Paul Newman is immune to any alterations in the tax code, as he has, by now, accumulated a sizable amount of wealth, far more than he shall ever spend in the rest of his life.
He does not care about “inheritance” taxes, or more properly, death taxes, as his estate will take care of that contingency, and it shall not be his personal responsibility. Whether his current income is taxed at 35% o4 10%, is a matter of indifference, except that less would be showered on various charities or pet projects at the higher rate as compared to the lower rate. He will not miss any opportunities of diversion or self-satisfaction as a result.
But for the rest of us, a difference in tax rates between 10% and 15%, or 25%, or 60%, makes a HUGE difference. Most of us have not gone far into accumulation of wealth, and of those who have, the wealth, while it exists as a cushion, was never the end in itself. You only sell one thing in this world, your time, and you only buy one thing, satisfaction. When you cannot buy satisfaction, it is because: a) you are underpaid; or b) you are overtaxed.
Most of us, by any objective standard, are not underpaid. Yet many of us are dissatisfied, which may be attributed almost entirely to the perception that we are overtaxed. Not in the sense that we are paying, in real terms, a truly onerous levy, but that the system by which various taxes are assessed is not equitable. Or worse, that we have no voice in how the “equitability” is determined.
With the complex tax codes we have, even negotiating the rule book in an effort to pay the minimum taxes allowable under the law becomes an exercise in futility, or worse, exposes the taxpayer to some penalty hidden in an obscure clause created for the specific purpose of protecting one class of individuals or corporations from declaring certain revenues, but only if some very carefully defined conditions are met. This was designed for a very real reason, that tax lawyers may charge high fees to reveal these arcane provisions to the select few. And trap anybody else unwary enough to stumble into this maze, if they do not also hire the high-priced counsel.
Even the most carefully prepared tax return may contain errors for which the taxpayer may be prosecuted (or persecuted, in some intances). But only when specific targeted individuals make the errors, are these provisions brought into play. The personal income tax exists, not for revenue, but for social control.
The current tax code is unfair, not only because of inequities built into the structure of the code, but also because of the very capricious application of its provisions.
Many think that employers and workers negotiate in after tax terms. Therefore, there is reason to doubt that changing taxes would change income.
I'd love to know if he takes the charitable deduction on his taxes for his contributions to charity via his products. That would be a little hypocritical, but not nearly as hypocritical as his going along with the Bush tax cuts by not paying the old Clinton rate.
I believe that the instruction is tactics to reveal the darkness of evil in the hearts of the wicked. Not raising a resistance after a double attack (turn the other cheek) shows the wicked intent of sin.
God has only asked for 10% in a tithe, yet our tax system goes way higher than 10% of the income levied against the individual. This unfair tax system reveals just how awful the spirit of this world (secularism) is such that it demands so much human sacrifice to satiate its desires. It literally longs to consume our very souls.
Of course many wealthy entertainers make so much wealth just upon the interest of their wealth that a high tax rate has no meaning against their wallets. Suppose they had a salary cap or just didn’t have that sort of money? Wouldn’t they change their tune?
Flat rate tax, less than 10%, everyone, no exceptions and no going over. This should be a goal. It doesn’t have to happen overnight, but it does have to happen.
$100,000 a year income
-$10,000 that goes to God, which leaves
$90,000 taxable income
x 9% because even organized gov’t must give up a whole 1% than challenge God on a full 10% (or even a 9.99% which looks suspiciously like 666 upside down)
Equals $8,100 in tax. This is a lot better than forking over $20,000 to $30,000 a year for services most of us would never see (like Social Security...yeah, that’s going to survive by the time I have to use it).
An extra $12,000 to $22,000 in my pocket (and imagine all those making a similar salary range) will go a lot longer and do more for the economy collectively rather than feeding the secular beast that keeps us slaves to you name it: fictitious climate control, “illegal” wars, abortion on demand, euthanasia, medical plans that really benefit perverts who never want a real family, (speaking of which) more of the homosexual agendas to recruit youth that they’d never procreate, monstrous art that offends, hypodermic needles for drug addicts, condoms for children, disarming law abiding citizens, etc. etc.
If actors and entertainers want the government to have more money, then they can donate it themselves. But, they can't say how the money will be used. They just have to give it up. If socialized medicine is that important to you, then you pay for someone/everyone else and don't force it on those who can't afford it. Let it be your quiet charity and the reward waiting for you in Heaven. Yes, you can legislate morality--that's why laws exist. No, you can't legislate Charity. That command comes from God and not from the secular. The moment it is forced via secular "authority" it ceases to be "charity". Hence, the original desire of evil to undo love. We can't afford love, it's been taxed away from our free will and disposable income. If I weren't so heavily taxed, I could realistically voluntary myself with little worry. My yoke would be easy and my burden would be light.