[AlanE]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

By "We" I mean every American except for the greedy money grubbers!

You're not a money grubber? Please share with us how much money you sent to the IRS that was above and beyond your legal tax liability. If you're not grubbing for money and you believe that the government should have more money to spend, well then, how much extra did you send them? If you didn't volunteer to give away your money then why are you expecting others to do what you won't.

Do as I say, not as I do. Right?

In the 50s, the top tax rate was around 90%. Now it's about a third of that.

Is is really asking so much to expect those who are pronouncing on matters of tax policy know what the heck they're writing about and to anchor their propositions in the real world.

If you increase the tax rate on an activity you will get less of that activity. This applies to income taxes as well. Here is data from the 1950s to present. Observe what happens to federal income tax revenue as a share of the economy:



Secondly, part of the tax reform legislation back in the 1980s was a quid pro quo - cuts tax rates BUT ALSO CUT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS.

NO ONE paid a full 90% marginal tax rate. No one. Anyone who was earning enough to fall into the top category reduced his marginal tax rate down to the 20%-40% range by selecting from a cafeteria chock full of applicable tax deductions.

We have billionaires like Warren Buffet asking for tax increases because as successful investors they understand that too much money and power in the hands of too few isn't good for an economy in the long run.

Buffett does this for the same reason that Wal-Mart picks and chooses aspects of expansionist government to support - it works to their advantages and harms their competitors. Wal-Mart, being a huge corporation, is better equipped to handle regulatory burdens imposed on it by government which when directed at smaller businesses impose a greater cost, thus lowering their efficiency and profitability.

The same thing with Buffet. His secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren himself because his Secretary EARNS MORE INCOME AS SALARY than does Warren Buffett. Warren pays her about $200,000 per year in salary. Warren pays himself only $100,000 per year in salary. He purposely keeps his salary low and keeps growing his wealth either tax free or when he does incur a tax liability that liability is taxed at capital gains rates.

If Warren really wanted to play "fair" there is NOTHING stopping him from tallying up the wealth he creates every year and taking that wealth in the form of salary income and then paying the full tax rate plus the full social security and medicare taxes on that income. You do realize that there are regular working people who pay more in FICA taxes than Warren for the income cap is set at $110,100 in 2012. Warren's salary income of $100,000 per year means that he could be paying more into social security but he choose not to.

When Warren speaks he does it to benefit himself, not the nation. If Warren was concerned about the nation's finances he wouldn't be taking advantage of "loopholes" to defer paying $37 billion in taxes already owed to the IRS.