The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

President Obama wants to raise the top marginal income tax rate on salaries and other ordinary income from 35 percent to 39.6 percent by letting the extended temporary Bush tax cuts expire at year-end.

Mitt Romney wants to drop the top rate by a fifth to 28 percent (and running mate Paul Ryan has called for a top rate of 25 percent).

So who pays the 35 percent rate? How much do they pay? And how much more would they pay if the Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent were restored?

As this graphic shows, had the 39.6 percent rate been in effect in 2009, a few people making as little as $100,000 to $200,000 would have been affected. The total increase per taxpayer in that large group would be less than a penny each.

The tiny group of 8,274 taxpayers who made more than $10 million in 2009, and collectively reported 3.1 percent of all the adjusted gross income that year, would pay on average $687,500 more if the permanent Clinton rates return.

That is 2.4 percent of their average $29 million adjusted gross income.

The reason the increase is not 4.6 percentage points (the difference between 35 and 39.6) is that only about half of their money is ordinary income, while much of it is long-term capital gains and qualified dividends taxed at 15 percent.

And why do 715 of the 13.5 million taxpayers in the $100,000 to $200,000 group pay the 35 percent rate, which formally starts at $372,950? Blame it on the complexities of the tax code.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Donald Trump and Melania Trump

Youtube Screenshot

In a Monday court filing, the Justice Department asked a federal court not to unseal the affidavit showing probable cause for the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, giving reasons that underscore the hot water Donald Trump appears to be in.

Disclosing the affidavit now would, according to the filing, “cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.” It would do that by revealing, “among other critically important and detailed investigative facts: highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government; specific investigative techniques; and information required by law to be kept under seal.”

Keep reading... Show less

Lara Trump

Youtube Screenshot

When Donald Trump revealed last Monday night that the FBI had “raided” his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence, Fox News had an asset on its payroll uniquely positioned to provide its audience with insight: The former president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, is a Fox contributor. But unfortunately for the network’s viewers, over the past week she's been using her network platform to mislead them.

Members of the Trump orbit, including Lara Trump’s husband, Eric, deployed to Fox last week offering the expected furious defenses of the former president and denunciations of the FBI’s probe. But if there’s any value whatsoever in putting a former president’s relative on staff, surely it is in the aftermath of such an event, when she might have both rare access to credible information and a willingness to reveal it.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}