A startling and scary statistic - government spending, at all levels, is approaching 50% of our GDP!
Ken
2012/03/11 03:39:28
|
|
|||||
|
10 votes
|
|
56% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
11% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
6% | ||
|
5 votes
|
|
28% | ||
A startling and scary statistic!
I got these statistics from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College --
Our
national GDP is approximately $15 Trillion. Of that, approximately
$6.7 Trillion is Federal, State and Local spending, just $800 Billion
short of accounting for fully one-half of our nation's Gross Domestic Product.
I got these statistics from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College --
Our
national GDP is approximately $15 Trillion. Of that, approximately
$6.7 Trillion is Federal, State and Local spending, just $800 Billion
short of accounting for fully one-half of our nation's Gross Domestic Product.
The basic formula for calculating the GDP is:
Y = C + I + E + G, where
Y = GDP
C = Consumer Spending
I = Investment made by industry
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
G = Government Spending
So we are at a point that if and when Obamacare kicks in,
total government spending will be equal to one-half, or more,
of our Gross Domestic Product. While the "Government
Spending" part of the equation for GDP may create jobs, it
doesn't create wealth - the money to pay for those jobs -- the
"wealth" of the nation, comes only from the private sector!
So what happens when over half of a nation's GDP is made up
of government spending?
Ask Greece!
As a final aside, federal government spending as a percent of
GDP has grown approximately 25% during the first three years
of the Obama regime, from around 20% of GDP under Bush
(a little high by historic standards) to over 25%! Given this
amount of growth in the "Government Spending" part of the
formula for calculating GDP, does anyone really believe there
has been any growth at all in the private sector, especially with
the U6 measure of unemployment still above 15%?
Don't believe all of these rosy figures coming out of the Obama
regime and the mainstream media --
an alleged 2% - 3% of "growth" in the GDP is all due to
increased government spending!
The scary figure you should be looking at is that of federal spending, debt service predictions are approaching 10% of the federal budget and are growing, while spending on infrastructure is shrinking. It is time to stop spending at a deficit, absolutely. But that calls for ending subsidies to already profitable companies and industries, and letting the wealthy pay lower taxes than everyone else, as well as cutting programs. However, we cannot continue to ignore our infrastructure.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-c...
While the 2009 budget was adopted during Bush's last year, it was Pelosi and Reid's budget, plus over $800 billion in "supplemental" appropriations is a part of the 2009 deficit.
Also, the debt service was not only developed over the last three years. The economy has been operating at a deficit over the last decade. And, as I stated before, the biggest reasons for the deficit were the wars, and the tax cuts. Rather than investing in the country, our politicians have been spending on programs that benefit those who fund their campaigns, and cutting programs for flesh and blood citizens. They cut taxes on the wealthy to pander to them for money. In the meantime, they are cutting revenues while spending more. It is ridiculous and they are all to blame. The sooner the US public stops blaming one party or the other, the sooner we can hold our individual senators and representative accountable for at least attempting to make sensible policies.
What does it say when the majority of Americans think that the problem must be solved using tax increases and budget cuts, but at least half of congress won't even discuss tax increases? The other half of congress is just trying to keep their heads down. They aren't listening to the peopl...
Also, the debt service was not only developed over the last three years. The economy has been operating at a deficit over the last decade. And, as I stated before, the biggest reasons for the deficit were the wars, and the tax cuts. Rather than investing in the country, our politicians have been spending on programs that benefit those who fund their campaigns, and cutting programs for flesh and blood citizens. They cut taxes on the wealthy to pander to them for money. In the meantime, they are cutting revenues while spending more. It is ridiculous and they are all to blame. The sooner the US public stops blaming one party or the other, the sooner we can hold our individual senators and representative accountable for at least attempting to make sensible policies.
What does it say when the majority of Americans think that the problem must be solved using tax increases and budget cuts, but at least half of congress won't even discuss tax increases? The other half of congress is just trying to keep their heads down. They aren't listening to the people who can actually vote, only to those who are paying for their campaigns. What does it say when the political campaigns and legislation being passed in states is focusing how to put the government in everyone's doctor's office, bedroom and right up into their uterus', and no mention is made of how to create jobs? They would rather legislate against the rights of citizens than fix the problems they have created.
We have to increase revenues -- through job creation so there are more people paying in, and by making it so that the wealthiest Americans at least pay the same percentage as the least well off.
"We have to increase revenues. . ." But how do we do that? History tells us that increases in the tax rate seldom, if ever, result in a dollar-for-dollar increase in tax revenues. Think about Obama's plan to increase the tax rate on capital gains and his discussion with (liberal) pundit Charlie Gibson during a debate with Hillary Clinton:
" GIBSON : All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA : Right.
GIBSON : And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA :Right.
GIBSON : And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when...
"We have to increase revenues. . ." But how do we do that? History tells us that increases in the tax rate seldom, if ever, result in a dollar-for-dollar increase in tax revenues. Think about Obama's plan to increase the tax rate on capital gains and his discussion with (liberal) pundit Charlie Gibson during a debate with Hillary Clinton:
"GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA:Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA:Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
The idea of everyone paying the same rate is a noble one, but it doesn't work as a practical matter. Regardless of any perceived inequality in the rates people pay, the fact remains that the top 1% of filers pay 36.73% of all income taxes; the top 5% pay 58.66%; and the top 10% pay 70.47%! There isn't nearly the inequity that Warren Buffet and his secretary would lead us to believe, and it wouldn't surprise me if his secretary isn't in at least the top 5%, if not the top 1%, of earners.
Warren Buffet is not the only one saying that there is inequity. There is more now than at any time since the 1920s. The highest rate of growth in the US economy was when the middle class was strong. In other countries around the world, the more inequity, the less productive the economy.
As for all of the "inequity" you see, those paying payroll taxes are paying into their eventual Social Security retirement, and unless they are self-employed, their employer is paying an equal amount. If they happen to be entrepreneurs, and actually creating jobs for others, they are footing the entire payroll tax burden by themselves. And despite the alleged "inequity", the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of income taxes. As for the allegedly "shrinking middle class", that is a fallacy.
" What do we know about "middle-class income?" This simple question seems like it should ...
As for all of the "inequity" you see, those paying payroll taxes are paying into their eventual Social Security retirement, and unless they are self-employed, their employer is paying an equal amount. If they happen to be entrepreneurs, and actually creating jobs for others, they are footing the entire payroll tax burden by themselves. And despite the alleged "inequity", the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of income taxes. As for the allegedly "shrinking middle class", that is a fallacy.
" What do we know about "middle-class income?" This simple question seems like it should be easy to answer, but it is the subject of many widely reported fallacies. When you see claims that household income has been stagnant, this is because the average household size has been declining. The fact that the average real household income rose by only 6 percent from 1969 to 1996 sounds like stagnation to most. But in the same time real income per person rose by 51%." (Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, p 125.)
1. Taxes on the wealthiest americans are the lowest they have bene in decades, which puts us somewhere on the far left side of that Laffer curve, near the intersection of the axes.
2. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (both funded through payroll tax), make up a huge portion of the budget -- 43%. So everyone should pay into it.
3. If you think anybody paying into social security today is going to get anything out of social security if they retire more than five years from now, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's a budget expense, unrelated to what is taken in, and no longer separate from the rest of the budget. It's time we admit it's a tax.
4. Counting only income tax distorts the percentages of taxes paid. It not only doesn't count the fact that social security is capped, but also doesn't count that capital gains are taxed at a very low rate, and they make up most of the income for high earners. Short and long term capital gains are taxed differently, and can be manipulated very easily.
Regarding Social Security and Medicare, I made no comments at all, so your own snide comments in that regard are misdirected. I agree that both programs need a major overhaul, including raising the cap and "means testing", but it is Democrats who typically use it as the "third rail" to defeat any Republicans who dare to mention reforming SS and Medicare, by lying and scaring the elderly who are already on the programs, despite the fact the proposals won't affect them (other than to hopefully save the programs) or anyone even approaching retirement. It is noteworthy that the last major revamp of SS and Medicare came during the Reagan administration, when he worked with a Democratic congress and enacted higher payroll taxes and later enrollment dates.
Once again, it makes no sense to raise capital gains tax rates when doing so has historically resulted in lower revenue, ---
GIBSON : All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the ...
Regarding Social Security and Medicare, I made no comments at all, so your own snide comments in that regard are misdirected. I agree that both programs need a major overhaul, including raising the cap and "means testing", but it is Democrats who typically use it as the "third rail" to defeat any Republicans who dare to mention reforming SS and Medicare, by lying and scaring the elderly who are already on the programs, despite the fact the proposals won't affect them (other than to hopefully save the programs) or anyone even approaching retirement. It is noteworthy that the last major revamp of SS and Medicare came during the Reagan administration, when he worked with a Democratic congress and enacted higher payroll taxes and later enrollment dates.
Once again, it makes no sense to raise capital gains tax rates when doing so has historically resulted in lower revenue, ---
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA:. Right
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." -- it seems that you, like Obama, are more interested in what you call "inequity", and what Obama called "fairness" than rational tax policies.
The indisputable fact is that tax rates affect economic conduct, and when capital gains rates go up, investors change the way they invest.
Blah blah, partisan crap.
Blah blah, same thing about how taxes will be less if taxes are raised. Dude. They are are less because people then take more in salary rather than stocks so they can reduce corporate taxes, and they stop trading for short-term gains that do not result in actual investment.
If you think telling someone they have "no understanding" of how something works isn't snide, maybe you need to go to manners 101. No you didn't say income tax was the only tax. However, it is the only tax you seem to be counting when you say the rich pay such a huge percentage.
If the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes, what do you think the percentage of capital gains taxes is that they pay? As for payroll taxes, that is each individual (or couple) paying into their own account for their retirement and medical care, with a matching assist from their employer. And if their employer happens to be a "rich" entrepreneur, he/she is paying twice as much on his/her own account, because they are also paying what an employer would pay. What do you propose, sue, all-out communism with the slogan "to each according to his/her needs, from each according to his/her ability?" Our free-market economy would collapse in a matter of months.
The rich do pay an enormous percentage but their wealth isn't a bottomless pit the way Obama and his worshipers seem to think.
"Obama could increase taxes on wealthy Americans, like himself, making over $354,000.00 annual...
If the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes, what do you think the percentage of capital gains taxes is that they pay? As for payroll taxes, that is each individual (or couple) paying into their own account for their retirement and medical care, with a matching assist from their employer. And if their employer happens to be a "rich" entrepreneur, he/she is paying twice as much on his/her own account, because they are also paying what an employer would pay. What do you propose, sue, all-out communism with the slogan "to each according to his/her needs, from each according to his/her ability?" Our free-market economy would collapse in a matter of months.
The rich do pay an enormous percentage but their wealth isn't a bottomless pit the way Obama and his worshipers seem to think.
"Obama could increase taxes on wealthy Americans, like himself, making over $354,000.00 annually (i.e. top 1%), confiscating 100% of their taxable income, and he would still fall $100 billion short."
http://www.americanthinker.co...
First of all, by no measure was the recession of the 1970s as bad as the one that started in 2007. Second, it was not Reagan's tax cuts that brought the country out of the recession. It was the end of the gas crisis. You may want to note that the Bush tax cuts did nothing to create jobs, and in fact, put us in the position of having such a high debt that it was very difficult to fund the nondiscretionary part of the budget even through debt. Never have tax cuts created jobs, or brought anyone out of a recession in the history of the United States.
Again, if you think anyone paying into social security now has "their own account" that they will some day get back, you should buy my bridge. We have to admit it's a tax, since it's a huge part of the budget and cannot be covered for the growing number of retired people by the shrinking workforce getting paid shrinking salaries.
Social security should not have a cap. The tax rate should be the same for all household income. Wealthy people should not pay a lower rate than people who make less than themselves. I can't believe there are people who argue that wealthy people somehow should pay a lower rate than other people. And you can say that it isn't true that they pay lower rates all you want (you would be wrong) but, if it isn't true, then what would it hurt to treat all income the same?
Cancel all New spending that was created in the past 5 years. Shut down entire agencies., and reduce what remains to minimal levels .
And 2008 and 2009 were with Nancy and Harry at the helm of congress, and 2009 included over $800 billion in supplemental "stimulus" appropriations, all Obama's!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/0...
Another fact is that the 2009 deficit, though the budget was adopted during Bush's last year, has over $800 billion in "stimulus" spending through supplemental appropriations -- all Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
You and the New York Times make the same mistake that liberals always make, the false assumption that there will be a dollar-for-dollar increase in tax revenue if tax rates are increased. It doesn't work that way and it never has.
Obviously, I posted the NY Times piece because of the graphs, one of which showed the spending exceeding projections. I understand that increases in tax rates do not correspond to a one for one increase in revenue. The projections do not assume that every dollar will end up as revenue. In any case, just because the tax increases alone will not do away with the deficit, doesn't mean that they won't go a long way toward relieving the deficit. It's still a large number.
You are talking about
OBAMA'S TAX POLICY AND WASTEFUL AND RECKLESS SPENDING .
As they people being talked about are already paying a disproportionate higher rate,
with 10% of the population paying in excess of 70% isn't it a bit excessive to take still more from the producers and creators ?
In addition, those who make over $108K don't pay social security on the amount over that, so their effective rate is even less when compared with those who earn less. It's time to get rid of the social security cap, and tax everybody no matter where their income is from the same rate.
Virtually anyone owning a small business , or anyone earning more than $110,000 qualify as the Top 10% .
WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
"where the highest bracket of income is assessed at a rate of 35%"
No , that is the personal income tax rate . Small business owners are first taxed as a business , then again as personal income .
"In addition, those who make over $108K don't pay social security on the amount over that," The cap is there is related to the Maximum that Social Security is willing to pay for . No none in their right mind would argue that a person should pay into an insurance program that they are forbidden to use.
( except Obamacare )
"Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney pay less than 15%", Buffett after talking about taxes is busy fighting a $1,000,000,000 dollar tax bill that he doesn't want to pay. Obama , Pelosi, Reid , and all the other Democrats that...
Virtually anyone owning a small business , or anyone earning more than $110,000 qualify as the Top 10% .
WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
"where the highest bracket of income is assessed at a rate of 35%"
No , that is the personal income tax rate . Small business owners are first taxed as a business , then again as personal income .
"In addition, those who make over $108K don't pay social security on the amount over that," The cap is there is related to the Maximum that Social Security is willing to pay for . No none in their right mind would argue that a person should pay into an insurance program that they are forbidden to use.
( except Obamacare )
"Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney pay less than 15%", Buffett after talking about taxes is busy fighting a $1,000,000,000 dollar tax bill that he doesn't want to pay. Obama , Pelosi, Reid , and all the other Democrats that want to pay more taxes should lead the way and simply right the check . There is no law to forbid giving money to the IRS.
Romney did pay $million dollars in 2010 . After paying that much it gets hard to complain they didn't pay enough . That is a lot of refund checks to those who profit from the tax system.
"And, during the ten years since the tax cuts for these top earners, there first was no job growth and then the economy tanked"
Job growth is mandatory simply to keep pace with an expanding domestic workforce in addition to the 20 t0 40 million illegals int he country.
As this chart form the BLS clearly shows unemployment mostly remained below 6% until the Democrats gained control of the Congress in O8, rapidly followed by the election of Obama . The progressive policies crashed the economy.
The amounts you include are wages --- the tops percentages of wages earned. It doesn't count income from investments, which make up the bulk of the income of the top 1% and the top 5%. For the top 10% there is usually investment, but it would not necessarily outweigh income from wages as it does for the higher brackets. THe graph is lovely, but again only addresses income from wages.
You cannot lump the small business owner as an individual in with the small business owner as a business. Of course the business pays taxes. The business also pays the owner. The owner in the vast majority of cases is not one of the richest Americans. Most small businesses do not pay the owner more than the top bracket of salary and do not end up paying out dividends to the owner that put the owner in one of the top percentages.
Whether Warren Buffet himself or Mitt Romney himself actually pay the taxes or not, it is possible and likely that people who earn as much as these two pay a lo...
The amounts you include are wages --- the tops percentages of wages earned. It doesn't count income from investments, which make up the bulk of the income of the top 1% and the top 5%. For the top 10% there is usually investment, but it would not necessarily outweigh income from wages as it does for the higher brackets. THe graph is lovely, but again only addresses income from wages.
You cannot lump the small business owner as an individual in with the small business owner as a business. Of course the business pays taxes. The business also pays the owner. The owner in the vast majority of cases is not one of the richest Americans. Most small businesses do not pay the owner more than the top bracket of salary and do not end up paying out dividends to the owner that put the owner in one of the top percentages.
Whether Warren Buffet himself or Mitt Romney himself actually pay the taxes or not, it is possible and likely that people who earn as much as these two pay a lower percentage in taxes than people who earn near the bottom of wage earners. There is no cap on the amount they can earn, so there should be no cap on what they pay.
As for the partisan nonsense at the end, no one has disputed the time line of when congress was elected or who generated the 2009 budget, however, most economists say that the recession started in 2007. In any case, the recession started because of deregulation of the financial industry, for which both parties are responsible, and which neither party tried to remedy in time to prevent the recession.
As for the job creation, it was flat during the ten years, and went down at the end. Neither of us seem to dispute that. In addition, wages for the average income person remained flat or decreased, while productivity increased. It's sad that there are so many who are worse off. For the first time in my lifetime, average incomes for the majority of Americans are less than they used to be. Sadly, many of these same people will elect someone who actively works against their own best interests just so they can prove some partisan point.
The distinction between the two is that Food Stamps are Charity. No contribution is required to receive the charity.
Social Security is an insurance based on a Ponzi scheme with the intent that people would pay in to and then Die off before becoming elegible.
Improvements in health and living longer exposes the fallacy of the scheme.
"The amounts you include are wages --- the tops percentages of wages earned." How is that determination made . The source is IRS for income.
IRS for tax purposes don't care if income in earned , inherited , found or won on a lottery. If anyone has income they want their cut.
So , of course all forms of income are include.
"You cannot lump the small business owner as an individual in with the small business owner as a business."
No only can it be done , it Must be done. The most common form of small business is Sole Owner , in which there is no distinction between the business and the owner .
S corporations, pay no taxes and all income is passed on to the owners as personal income .
Small business owners are forced to make a choice , Pay personal income taxes in addition to Corporate taxes or to accept all business income as personal income. There is no e...
The distinction between the two is that Food Stamps are Charity. No contribution is required to receive the charity.
Social Security is an insurance based on a Ponzi scheme with the intent that people would pay in to and then Die off before becoming elegible.
Improvements in health and living longer exposes the fallacy of the scheme.
"The amounts you include are wages --- the tops percentages of wages earned." How is that determination made . The source is IRS for income.
IRS for tax purposes don't care if income in earned , inherited , found or won on a lottery. If anyone has income they want their cut.
So , of course all forms of income are include.
"You cannot lump the small business owner as an individual in with the small business owner as a business."
No only can it be done , it Must be done. The most common form of small business is Sole Owner , in which there is no distinction between the business and the owner .
S corporations, pay no taxes and all income is passed on to the owners as personal income .
Small business owners are forced to make a choice , Pay personal income taxes in addition to Corporate taxes or to accept all business income as personal income. There is no escape.
Worthy of note is that Small business owners are subject to a 15% self employment tax before the income tax . Which would makes the income tax of the self employed as high as 43% for Federal income tax .
'the recession started because of deregulation of the financial industry"
Pure fallacy here. Bill Clinton's administration forced banks to start making home loans against all common sense and business reasoning . The mortgages were then bundled and sold by Fannie May and Freddie Mack. . This house of cards and Ponzi scheme with the mortgages collapsed when , like all Ponzi schemes , there came a shortage of suckers to keep bidding up and buying the Glut of houses and Condo's that had flooded the markets. Foolish speculation and escalation of housing prices was the ultimate cause. Bush repeatedly attempted to reign in the mess before it collapsed . Frank Barney , as head of the senate banking committee assured there was no problem with the mortgage industry.
Three of the primary persons responsible for the banking collapse are Bill Clinton with his forcing of banks to make bad loans, Frank Barney for his failures to be honest as head of the banking committee and Barrack Obama with his selective bank bailouts , Cronyism and forced closing of banks.
"There is no cap on the amount they can earn, so there should be no cap on what they pay. " By that rational it should apply downward also , such that if one earns only a Dollar the same ratio of taxes applied to them . A universal flat rate with no escape for anyone.
"Sadly, many of these same people will elect someone who actively works against their own best interests just so they can prove some partisan point.. "
In this I must agree, however there is hope that in November 2012 the beginning of purging all the progressive / socialist from government and restoration of the individualist capitalist will restore America to it's historical world leader position.
When once again Americans depend on drive , initiative and self reliance and turns away from government dependence.
It isn't the top brackets that cause those in the upper level to pay less taxes, percentage-wise, than those in the middle. It is the fact that much of their income is from investments and they pay capital gains rates on investment income. Want to increase capital gains rates "for purposes of fairness" the way Obama does, even though historically, increasing the rates has resulted in less revenue?
"In a 2008 debate [Hillary & Obama], Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: 'Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.'"
I would suggest that all personal income be taxed at the same rate. It may be that some people would not invest as much. But, you have to ask yourself, "where else would they put their money?" Do you think they would all get an online savings account? Of course they would still invest. Some money may go abroad, but significant increases in revenue would be realized. In addition, it could discourage short-term trading which destabilizes the market. It looks like a win-win. And besides, do you really think it's somehow more fair to assess a higher percentage on what a construction worker brings home, or what a soldier brings home than on what an investor does?