spaceguy said:
Point and fact= |
You know, that graphic actually isn't a "point of fact".
They are using Mitt Romney's effective tax rate, vs a hypothetical School teachers TOP income bracket. Judging the school teachers bracket as the same as Mitt Romneys and his would be something like 35%.
We have a graduated tax system,. A schoolteacher making $40,000 a year pays 25% only on income over 34,000. + 4,681.25 (or so, these are 2010 numbers.)
Giving her an effective tax rate of 15.5%. Assuming none of her income is untaxable. Which is ridiculiously unlikely. Still higher then Mitt's... but not by much.
It's also ignoring the fact that teachers generally get paid retirement benefits which are often completely tax free, and generally assuming that said teacher has no investments taxed at a capital gains tax level, which is somewhat unlikely considering roughly 50% of Americans own stock in the stock market, either directly or through a mutual fund/IRA etc.
It doesn't actually "Swap" vs someone in a realistic level until you get to triple digits. Which is why Buffet and Obama cite their secrataries, people with menial sounding job descriptions but with triple digit salaries.
There effective tax rates fall around the average person's top tax bracket because said secretaries make... I believe the technical term is.... "Mad bank".
Example in estimating buffets secretaries salary.
