Here is this week’s column written before La McMahon dumped her tax return on the standard late Friday.
She has managed to lower the taxes of at least one American already. Herself. That looks like about a 15 percent rate. I realize that long term capital gains are taxed that way, but still …wouldn’t you like to pay 15 percent federal taxes on $30 million?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
6 Responses to I’ll have what Linda’s having
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
Kenny Curran, Murphy campaign spokesman, also said the Murphys paid a combined $10,546.88 in Social Security and Medicare taxes and when added to their federal taxes, their tax rate was 22.4 percent. When state, real estate, personal property taxes, and charitable giving are included in their total tax burden, that rate jumps to 31 percent.
McMahon paid 15.3% Federal, 6.75% state, 5.5% in charity (including her foundation) and then there’s property taxes. ‘All in’ it’s not much less than Murphy as a percentage.
THen there’s the business acumen thing: Murphy who doesn’t create jobs and McMahon who does. The combined tax revenues from the WWE empire are substantial. Wikivest shows the WWE paid $141 Million in taxes while Murphy’s been in office.
If we add that corporate taxation (an average of $23.5 mil a year) to McMahon’s tax burden then we get a clearer picture.
The McMahons pull down about the same in income ($30 mil to $33 million a year) as they pay in combined taxes–corporate (23.5) and personal(6.8) taxes which makes their effective tax rate 100%.
All Murphy can say is “I think we should get another 10% of that income”. What Murphy can’t say is “Sounds like a better way of creating tax revenue. This opening and managing a business thing might be a good idea!”
@Richard–
How many jobs have the McMahons actually created?
People prattle on as if the McMahons created the pro wrestling industry, when they did not. They simply seized control of it, consolidating it into their WWE brand.
Here is an analogy. If a new auction house came to NYC, and eventually put Sotheby’s and Christie’s out of business, would that new monopoly have created any jobs?
In Linda’s specific case, the McMahons are so inept at growing their business, (XFL anyone?) they have decided to pay out every last dollar of WWE’s cash as dividends, when successful business-people would instead reinvest that money.
but still …wouldn’t you like to pay 15 percent federal taxes on $30 million?
————————–
The implication is that Mrs. McMahon’s taxes are too low. But, how would it help us Joe Six-packs if she and her caste were to pay more? Sure, we’d like the $30million income, but the fact that she earns that amount does us no harm. On the other hand, wouldn’t we like it if we paid the income tax of the bottom 50% of filers (i.e., zero)?
In fact, though, what’s really killing us is government borrowing and spending. To the extent that we are committed to the (unconstitutional)federal welfare state, let’s give a look at how Canada operates.
The Canadians do impose a higher tax on top incomes (at least until next January), but they also have lower cap gains taxes, a much lower corporate tax rate, social security programs that are actually funded, and balanced federal budgets. I believe that in the next couple of decades Canada will be dealing with an increasing illegal immigration problem from Los Estados Unidos as our kids flee impossible taxes to pay off our idiotic debt, not to get away from Mrs. McMahon or the WWE.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/pages/canada/index.html
@Peter–
You can’t see some connection between Bush’s tax cuts, McMahon’s incredibly low tax rate, and the federal deficits/national debt?
And the “fiscally responsible” McMahon is running on further tax cuts, even though we are at post World War II historical lows?
“On the other hand, wouldn’t we like it if we paid the income tax of the bottom 50% of filers (i.e., zero)?”
Y’mean the people who’ve gone since the beginning of the Bush II recovery without a raise, too poor to pay Federal Income Tax, for whom all other taxes affect them disproportionately, and who don’t have the resources to hire accoutants and planners to play games with income to make it non-taxable?
Seriously, dude?
You can’t see some connection between Bush’s tax cuts, McMahon’s incredibly low tax rate, and the federal deficits/national debt?
————————–
Well, I can see some, but not much. It’s my understanding that if Mr. Obama were to have what he presently says he wants, the elimination of the Bush rates for the wealthy, the federal govt would benefit to the tune of $700billion/10 years. Over that time the CBO projects deficits totaling $13trillion.
On the other hand, I do see a connection between economic growth and federal revenues. If you believe increasing taxes on the rich is good for the economy I’d simply say that even the President disagrees, or at least he did in December of 2010 when he extended the Bush rates.