Didnt anyone watch Michelle Obama? Did anyone care?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]No, my point is that everyone should pay an amount that is equal relative to their income. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $10,000 could affect how much food gets put on the table or if the kids go to college or if the electric bill gets paid. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $1,000,000 means a few less rounds of golf. Big difference.[/quote]

afx: Thanks for posting the WashPost tax graphic and not the “fake forwarded e-mail from zealots for bigotry” version. I was about to add it myself.

And I wholeheartedly agree–it’s supposed to be a “progressive” tax…topping out at x% at $250k and continuing the same percentage through $XX million in income is not “progressive.” And the argument that a higher tax bracket creates disincentive to work hard or innovate is a crock. I don’t think Soros or Buffet will stop going to the office if their tax bracket goes up–they will hardly notice (just their tax law firm will). The poor people trying to eke out a life will be hard hit and will notice it every day and it will influence every decision they make. Buy milk and bread or pay the electic bill or buy a bus pass (no cars at this tax bracket) to get to work…

Even Sir Charles is willing to give a little more, dig a little deeper, to “give back” to those who need it more:

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/barkley-economy-incomes/

[CA renter]

Warren Buffett also thinks the rich need to pay higher taxes:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for
Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[CA renter]

Warren Buffett also thinks the rich need to pay higher taxes:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for
Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[CA renter]

Warren Buffett also thinks the rich need to pay higher taxes:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for
Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[CA renter]

Warren Buffett also thinks the rich need to pay higher taxes:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for
Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[CA renter]

Warren Buffett also thinks the rich need to pay higher taxes:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for
Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[CA renter]

Just to clarify, I define “rich” as those whose income is derived primarily from capital gains.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to tax cap gains at a lower rate than labor. This tax scheme was designed specifically to increase the rate at which more money could be funneled into the pockets of “the rich.”

That being said, I would lower corporate taxes (and have strict requirements on how they use that money — only for expanding business and hiring more people, NOT for executive compensation).

BTW, I do not believe in sales tax, property tax, or inheritance tax.

[CA renter]

Just to clarify, I define “rich” as those whose income is derived primarily from capital gains.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to tax cap gains at a lower rate than labor. This tax scheme was designed specifically to increase the rate at which more money could be funneled into the pockets of “the rich.”

That being said, I would lower corporate taxes (and have strict requirements on how they use that money — only for expanding business and hiring more people, NOT for executive compensation).

BTW, I do not believe in sales tax, property tax, or inheritance tax.

[CA renter]

Just to clarify, I define “rich” as those whose income is derived primarily from capital gains.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to tax cap gains at a lower rate than labor. This tax scheme was designed specifically to increase the rate at which more money could be funneled into the pockets of “the rich.”

That being said, I would lower corporate taxes (and have strict requirements on how they use that money — only for expanding business and hiring more people, NOT for executive compensation).

BTW, I do not believe in sales tax, property tax, or inheritance tax.

[CA renter]

Just to clarify, I define “rich” as those whose income is derived primarily from capital gains.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to tax cap gains at a lower rate than labor. This tax scheme was designed specifically to increase the rate at which more money could be funneled into the pockets of “the rich.”

That being said, I would lower corporate taxes (and have strict requirements on how they use that money — only for expanding business and hiring more people, NOT for executive compensation).

BTW, I do not believe in sales tax, property tax, or inheritance tax.

[CA renter]

Just to clarify, I define “rich” as those whose income is derived primarily from capital gains.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to tax cap gains at a lower rate than labor. This tax scheme was designed specifically to increase the rate at which more money could be funneled into the pockets of “the rich.”

That being said, I would lower corporate taxes (and have strict requirements on how they use that money — only for expanding business and hiring more people, NOT for executive compensation).

BTW, I do not believe in sales tax, property tax, or inheritance tax.

[PatentGuy]

Of course Warren Buffett will not complain about an increased payroll tax, since he only draws a paultry salary; he makes his money off long-term capital gains (not this year….).

Same with Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc. The payroll tax only effects persons who are in the processing of earning the income directly and have no choice but to take it as income instead of capiatal gains (a real racket is hedge funds and vc funds, who also manage to make all theeir money through capital gains to avoid income taxes).

The medicare portion of the payroll tax (2.9% for self-employed) already has no limits. But only “payroll” people pay it.

[PatentGuy]

Of course Warren Buffett will not complain about an increased payroll tax, since he only draws a paultry salary; he makes his money off long-term capital gains (not this year….).

Same with Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc. The payroll tax only effects persons who are in the processing of earning the income directly and have no choice but to take it as income instead of capiatal gains (a real racket is hedge funds and vc funds, who also manage to make all theeir money through capital gains to avoid income taxes).

The medicare portion of the payroll tax (2.9% for self-employed) already has no limits. But only “payroll” people pay it.

[PatentGuy]

Of course Warren Buffett will not complain about an increased payroll tax, since he only draws a paultry salary; he makes his money off long-term capital gains (not this year….).

Same with Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc. The payroll tax only effects persons who are in the processing of earning the income directly and have no choice but to take it as income instead of capiatal gains (a real racket is hedge funds and vc funds, who also manage to make all theeir money through capital gains to avoid income taxes).

The medicare portion of the payroll tax (2.9% for self-employed) already has no limits. But only “payroll” people pay it.

[PatentGuy]

Of course Warren Buffett will not complain about an increased payroll tax, since he only draws a paultry salary; he makes his money off long-term capital gains (not this year….).

Same with Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc. The payroll tax only effects persons who are in the processing of earning the income directly and have no choice but to take it as income instead of capiatal gains (a real racket is hedge funds and vc funds, who also manage to make all theeir money through capital gains to avoid income taxes).

The medicare portion of the payroll tax (2.9% for self-employed) already has no limits. But only “payroll” people pay it.

[Author]

Posts