""""A nurse making $47,056 also paid 9.3%
Sounds fair, right?
So here's Meg's new plan: The nurse still pays 9.3% but Meg Whitman pays 0.00%
Since we don't have Meg Whitman's tax records, and we'll be getting them when hell freezes over, we don't know how much her Rich Eat Free tax giveaway will save her. But we can guess.
Let's say Meg has her billion dollars in a Bank of America Growth Maximizer Savings Account. Last year, married, filing jointly, her California state income tax would have been $90,843. I'll bet Meg did a little better than that. She knows all those insider trading guys from Goldman Sachs. So let's say her investments paid about the same as ten-year treasuries. If she made 3.75%, her California state income tax was $4,295,230.
Under Meg's plan, it would go down to zero.
On average, a really experienced California nurse makes $62,400. Her state income tax is $2,032. Under Meg's plan, it would go down to $2,032.
Another way of looking at these numbers: Meg Whitman's tax cut will save Meg Whitman four million dollars a year, basically even if she just has her money buried in the stable. It will save the average working Californian sweet F all.
And it'll cost the state billions.
It's going to take a lot of TV ads to make that sound like a good plan.""""
And to think...millions of Kalifornians take this sinister broad seriously. Then... Aynnie Rand hyper-capitalist potboilers remain bestsellers as well. e-Meg may be gambling on the silent CA majority: the Randian-WASP-zombie market.
Well, shoot, be fair. Under Meg's plan it will still take her a few years just to recoup what it's costing her to buy the Governorship.
Then what's a hundred million or so to a billionaire? She probably spends that much on shoes per year...or anti-psychotic medication.
Speakin of meds, diggin' the Breakfast club, H-back.
Post a Comment