Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Greenspan's Gambits Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/greenspans_gambits#5443 Post contents: MSS sed: "Assuming for the sake of simplicity a single taxpayer with a 2006 taxable income of $100,000, all of which is wages, the payroll tax levied against this taxpayer would be $7,290.40. According to Schedule X of the 2006 Federal income tax schedule, this taxpayer is in the 28% marginal tax bracket. His income tax would be $21,557.50." First of all, the payroll tax (SS, Medicare & Unemployment) is 15.3, and the payroll taxes in this particular example would be $15,300, not $7,290. SEE: http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp Secondly, the IRS allows a number of different tax credits, from the home mortgage interest deduction to the $1,000-a-year child tax credit to a separate credit for money spent by working parents on child care. In addition, under the current tax system, such an affluent wage earner is also able to shelter large amounts from taxes in tax-preferred savings vehicles like IRAs and Keogh Plan pensions. I is extremely unlikely that someone with a wage income of $100,000 would have NO tax deductions. Because these tax deductions do NOT apply to payroll taxes, the relative tax burden easily shifts from the income tax to the payroll tax in the example of the $100,000 wage earner that you provided. Furthermore, incorporating the payroll tax into a total tax analysis shreds your assertions that the the rich are bearing the total tax burden. Instead of those earning $200,000 paying approximately 40% of the total federal personal income tax collected, and the top 1% paying 33.6%, the shares plummet to 27.5% for those earning more than $200,000 and 18.6% for the top 1%. By including payroll taxes in the tax burden equation, it is easy to prove that over 2/3 of all taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-virginia/363946-1.html Sent at: 2008 11 22