think the way it was discussed, it would ONLY affect those who make 100% of their income by "investments"--if you work at McDonald's part-time making minimum wage, even if you make $1 million in "investments" each year, you wouldn't have to pay the social security tax on that--just your meager McDonald's paycheck.
What we have a problem with is WALL STREET where the rich are making millions buying barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia and selling them to the US companies so that they can process them. In other words, the middle men who aren't adding value. The word "investment" is used poorly in this case--we really need another word so that we can differentiate between those who directly put their money into businesses and those who put their money in intangeble ideas.
Look, I know you feel like a good citizen when you buy stock, but Sharpie doesn't see a dime of your money no matter how many shares you have. But some stock-broker sure did enjoy the 10% they made buying your shares for you.
The argument is that any business wouldn't exist if there was no added value. But are we better off because in tax-language, an investment is an investment is an investment no matter whether you opened a restaurant, bought a share of stock, or bought a house, put in $10,000 worth of work and sold it for a $50,000 profit.
This week, Congress was forced to choose whether to raise the interest rate on student loans or reduce women's health care or charge "technically unemployed" individuals the social security tax.
Before you blow a gaskit on that last one, let me explain. Mitt Romney is technically unemployed, even though he put, what, 20 million dollars into his bank account last year. Since he's "technically unemployed," whatever money he recieves isn't considered "income"--it's "investments"--it's taxed at 17% (you know that the highest "income" tax is 35%, I'm sure). So, even though he's not going into work, he's making more than most people will make in a life-time, and paying half the taxes. **Emphasis** He's making money the same way your 401K is. I'll let you make the decision as to whether you think your money is actually making jobs on main street while it's in your 401K...but please re-read the third paragraph if you're unsure. Anyway, since he's "technically unemployed", he doesn't have to pay social security taxes (which even the poorest employee doesn't get back on tax day (well, if there wasn't an earned income credit, but I'll discuss that later). That means, he's still entitled to social security when he's old, but doesn't have to pay in...and we wonder why that program is in danger.
It's not like this compromise would hurt "middle America"--people would be taxed the same social security as though they were earning that income as "income" not "investments". So even if you're making the average wage, you wouldn't pay more than your compatriot who has to go into the office everyday. And of course, all investments which go into retirement funds are tax exempt. And they still wouldn't be paying as much in taxes as they would if they made their money the old fashioned way. And again--I think the way it was discussed, it would ONLY affect those who make 100% of their income by "investments"--if you work at McDonald's part-time making minimum wage, even if you make $1 million in "investments" each year, you wouldn't have to pay the social security tax on that--just your meager McDonald's paycheck.
No comments:
Post a Comment