Liberals love a "progressive" income tax policy in which "those that can better afford it pay more". In other words, only the rich pay the freight. And given the last tax info from the government, we are all but at that tipping point:
For Tax Year 2006
|
Percentiles Ranked by AGI |
AGI Threshold on Percentiles |
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid |
|
Top 1% |
$388,806 |
39.89 |
|
Top 5% |
$153,542 |
60.14 |
|
Top 10% |
$108,904 |
70.79 |
|
Top 25% |
$64,702 |
86.27 |
|
Top 50% |
$31,987 |
97.01 |
|
Bottom 50% |
<$31,987 |
2.99 |
|
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income |
||
But what happens when the rich are no longer rich? Who is going to pay the piper then? Given the current environment of bashing the rich, especially those in the financial field right now with the Bailout, is this a "Careful of what you wish for" moment?
Looks like the State of New York is going to give us some empirical evidence, as their tax code has been highly skewed in relieving its citizens of their "excess" earnings:
In an analysis released this morning by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, he estimates that the securities industry paid its New York City employees $18.4 billion in bonuses last year compared to $33 billion in 2007 — a drop in bonuses that will also cost the city $275 million…
One point – bashing the rich on one hand may not make up for the wishing for them on another. Another is this: is it wise to put all ones financial eggs in one basket (the financial industry)? Or to spread out that risk (of one sector failing) and include more taxpayers moving downline?
