These are not the class warfare droids that you are looking for.

[Nordic Viking]

A really good chart would also include an additional bar: Overall taxes as a percentage of income.

Exactly, especially since these strawman graphs are supposed to be an argument against the Buffet Tax rule, as you stated they should have 3 more brackets to the right of 75k+ and show what % was paid in taxes.

[jdm61]

Really? So are you saying that there is no such thing? That's funny, since as far as I can tell, at least two of the three largest fortunes in the US, the Walton and Gates fortunes, were, in fact, made by "self made men" unless you consider the fact that Bill Gates went to Havard for a couple of years as being some kind of societal grant that permitted him to make tens of billions of dollars. Sam Walton started off as a Ben Franklin 5710 franchisee and figured that he could do it better with his own plan. Sounds like a self made man "building a better mousetrap" to me. Warren Buffett is the guy who perhaps made his fortune by gambling on the sweet of others, so maybe he should pay more, right? If you believe the evil Forbes list, 11 of the top 20 richest people in the US are self made. Another 4 or so are Walton heirs, the children of the ultimate self made man and the rest have names like Koch (brothers who inherited a small refinery from their father and turned it into the second biggest diversified private company in the US) and Mars. Hell, they even list that flaming commie George Soros as a self made man, but after all, he was a refugee from the failed 1956 uprising in Hungary.

Somebody displays an unhealthy belief in the myth of the self-made man.

[lepto]

The fallacious assumption underlying that argument is that Romney would have never made his money but for some nebulous largesse granted him by a benevolent government. If he had made his money elsewhere and then immigrated to the US, would he be liable for increased taxes merely because he was given the gift of a green card or does the rule only apply to those who have made their fortunes by walking over the crushed and broken bodies of the American proletariat for an extended period of time?

The fallacious assumption is that it matters where one makes his/her money. If you live in the US you derive a benefit from living here in proportion to your income and/or wealth. The wealthier one is the greater the benefit one derives from society consequently the more one should pay towards the support of that society. That those who have the highest incomes and benefit the most, from the institutions that under-gird our society, should pay less, such as a Mitt Romney, is a testament to our credulousness as individuals and as a nation.

[jdm61]

Ahhhh. So those who do nothing should not only pay nothing be be paid from the fruits of the labor of those who do? Good plan. I guess that where we differ is on the whole "opportunity cost" issue. The mere fact that you live in the US does not mean that you "derive" this great benefit for that reason only. I should point out that the system that you think that strains the credulity of our nation is the one that got us where we are today and the system that you seem to favor is one that, in the minds of some, is leading to our decline.

The fallacious assumption is that it matters where one makes his/her money. If you live in the US you derive a benefit from living here in proportion to your income and/or wealth. The wealthier one is the greater the benefit one derives from society consequently the more one should pay towards the support of that society. That those who have the highest incomes and benefit the most, from the institutions that under-gird our society, should pay less, such as a Mitt Romney, is a testament to our credulousness as individuals and as a nation.

[timcsaw]

The fallacious assumption is that it matters where one makes his/her money. If you live in the US you derive a benefit from living here in proportion to your income and/or wealth. The wealthier one is the greater the benefit one derives from society consequently the more one should pay towards the support of that society. That those who have the highest incomes and benefit the most, from the institutions that under-gird our society, should pay less, such as a Mitt Romney, is a testament to our credulousness as individuals and as a nation.

I don't get it... Tell me again how the fire department arrives sooner, works harder, and does a better job saving the home of a wealthy person, as opposed to the less wealthy person's home next door to them. I'm still not clear how you arrive at the conclusion that one person derives a greater benefit from society, and therefore should pay more toward the support of that society.

Potential is potential is potential. Effort and opportunity are codependent.

[MVF]

The fallacious assumption is that it matters where one makes his/her money. If you live in the US you derive a benefit from living here in proportion to your income and/or wealth. The wealthier one is the greater the benefit one derives from society consequently the more one should pay towards the support of that society. That those who have the highest incomes and benefit the most, from the institutions that under-gird our society, should pay less, such as a Mitt Romney, is a testament to our credulousness as individuals and as a nation.

It would seem that a flat tax would perfectly address this. And yet, as far as we are from that "fair" solution, the liberals want to move even farther. You either need to change your aim or change your argument.

[quietmike]

The fallacious assumption is that it matters where one makes his/her money. If you live in the US you derive a benefit from living here in proportion to your income and/or wealth. The wealthier one is the greater the benefit one derives from society consequently the more one should pay towards the support of that society. That those who have the highest incomes and benefit the most, from the institutions that under-gird our society, should pay less, such as a Mitt Romney, is a testament to our credulousness as individuals and as a nation.

You leave out the extra work, time, and education that goes into making that money. The free market system is like a compound interest machine. The more you put in and the sooner you put it in, the more you will get out of it.

Yes you do derive extra benefit if you have more money, that is the incentive for working harder than the next guy.

[Triton]

Exactly, especially since these strawman graphs are supposed to be an argument against the Buffet Tax rule, as you stated they should have 3 more brackets to the right of 75k+ and show what % was paid in taxes.

Again I ask the question, are you suggesting that three more bars to the right would show that those people are in fact NOT paying a higher percentage of the taxes than they are making of the income?

[Triton]

The fallacious assumption is that it matters where one makes his/her money. If you live in the US you derive a benefit from living here in proportion to your income and/or wealth. The wealthier one is the greater the benefit one derives from society consequently the more one should pay towards the support of that society. That those who have the highest incomes and benefit the most, from the institutions that under-gird our society, should pay less, such as a Mitt Romney, is a testament to our credulousness as individuals and as a nation.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the wealthy are in fact NOT paying more to support society?

[OliverH]

Again I ask the question, are you suggesting that three more bars to the right would show that those people are in fact NOT paying a higher percentage of the taxes than they are making of the income?

They are paying slightly more, but very little, and not nearly to the extent that the other chart (like so many similar items trotted out to defend the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privileged) was concocted to have us believe. Here's a page with a couple of worthwhile graphs showing a calculation of the total tax bite across all income groups. There doesn't seem to be much difference in the total percentage of income paid for taxes once you get past the third quintile of income.

[jdm61]

48% of the people are paying nothing. That same group is probably using MOST of the entitlement services provided by the government. King Barack the Magnificent, even at his greatly reduced rate, probably paid $400,000 in income taxes last year. he is TOALLY living off he taxpayer at this time to the tune of tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Romney probably paid closer to $4-5 million in income taxes. What is he getting back other than demands for forced altruism because "the people" gave him his millions? Next question.

They are paying slightly more, but very little, and not nearly to the extent that the other chart (like so many similar items trotted out to defend the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privileged) was concocted to have us believe. Here's a page with a couple of worthwhile graphs showing a calculation of the total tax bite across all income groups. There doesn't seem to be much difference in the total percentage of income paid for taxes once you get past the third quintile of income.

[OliverH]

48% of the people are paying nothing. That same group is probably using MOST of the entitlement services provided by the government. King Barack the Magnificent, even at his greatly reduced rate, probably paid $400,000 in income taxes last year. he is TOALLY living off he taxpayer at this time to the tune of tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Romney probably paid closer to $4-5 million in income taxes. What is he getting back other than demands for forced altruism because "the people" gave him his millions? Next question.

In addition to expressing an irrelevant and knee-jerk hatred of Obama, your post IMO reflects a common but unfortunate wealth-worship and an even more common and unfortunate implicit contempt for the poor--which is rather amusing given that you started the entire thread with a complaint about "class warfare."

The problem is actually well-illustrated by the recent revelations about the relative tax bites of Romney, Obama, and Obama's secretary. Romney's effective tax rate on however many millions he cashed in from dividends and selling stock was about 15%; Obama's about 20% on taxable income of $800K or so (less than what you suggest); and Obama's secretary paid a somewhat higher rate than that (they won't be specific) on income of $95K. This isn't about people being dishonest, or even greedy. The comparison may not be entirely representative, but it makes a fair point about the tax code being out of whack, and for the most part in the favor of the rich.

As for those people who pay nothing--by which you actually mean "no income taxes," what are you suggesting? That at a time of economic distress and after several decades of increasing economic inequality, we need to reduce taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor, even as we cut back on the social programs they depend on? That seems to be the program being advanced by many here in the name of "fairness" and "responsibility." Maybe the GOP should dump Mitt in favor of a ticket featuring Ebenezer Scrooge and Marie Antoinette.

[jdm61]

My understudying it that the Obamas made a corrected $750,000 last year and $1,700,000 the year before. Yeah, I don't like Obama because I think that he is a narcissistic prick who is in love with the sound of his own voice and has absolute contempt for a very large percentage of his own countrymen and he's a crooked Chicago machine politicians to boot. So sue me. As for my contempt for the poor, well, I goes you have me there. I really hate the half of all Americans that are allegedly poor. By the way, dividends are not taxed at 15% for someone in Romney's bracket so his income came from long term capital gains. You also forgot to mention that the POOR pay a lower capital gains rate than Romney does on such things as a sale of a house that they have owned for long enough to actually have equity in. As for the people paying no taxes, that, for once, actually is Bush's fault and Obama has no intention of repealing THAT part of the Evil Bush Tax Cuts. As for the new ticket, how about Adolf Hitler and Simon Legree so we can get the race baiting element too?

In addition to expressing an irrelevant and knee-jerk hatred of Obama, your post IMO reflects a common but unfortunate wealth-worship and an even more common and unfortunate implicit contempt for the poor--which is rather amusing given that you started the entire thread with a complaint about "class warfare."

The problem is actually well-illustrated by the recent revelations about the relative tax bites of Romney, Obama, and Obama's secretary. Romney's effective tax rate on however many millions he cashed in from dividends and selling stock was about 15%; Obama's about 20% on taxable income of $800K or so (less than what you suggest); and Obama's secretary paid a somewhat higher rate than that (they won't be specific) on income of $95K. This isn't about people being dishonest, or even greedy. The comparison may not be entirely representative, but it makes a fair point about the tax code being out of whack, and for the most part in the favor of the rich.

As for those people who pay nothing--by which you actually mean "no income taxes," what are you suggesting? That at a time of economic distress and after several decades of increasing economic inequality, we need to reduce taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor, even as we cut back on the social programs they depend on? That seems to be the program being advanced by many here in the name of "fairness" and "responsibility." Maybe the GOP should dump Mitt in favor of a ticket featuring Ebenezer Scrooge and Marie Antoinette.

[Nordic Viking]

My understudying it that the Obamas made $2,000,000 last year and $6,000,000 the year before.

Or you could have googled it and found out the amount.

[jdm61]

True. the higher amount of over $1.7 million was from 2010, not 2011. He made about the same in 2005 and almost $1 million in 2006. I guess those book sales picked back up after 2008. of course, that doesn't count the $1.4 million in Nobel money and the profits from his children's book he gave away. Shouldn't have he given that to the government instead? After all, they know best how to use it.

Or you could have googled it and found out the amount.

[OliverH]

My understudying it that the Obamas made $2,000,000 last year and $6,000,000 the year before.

I think you're off by a year. The various articles I've seen said that Obama's income dropped along with sales of his books, and that though he made $5.5 million in 2009, and $1.8 million in 2010, he made less than a million last year. Here's a link to an image of his actual return for 2011. (It would be nice to think it will not generate as many conspiracy theories and howls of disbelief as did his birth certificate, but the usual delusional suspects are still abroad in the land.) I'll leave it as an exercise for any interested reader to dig up the ones from prior years.

Anyway, I thought the discussion was about tax policy, not scoring personal gotchas against particular politicians. Or was that just the ostensible subject? It's starting to look like it.

[jdm61]

The discussion is about differing views of what constitutes fairness among other things. You seem to be of the school that thinks that those who have been more successful should be penalized even more than they already are. I disagree.

[OliverH]

The discussion is about differing views of what constitutes fairness among other things. You seem to be of the school that thinks that those who have been more successful should be penalized even more than they already are. I disagree.

Taxes aren't penalties. They're taxes. You'd clearly rather cast the argument in inaccurate emotive terms, which don't interest me, and which I'm not buying.

I bear no ill will or hatred toward the rich, it just seems right and fair to me that they pay a much greater percentage of their income or wealth in taxes than do people who are a lot worse off. In particular, the charts I posted (and which you have studiously ignored) would indicate that if nothing else, cutting taxes on the rich (as you seem to advocate) would result in them paying a smaller overall portion of their income in taxes than many others who are worse off. Nor have you bothered answering my direct question about whether you want to raise taxes on the people at the bottom (who you complain pay "nothing") at the same time. Your complaints about the injustice of it all seem logically to lead to that conclusion. If that's not your agenda, then what are you griping about?

[quietmike]

You seem to be of the school that thinks that those who have been more successful should be penalized even more than they already are. I disagree.

It is number two of their 10 point plan....

[jdm61]

No, I understand that the courts have said that taxation is a political question and as such, is not subject to the normal legal restrictions like equal protection. The law says that a progressive tax system is not a "penalty" but the rhetoric says otherwise. To say that these folks are not paying enough and that is unfair implies that they have done something to create this unfair situation and should be punished. As for "raising taxes for people on the bottom" i never actually said that. What i meant to imply was that as long as they are NOT paying any income tax, they should shut their pie holes about those evil, idle rich are ARE paying taxes and a lot of them. You cannot complain about fairness as far as how much you are paying in taxes compared to someone else when you are paying nothing. That system seems MORE than fair as applied to that particular group, especially when a pretty fair percentage of those folks are being given the money collected from the top 50% DIRECTLY in the form of things like EBT/SNAP payments these days. My complaints about injustice stem from the idea that those who have more for whatever reason and already pay more are not paying enough.

Taxes aren't penalties. They're taxes. You'd clearly rather cast the argument in inaccurate emotive terms, which don't interest me, and which I'm not buying.

I bear no ill will or hatred toward the rich, it just seems right and fair to me that they pay a much greater percentage of their income or wealth in taxes than do people who are a lot worse off. In particular, the charts I posted (and which you have studiously ignored) would indicate that if nothing else, cutting taxes on the rich (as you seem to advocate) would result in them paying a smaller overall portion of their income in taxes than many others who are worse off. Nor have you bothered answering my direct question about whether you want to raise taxes on the people at the bottom (who you complain pay "nothing") at the same time. Your complaints about the injustice of it all seem logically to lead to that conclusion. If that's not your agenda, then what are you griping about?