Tax, unequally.

The problem is not only between the rich and the poor, but the overall system.

I just wrote an article about tax few days ago, arguing that,  from academia perspectives, there is a good reason to set tax rate high for the rich. However, it looks quite different in reality.

Mr. James Ross, as mentioned in this article, paid 102% of his taxable income to governments of all sort. (if you consider local, state, federal government separately) Well, such percentage could be quite different if you talks of adjusted gross income, he paid around 20% tax. Compared to some other professions, he still pays relative less in respect to the adjusted gross income. (A professor in the article paying 26%, an architect couple pay some 31%, an author/journalist paying 26%, and a TV show host pay almost 50%!)

how Romney's tax rate is alike, comparing to other high-income individuals?

Honestly, reading this article just helps us to realize how complex it could be to design a tax system. It is not simple as raise the tax rate a bit here and reduce a bit there. It needs some overall structural  overhauls.
It is not even a rich-poor game, it is a fair and unfair game. Of course, among the rich, there are still a huge discrepancy out there!

So, we should not hate the rich, better hate the system! (and someone should fire their accountant!)

前一陣子我才寫了一篇文章, 談到課稅得公平性, 最近因為共和黨總統參選人Romney的稅單被公布了, 稅率的議題在美國又有得吵了.

這位羅斯先生所支付的稅款, 如果以他的應稅所得來計算的話, 支付了102%的稅率. 也就是說, 他所繳交的稅款比他的可應稅所得還要高. 但如果以他的總所得來看的話, 他也大概付了20%的稅(well, 還是比Romney的少, ooops), 但是他也真的把他很大一部分的所得捐出去了, 所以用102%的稅來評斷他的狀況(也就是他還是得從他的存款中提錢出來繳稅), 也不誇張.

這篇文章也列舉了幾個社會上的名人/專業人士的稅單狀況, 試圖反映的狀況是: 創造雇用的人並沒有從創造雇用的過程中獲利, 而如果你的所得中很大的比率是"薪資", 那麼你很有可能是那個倒大楣的人, 就算你在怎麼有錢也需要上繳國庫!!

這不僅僅是一場富人窮人的戰爭, 而是如何修改體系的戰爭