Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[boedicca]

Those are mostly low to moderate income households with children. You want to raise their taxes ONLY.

See what I mean about conservatives?

I don't want to raise anyones taxes.

But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.

Fair is the word you throw around like a football.

Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???

Some of the top earners have their tax rate slashed from 70% to 15% over the last forty years.
I haven't.
How about you?

What would you say to new tax brackets which include a 50% rate for incomes between $500,000 and $5 million/year, a 60% rate for incomes between $5 million and $15 million and a 70% bracket for incomes over $15 million per year?

This proposal would pay for substantial rate reductions on incomes below $100,000/year.

Here's the problem with your little "Soak The Rich" idea: it will end up just like AMT has.

AMT was designed to tax 155 Rich Millionaire Families in 1969. Fast forward to today, and millions of middle class families are ensnared by it. Why? Inflation.

And that is the dirty little trick of "progressive" taxation. High rates are implemented for The Rich, the government inflates the currency over a number of years, and then sweeps the middle class into the high tax net.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The least we can do is end the Bush wealth redistribution plan for the already wealthy.

 

[Lars]

The least we can do is end the Bush wealth redistribution plan for the already wealthy.

What plan is that? The financial bailouts already happened and we can go back in time and readjust the artificially low interest rates instituted by Greenspan and supported by Bush which led the the financial crisis of 2008 and funneled the transfer of capital to the super-rich. Am I missing something? Are you talking about rolling back Bush's Medicare expansion? I would support a much more disciplined interest rate policy and rolling back entitlements, but you won't get that from Bush or Obama.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't want to raise anyones taxes.

But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.

Fair is the word you throw around like a football.

Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???

Some of the top earners have their tax rate slashed from 70% to 15% over the last forty years.
I haven't.
How about you?

What would you say to new tax brackets which include a 50% rate for incomes between $500,000 and $5 million/year, a 60% rate for incomes between $5 million and $15 million and a 70% bracket for incomes over $15 million per year?

This proposal would pay for substantial rate reductions on incomes below $100,000/year.

Here's the problem with your little "Soak The Rich" idea: it will end up just like AMT has.

AMT was designed to tax 155 Rich Millionaire Families in 1969. Fast forward to today, and millions of middle class families are ensnared by it. Why? Inflation.

And that is the dirty little trick of "progressive" taxation. High rates are implemented for The Rich, the government inflates the currency over a number of years, and then sweeps the middle class into the high tax net.

Placing those who make $500,000 a year in the same tax bracket as those making $500,000,000 a year has played its role, as well.

Do you expect inflation to lift today's middle class boats into the $15 million a year bracket over the next four decades?

How much more are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to, in your opinion?

 

[boedicca]

The Richest Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law just like every other citizen.

I expect that the our unsustainable debt coupled with the massive increases in the money supply will further damage our currency and the earning power of most Americans. Sacrificing a few rich people won't change that outcome, and will likely make it worse by encouraging more capital to flee offshore.

 

[Lars]

Some of the top earners have their tax rate slashed from 70% to 15% over the last forty years.
I haven't.
How about you?

What would you say to new tax brackets which include a 50% rate for incomes between $500,000 and $5 million/year, a 60% rate for incomes between $5 million and $15 million and a 70% bracket for incomes over $15 million per year?

This proposal would pay for substantial rate reductions on incomes below $100,000/year.

Here's the problem with your little "Soak The Rich" idea: it will end up just like AMT has.

AMT was designed to tax 155 Rich Millionaire Families in 1969. Fast forward to today, and millions of middle class families are ensnared by it. Why? Inflation.

And that is the dirty little trick of "progressive" taxation. High rates are implemented for The Rich, the government inflates the currency over a number of years, and then sweeps the middle class into the high tax net.

How much more are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to, in your opinion?

Your acting like it isn't their money to begin with.

 

[georgephillip]

It's inarguable that in order to fix the fiscal mess, sacrifices have to be made.

It's reasonable and sensible that the sacrifice should be shared.

The problem with the conservative consensus is that the wealthy should be exempted from sharing the sacrifice.

Let the conservatives here tell us what the wealthy's share of the necessary sacrifice should be...

...they will either not answer, or claim that the wealthy shouldn't sacrifice anything.

THAT is class warfare.

The Private Sector has made nearly all of the sacrifices during this crisis while the government borrowed ungodly amounts of money to prop up unnecessary and overpaid public employee union jobs.

As for the Wealthy Sacrificing...the truly wealthy can easily move out of the country to a more friendly tax haven (many already have). Want a case study? Look at NYC. All your Pea Green With Envy Class Warfare Rhetoric does is cause a Flight Of Capital, lower growth, and less jobs.

Included among those whom the government has borrowed "ungodly amounts of money from" would be the richest US individuals and corporations. Since many of those richest individuals and corporations were directly responsible for or benefited from the crash of the credit/housing bubbles, why not tax the rich instead of borrowing from them?

If they decide to cut and and run, is there any reason their US real estate should not be sold at auction with the proceeds donated to those fighting foreclosure?

How much more do you intend to let the rich steal?

 

[georgephillip]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

How much increased revenue have the Bush tax cuts produced?
How much debt?
Who got rich(er)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

Assuming no one changes their behavior, raising taxes on the rich might raise more revenue.
Of course sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are assumed to change behavior.
Not sure how raising taxes on the successful will increase jobs.
Unless you think private, tax paying jobs should be reduced in order to support public, tax-consuming jobs?

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

A huge drop in commodity prices will trigger a double dip recession? How's that?

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

LOL! Only one party is touting that as proof as a recovery. I'll let you guess which one that is....

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

Free bailout money? Could you be more specific? Which crimes do you imagine have been committed?
The crime of forcing banks to write mortgages in bad neighborhoods?
Forcing banks to give loans to poor people? Minorities?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If someone twice your size and half your age beats you senseless and transfers all the money in your pockets into his, will you bleat "life ain't fair" from your hospital bed?

The richest 1% of Americans earned about 9% of annual US income in 1979.
They earn over 20% today and control about 40% of national wealth.
And they have seen their "fair share" of both increase since 2008.

And they did it all without beating up the silly, skinny old OP.

I don't believe the rich have earned all that money.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

 

[boedicca]

It's inarguable that in order to fix the fiscal mess, sacrifices have to be made.

It's reasonable and sensible that the sacrifice should be shared.

The problem with the conservative consensus is that the wealthy should be exempted from sharing the sacrifice.

Let the conservatives here tell us what the wealthy's share of the necessary sacrifice should be...

...they will either not answer, or claim that the wealthy shouldn't sacrifice anything.

THAT is class warfare.

The Private Sector has made nearly all of the sacrifices during this crisis while the government borrowed ungodly amounts of money to prop up unnecessary and overpaid public employee union jobs.

As for the Wealthy Sacrificing...the truly wealthy can easily move out of the country to a more friendly tax haven (many already have). Want a case study? Look at NYC. All your Pea Green With Envy Class Warfare Rhetoric does is cause a Flight Of Capital, lower growth, and less jobs.

Included among those whom the government has borrowed "ungodly amounts of money from" would be the richest US individuals and corporations. Since many of those richest individuals and corporations were directly responsible for or benefited from the crash of the credit/housing bubbles, why not tax the rich instead of borrowing from them?

If they decide to cut and and run, is there any reason their US real estate should not be sold at auction with the proceeds donated to those fighting foreclosure?

How much more do you intend to let the rich steal?

Jeebus. Where to start.

If any rich person has stolen something, then said person should be prosecuted.

Seizing the wealth and property of innocent people is what Kleptocracies do, so it's not surprising that you advocate such.

 

[boedicca]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

How much increased revenue have the Bush tax cuts produced?
How much debt?
Who got rich(er)?

In response to the first question: A Lot. And the corollary lesson: It's The Spending, Stupid.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending. ...


DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

 

[georgephillip]

I don't want to raise anyones taxes.

But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.

Fair is the word you throw around like a football.

Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???

First you said you want their taxes raised, now you say you don't. Then you say you do.

Which is it?

Thought my post was pretty clear. I'll clarify just for you NYC.

If the taxes on the high earners get raised then everyones taxes should be raised. That includes the 50% who pay for nothing. Pretty simple really.

After all. Fair is Fair.

Since the 50% who pay no federal income taxes donate a far higher percentage of their total income to taxes of all kinds, would you think it "fair" to ask the richest 1% to donate the same percent of their total income to taxes as the 50% do?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats.

"Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of 'moral hazard' was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember?

Threw money? Please explain further.

"Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the 'too big' banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.

"Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession.

"Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns.

Darn those unregulated salaries! The only good salary is one that is approved by Washington!
Why don't you show how much those darn big banks and rich investors are borrowing from the Fed? You can find the info in the Fed's balance sheet. Let me know when you find it.

 

[boedicca]

First you said you want their taxes raised, now you say you don't. Then you say you do.

Which is it?

Thought my post was pretty clear. I'll clarify just for you NYC.

If the taxes on the high earners get raised then everyones taxes should be raised. That includes the 50% who pay for nothing. Pretty simple really.

After all. Fair is Fair.

Since the 50% who pay no federal income taxes donate a far higher percentage of their total income to taxes of all kinds, would you think it "fair" to ask the richest 1% to donate the same percent of their total income to taxes as the 50% do?

Link? Please provide a valid analysis showing a breakdown of sources of income and areas of taxes paid by the lower 50%.

 

[Wiseacre]

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

How much increased revenue have the Bush tax cuts produced?
How much debt?
Who got rich(er)?

In response to the first question: A Lot. And the corollary lesson: It's The Spending, Stupid.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending. ...


DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

Good stuff, I'd rep you but the system won't let me.

If it was me, I'd be asking for a cut in capital gains taxes, it's the best way I know of to gen up investments. There's more to be done of course, I think the ridiculous amount of regulations that must be dealt with, all the other anti-business policies going on.

 

[georgephillip]

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

How much increased revenue have the Bush tax cuts produced?
How much debt?
Who got rich(er)?

In response to the first question: A Lot. And the corollary lesson: It's The Spending, Stupid.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending. ...


DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

"By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms."

In other words, Bush's base used their 2003 tax cuts to gamble in Wall Street's casino, and their trillions in losses were covered by those who lost the 8 million new jobs?

"Median household wealth" doesn't seem like a particularly useful economic barometer to use on the eve of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Are you economically challenged?

How much more are the rich entitled to?

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

 

[boedicca]

How much increased revenue have the Bush tax cuts produced?
How much debt?
Who got rich(er)?

In response to the first question: A Lot. And the corollary lesson: It's The Spending, Stupid.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending. ...


DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

Good stuff, I'd rep you but the system won't let me.

If it was me, I'd be asking for a cut in capital gains taxes, it's the best way I know of to gen up investments. There's more to be done of course, I think the ridiculous amount of regulations that must be dealt with, all the other anti-business policies going on.

We should dismantle most of the government bureaucracies. The problems they established to handle have long been resolved (we don't have 10 year olds toiling away in factories, for example). As Walter Mead notes in the When Government Jumps The Shark, we've reached the point where the marginal costs for additional regulations far exceeds the benefits.

The internet renders so much of what the government used to do obsolete. If a manufacturer releases a faulty product, the word will spread across the internet much faster than a regulatory bureaucracy could even analyze the situation. We could achieve enormous quality and productivity improvements in education with it...and so on.

 

[boedicca]

How much increased revenue have the Bush tax cuts produced?
How much debt?
Who got rich(er)?

In response to the first question: A Lot. And the corollary lesson: It's The Spending, Stupid.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending. ...


DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

"By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms."

In other words, Bush's base used their 2003 tax cuts to gamble in Wall Street's casino, and their trillions in losses were covered by those who lost the 8 million new jobs?

"Median household wealth" doesn't seem like a particularly useful economic barometer to use on the eve of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Are you economically challenged?

How much more are the rich entitled to?

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

You are a blithering moron. The Bush tax cuts didn't cause the financial meltdown...and I bet you have no understanding as to what actually did.

 

[georgephillip]

Here's the problem with your little "Soak The Rich" idea: it will end up just like AMT has.

AMT was designed to tax 155 Rich Millionaire Families in 1969. Fast forward to today, and millions of middle class families are ensnared by it. Why? Inflation.

And that is the dirty little trick of "progressive" taxation. High rates are implemented for The Rich, the government inflates the currency over a number of years, and then sweeps the middle class into the high tax net.

How much more are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to, in your opinion?

Your acting like it isn't their money to begin with.

It isn't.