Why should the rich pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

[editec]

Here's the hurdle that the GOP and its cherished love of the superwealthy are facing.

The rich keep getting richer and richer while the rest of us starve?

Fuck them!

It's going to take one shitload of propaganda to convince the American public that they deserve to keep getting poorer while the MASTERS keep getting richer.

Apparently 70% of the public thinks the rich ought to pay more taxes.

I think it unwise to impose additional taxes, right now, but in the longer run I quite agree with the majority on this issue.

We've given the rich far too much in the last 40 years.

Our current fibrilating economy is the end result of those stupid policies.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It'll be entertaining hearing this message on the campaign trail.

"Obama didn't raise taxes on the rich when he had 2 years of almost nothing but democrats in Washington with him."

"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts."

"In 4 years Obama hasn't raised taxes on the rich."

"WE HAVE TO RE-ELECT OBAMA IN 2012 SO HE CAN RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[xcelerate]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

People with higher incomes have almost always paid less in taxes. Their rate doesn't matter because they have so many more tools at their disposal for avoidance (as opposed to evasion).
For example, we just structured the comp for a partner at a law firm. He'll get a million a year but it's broken down in a few different ways. $200K will come as shares in the firm - which have a guaranteed buyout plus interest for every year he stays. Some will go to the firm's investment fund. Think about the value of that. These guys know who is going to Merge / Acquire etc... before it ever happens. Not that they would ever use that info to their advantage Then there is the retirement account, life insurance etc...
So he'll end up with an actual income of about $500K. But wait there's more! As a partner, he gets a company car - a Mercedes 500CLS. His Learjet (which isn't as great as a Gulfstream but it's still COOL!) is deductible. So are his phones, computers, membership in the country club and so on.
So even though he uses these things for personal purposes (as well as business of course), he'll get at least $100K off the top.
Then of course, his wife owns an interior decorating business. She has to buy all kinds of expensive furniture for their home because she uses it as a showcase. Her business loses about $100K for two years and then shows a profit of $20K for one year. That means once every three years they pay an extra $10K in taxes - but 2 out of 3 years, they save $50K in taxes PLUS they get to write of the cost of a lot of their funrinture! (We're talking $30K for a dining room set folks).
So he'll end up paying income taxes on about $350 - $400K. Probably around 20% or so of his income. Now this isn't a bad guy. He's not doing anything wrong. That's just how our tax code is written. The moment I started my own business (a legal recruiting firm), I got a couple dozen deductions you don't get. The more I make, the more I can avoid paying taxes on. It's just how it works.
Now. Can a manager at a retail store making $50K a year afford to defer or divert half their income? Nope. Would they get the same tax breaks if they did? A few but not most of them because they're not a business owner like those 400 people to whom you refer.
Can a small business owner who makes $50K a year do what these folks do? Legally they can but in application, it's probably not practical. They'd starve.

So yes, the tax codes favor the rich. Oh well. As things are picking up for us (the legal biz is benefitting right now), I'm ambivalent. But would I lose sleep over two points on the NET? Not really.

I do find it interesting that the very people who have claimed all our problems would be solved if only we lowered taxes on "job creators", are now complaining about Obama's jobs bill - which is substantially tax cuts.
So Bush's temporary tax cuts were great but Obama's are terrible. Check.

First - You have some valid points, but like you just explained by raising JUST income tax on the upper class won't really do anything to the super-rich since they can just divert there earning into stocks, commodities and plenty of other loopholes. This is why there is need for general tax reformation, not just tax hiking the people making 200k+ a year (which btw includes surgeons not just fat-cat big business suits)

Second - the Obama bill doesn't only include temporary tax cuts for small and midsize businesses, its a wordy 200 page bill that I haven't completely read yet. I'll try to get back on that later.

Third - (for chris) as for millionaires paying more in taxes, well the IRS disagrees... sorry.

"Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent."

Came out yesterday on fox news.

Fourth - (back to you) Thank you for an Intelligent AND bipartisan view on the subject. I didn't think it was possible.

 

[cutter]

Why should the poor pay any different rate from the middle class, or the rich, or the upper middle class, or whatever other class??

When there is a call for equal treatment by government under law, it is not just supposed to apply to the situations that benefit you, and to then throw it away in the areas that don't benefit you....

But that is EXACTLY what the likes of Chrissy suport

The poor pay 0% along with 48% of all Americans. 0% is that fair enough for you?

 

[asterism]

Here's the hurdle that the GOP and its cherished love of the superwealthy are facing.

The rich keep getting richer and richer while the rest of us starve?

Fuck them!

It's going to take one shitload of propaganda to convince the American public that they deserve to keep getting poorer while the MASTERS keep getting richer.

Apparently 70% of the public thinks the rich ought to pay more taxes.

I think it unwise to impose additional taxes, right now, but in the longer run I quite agree with the majority on this issue.

We've given the rich far too much in the last 40 years.

Our current fibrilating economy is the end result of those stupid policies.

Who is getting poorer?

 

[DiamondDave]

Why should the poor pay any different rate from the middle class, or the rich, or the upper middle class, or whatever other class??

When there is a call for equal treatment by government under law, it is not just supposed to apply to the situations that benefit you, and to then throw it away in the areas that don't benefit you....

But that is EXACTLY what the likes of Chrissy suport

The poor pay 0% along with 48% of all Americans. 0% is that fair enough for you?

Don't sound like equal treatment with the other 52% to me

 

[IndependntLogic]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

People with higher incomes have almost always paid less in taxes. Their rate doesn't matter because they have so many more tools at their disposal for avoidance (as opposed to evasion).
For example, we just structured the comp for a partner at a law firm. He'll get a million a year but it's broken down in a few different ways. $200K will come as shares in the firm - which have a guaranteed buyout plus interest for every year he stays. Some will go to the firm's investment fund. Think about the value of that. These guys know who is going to Merge / Acquire etc... before it ever happens. Not that they would ever use that info to their advantage Then there is the retirement account, life insurance etc...
So he'll end up with an actual income of about $500K. But wait there's more! As a partner, he gets a company car - a Mercedes 500CLS. His Learjet (which isn't as great as a Gulfstream but it's still COOL!) is deductible. So are his phones, computers, membership in the country club and so on.
So even though he uses these things for personal purposes (as well as business of course), he'll get at least $100K off the top.
Then of course, his wife owns an interior decorating business. She has to buy all kinds of expensive furniture for their home because she uses it as a showcase. Her business loses about $100K for two years and then shows a profit of $20K for one year. That means once every three years they pay an extra $10K in taxes - but 2 out of 3 years, they save $50K in taxes PLUS they get to write of the cost of a lot of their funrinture! (We're talking $30K for a dining room set folks).
So he'll end up paying income taxes on about $350 - $400K. Probably around 20% or so of his income. Now this isn't a bad guy. He's not doing anything wrong. That's just how our tax code is written. The moment I started my own business (a legal recruiting firm), I got a couple dozen deductions you don't get. The more I make, the more I can avoid paying taxes on. It's just how it works.
Now. Can a manager at a retail store making $50K a year afford to defer or divert half their income? Nope. Would they get the same tax breaks if they did? A few but not most of them because they're not a business owner like those 400 people to whom you refer.
Can a small business owner who makes $50K a year do what these folks do? Legally they can but in application, it's probably not practical. They'd starve.

So yes, the tax codes favor the rich. Oh well. As things are picking up for us (the legal biz is benefitting right now), I'm ambivalent. But would I lose sleep over two points on the NET? Not really.

I do find it interesting that the very people who have claimed all our problems would be solved if only we lowered taxes on "job creators", are now complaining about Obama's jobs bill - which is substantially tax cuts.
So Bush's temporary tax cuts were great but Obama's are terrible. Check.

First - You have some valid points, but like you just explained by raising JUST income tax on the upper class won't really do anything to the super-rich since they can just divert there earning into stocks, commodities and plenty of other loopholes. This is why there is need for general tax reformation, not just tax hiking the people making 200k+ a year (which btw includes surgeons not just fat-cat big business suits)

Second - the Obama bill doesn't only include temporary tax cuts for small and midsize businesses, its a wordy 200 page bill that I haven't completely read yet. I'll try to get back on that later.

Third - (for chris) as for millionaires paying more in taxes, well the IRS disagrees... sorry.

"Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent."

Came out yesterday on fox news.

Fourth - (back to you) Thank you for an Intelligent AND bipartisan view on the subject. I didn't think it was possible.

Thanks. Like I said, I have mixed feelings about it. We really need to just overhaul that tax code - Fair Tax, Flat Tax, Eyeball Tax.... SOMETHING. But that's not going to happen.

So once you hit about $200K or so, guess what? Here's a really big secret! Go ahead guess! Those with higher incomes have advantages. They are treated better. Especially if they own all or part of a business. Big secret right? I can't believe there are people out there who dont grasp this or even deny it.
Hell, when my wife and I go down to the strip (we live in Vegas), we never pay for rooms, REALLY nice dinners (although a lot of times, I'm able to talk her into having Cappriotti's Philly Cheesesteak OMG they're so good!), shirts & blouses, purses and all kinds of knickknacks and stuff. But people who are working at the local McDonald's? They pay for everything.
That's just pretty much the way it is.
So if Obama raises the tax rate on those making over say $250K by 2 or 3 points, guess what the net effect will actually be? Guess how much our lives will actually be impacted? Is it fair to tax us only because we make more? Nope. It's not. I guess I'll have to suffer through not treating my mother-in-law to one extra evening of Phantom or Lion King...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

 

[Oddball]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

I tried to tell them that the 1040 doesn't have a line that asks "are you a really, really rich dude?", which subsequently gives them a $100,000 deduction, but they're too hung up on their covetous bitching and moaning to notice.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

I don't watch news on the boob tube. Unlike you i actually read and form my own opinions. I do not need to step up to the misinformation trough with the rest of you fucking sheep.

That you don't know the difference between earned income and capital gains is your own fault little sheep.

 

[Avorysuds]

How many Obamabots are going to start this exact thread with this exact message?


Whether or not you want taxes raised on evil demagogue rich people, your hero didn't do it when he had a full 2 year window with almost nothing but democrats in office with him.


Your dream of taxing the rich isn't shared by your messiah or your other cape-wearing democrats.

Correct, it's a talking point and there was no way Obama or the Dems want that talking point gone... Not tom mention all the money they would lose to their campaigns, Obama getting more from corporations than any politician in history n all..

 

[Oddball]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

Nice strawman (Fox)...Again.

Rate scales on taxable income from either wages/salaries etcetera or on investment income don't change just because you're "rich"....That is simply matter of fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should the rich pay a lower rate in taxes than the rest of us? Because a long time ago smart people realized that investing in businesses created jobs and a better life for most Americans. That capital came from those who could invest. Out of this wisdom grew the idea of a capital gains tax, which was lower than earned income rates to encourage this investment. System works really well, until the government decides they NEED more money.

The tax rate for the rich in the 90's was 30% and unemployment was 5%.

The tax rate for the rich now is 17% and umemployment is 9%.

Did lowering taxes for the rich create jobs or eliminate them?

Actually, the tax rate for the rich now is 35%, and unemployment is 9%+. If we apply your logic we should lower the taxes. but the truth si those numbers have nothing to do with one another.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Show me what rate those same 400 people paid in the 1990s.

You are disingenuous when you say "the tax rate for the rich is now 17%." It's the average tax rate for those 400 people.

That list of 400 changes every year, unless the IRS is lying.

 

[oreo]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

And here is Barack Obama--August 5, 2009 stating why he would not raise ANYONE'S taxes.

Video: Obama Says Raising Taxes During a Recession Not a Good Idea | Verum Serum

 

[IndependntLogic]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

I don't watch news on the boob tube. Unlike you i actually read and form my own opinions. I do not need to step up to the misinformation trough with the rest of you fucking sheep.

That you don't know the difference between earned income and capital gains is your own fault little sheep.

Ahhh. Okay. Sorry. Didn't realize you were a stupid whackjob. Here, since it's so simple, why don't you pick this apart. This is the kind of deal we structure all the time. Since you're so uh "sophisticated" in this regard, it should be easy for you and the aptly named Oddball!

People with higher incomes have almost always paid less in taxes. Their rate doesn't matter because they have so many more tools at their disposal for avoidance (as opposed to evasion).
For example, we just structured the comp for a partner at a law firm. He'll get a million a year but it's broken down in a few different ways. $200K will come as shares in the firm - which have a guaranteed buyout plus interest for every year he stays. No taxes on that money until he takes it, when it will be offset with other vehicles.
Some will go to the firm's investment fund. Think about the value of that. These guys know who is going to Merge / Acquire etc... before it ever happens. Not that they would ever use that info to their advantage Then there is the retirement account, life insurance etc... which is not taxed until received and then again, it is offset in other ways or put into a trust and not taxed at all.
So he'll end up with an actual income of about $500K. But wait there's more! As a partner, he gets a company car - a Mercedes 500CLS. His Learjet (which isn't as great as a Gulfstream but it's still COOL!) is deductible. So are his phones, computers, membership in the country club and so on.
So even though he uses these things for personal purposes (as well as business of course), he'll get at least another $100K off the top.
Then of course, his wife owns an interior decorating business. She has to buy all kinds of expensive furniture for their home because she uses it as a showcase. Her business loses about $100K for two years and then shows a profit of $20K for one year. That means once every three years they pay an extra $10K in taxes - but 2 out of 3 years, they save $50K in taxes PLUS they get to write of the cost of a lot of their funrinture! (We're talking $30K for a dining room set folks).
So he'll end up paying income taxes on about $350 - $400K. Probably around 20% or so of his income. Now this isn't a bad guy. He's not doing anything wrong. That's just how our tax code is written. The moment I started my own business (a legal recruiting firm), I got a couple dozen deductions you don't get. The more I make, the more I can avoid paying taxes on. It's just how it works.
Now. Can a manager at a retail store making $50K a year afford to defer or divert half their income? Nope. Would they get the same tax breaks if they did? A few but not most of them because they're not a business owner like those 400 people to whom you refer.
Can a small business owner who makes $50K a year do what these folks do? Legally they can but in application, it's probably not practical. They'd starve.

So yes, the tax codes favor the rich. Oh well. As things are picking up for us (the legal biz is benefitting right now), I'm ambivalent. But would I lose sleep over two points on the NET? Not really.

I do find it interesting that the very people who have claimed all our problems would be solved if only we lowered taxes on "job creators", are now complaining about Obama's jobs bill - which is substantially tax cuts.
So Bush's temporary tax cuts were great but Obama's are terrible. Check.

Now you notice how my post is not just whackjob bumper-sticker bullsh1t sold by RW media OR LW media? Just observation of fact which of course, because it doesn't agree with that nice little kindergarten phrase from your memorized soundbites, stirs the implanted reaction.
So since I don't just parrot your cute little mantras, instead of intelligently discussing issues, you cute little whackjobs get your panties in a bunch and start with the petty insults about how "other people" are sheep, unintelligent etc...
So how much deferred income are your taking this year? Do you work with DC or DB? Are you avoiding those pesky 10b's? Doin a lot of work on those 1120's? Do you have a nice GP guaranteed as long as you adhere to your NCA? Or is it more of a GH?
Surely Mensa members like yourselves deal with those hassles every day!

 

[oreo]

The tax rate for the rich in the 90's was 30% and unemployment was 5%.

The tax rate for the rich now is 17% and umemployment is 9%.

Did lowering taxes for the rich create jobs or eliminate them?

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Show me what rate those same 400 people paid in the 1990s.

You are disingenuous when you say "the tax rate for the rich is now 17%." It's the average tax rate for those 400 people.

That list of 400 changes every year, unless the IRS is lying.

Well here is yesterday's FACT CHECK REPORT from the AP--that says much different than what Obama has been preaching lately

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - Yahoo! News

 

[Oddball]

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

I don't watch news on the boob tube. Unlike you i actually read and form my own opinions. I do not need to step up to the misinformation trough with the rest of you fucking sheep.

That you don't know the difference between earned income and capital gains is your own fault little sheep.

Ahhh. Okay. Sorry. Didn't realize you were a stupid whackjob. Here, since it's so simple, why don't you pick this apart. This is the kind of deal we structure all the time. Since you're so uh "sophisticated" in this regard, it should be easy for you and the aptly named Oddball!

blablablamaumaumauyammeryammeryammer.....

Helpful hint: Even though bloviating text walls, going into excruciating details of the already understood complexities of the IRC, might score you some points with the port and brie set, they don't impress anyone of consequence around here, with the possible exception of yourself....But you've already shown yourself to be insufferably impressed and pleased with yourself, so that one is pretty much a wash.

Fact remains that the rates remain the same, only the abilities to obtain deductions and credits vary.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

I don't watch news on the boob tube. Unlike you i actually read and form my own opinions. I do not need to step up to the misinformation trough with the rest of you fucking sheep.

That you don't know the difference between earned income and capital gains is your own fault little sheep.

Ahhh. Okay. Sorry. Didn't realize you were a stupid whackjob. Here, since it's so simple, why don't you pick this apart. This is the kind of deal we structure all the time. Since you're so uh "sophisticated" in this regard, it should be easy for you and the aptly named Oddball!

People with higher incomes have almost always paid less in taxes. Their rate doesn't matter because they have so many more tools at their disposal for avoidance (as opposed to evasion).
For example, we just structured the comp for a partner at a law firm. He'll get a million a year but it's broken down in a few different ways. $200K will come as shares in the firm - which have a guaranteed buyout plus interest for every year he stays. No taxes on that money until he takes it, when it will be offset with other vehicles.
Some will go to the firm's investment fund. Think about the value of that. These guys know who is going to Merge / Acquire etc... before it ever happens. Not that they would ever use that info to their advantage Then there is the retirement account, life insurance etc... which is not taxed until received and then again, it is offset in other ways or put into a trust and not taxed at all.
So he'll end up with an actual income of about $500K. But wait there's more! As a partner, he gets a company car - a Mercedes 500CLS. His Learjet (which isn't as great as a Gulfstream but it's still COOL!) is deductible. So are his phones, computers, membership in the country club and so on.
So even though he uses these things for personal purposes (as well as business of course), he'll get at least another $100K off the top.
Then of course, his wife owns an interior decorating business. She has to buy all kinds of expensive furniture for their home because she uses it as a showcase. Her business loses about $100K for two years and then shows a profit of $20K for one year. That means once every three years they pay an extra $10K in taxes - but 2 out of 3 years, they save $50K in taxes PLUS they get to write of the cost of a lot of their funrinture! (We're talking $30K for a dining room set folks).
So he'll end up paying income taxes on about $350 - $400K. Probably around 20% or so of his income. Now this isn't a bad guy. He's not doing anything wrong. That's just how our tax code is written. The moment I started my own business (a legal recruiting firm), I got a couple dozen deductions you don't get. The more I make, the more I can avoid paying taxes on. It's just how it works.
Now. Can a manager at a retail store making $50K a year afford to defer or divert half their income? Nope. Would they get the same tax breaks if they did? A few but not most of them because they're not a business owner like those 400 people to whom you refer.
Can a small business owner who makes $50K a year do what these folks do? Legally they can but in application, it's probably not practical. They'd starve.

So yes, the tax codes favor the rich. Oh well. As things are picking up for us (the legal biz is benefitting right now), I'm ambivalent. But would I lose sleep over two points on the NET? Not really.

I do find it interesting that the very people who have claimed all our problems would be solved if only we lowered taxes on "job creators", are now complaining about Obama's jobs bill - which is substantially tax cuts.
So Bush's temporary tax cuts were great but Obama's are terrible. Check.

Now you notice how my post is not just whackjob bumper-sticker bullsh1t sold by RW media OR LW media? Just observation of fact which of course, because it doesn't agree with that nice little kindergarten phrase from your memorized soundbites, stirs the implanted reaction.
So since I don't just parrot your cute little mantras, instead of intelligently discussing issues, you cute little whackjobs get your panties in a bunch and start with the petty insults about how "other people" are sheep, unintelligent etc...
So how much deferred income are your taking this year? Do you work with DC or DB? Are you avoiding those pesky 10b's? Doin a lot of work on those 1120's? Do you have a nice GP guaranteed as long as you adhere to your NCA? Or is it more of a GH?
Surely Mensa members like yourselves deal with those hassles every day!

I happen to own my own business that nets over a million a year.

I take a portion of my income as stock dividends. I defer taxes via a safe harbor plan. I invest after tax money to the tune of 50K a year I have a couple deferred comp plans via life insurance and i have several other side ventures as a silent partner.

Don't think you can dazzle me little sheep.

And I don't remember saying anything about tax cuts.

What I do remember is saying that the tax rates (which is what this thread is about by the way) paid on earned income and capital gains are the same for everyone. It's you who seem to have problem with that simple fact and seem to feel the need to prove oh how smart you are.

I've found that the people who have to tell everyone how smart they are usually aren't. So run along little sheep. I'm sure there's a politician on TV right now spouting some rah rah sis-boom-bah that will get you all fired up for the night.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Why do idiots like you breath oxygen?

The top INCOME TAX RATE is 35%.

Just because assholes like Warren Buffet live off interest and only pay 15% on his capital gains taxes doesn't mean other rich people EARNING their income are paying such a low tax rate.

Oh, if you increase the capital gains rate then you will see the economy get even worse like what happened under Jimmy bucktooth Carter in the 70s.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com