You have no clue what you are saying, where exactly is he cheating?

All Buffet is saying is the current code that allows 15% on capital gains is not fair, that does not exactly add up to a redistribution of wealth as in a communist system, we are far from that.

I guess facts really don't matter to you when it is all about party ideology.

Warren Buffett's companies owe millions in back taxes. He is a tax cheat extraordinaire.

Buffets companies owe 1 billion in back taxes. I think that qualifies him as a tax cheat.

Sucking up to Obama may be his strategy to get out of paying some of those taxes.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

give us the source of your information.

obama's mortgage bailout is just one more of his redistribution of wealth effort's!!!

Buffet is just one more of obama's troll's, like GE's jeff Immelt!!

Vote soros, van jones and obama OUT!!!

I hope the capital gains rate stays at 15%; at least for small time investors like me. Maybe a tiered system like income?

Investing is like a second job for me. I enjoy the additional income I get for just clicking a mouse button.

Yea Right, he wrote it in all caps. That makes it true. No citation needed. Don't believe it? Okay, then he will copy and paste it enough times so that he can later cite himself.

If Warren Buffet feels that paying 15% taxes on dividends is not fair then he should take his entire income in salary and pay taxes on that income. He complains that he doesn't pay enough in taxes yet he continues to take advantage of this supposed loophole.

I am not rich- just a small business owner that works seven days a week, sometimes until 11 at night.

At what point did Americans go from people chasing the dream to people just standing around waiting for the dream to be handed out?

This story notes that the only part of the 99% really affected by this inequality are the ones making 100,000 or more per year. How many of the protesters do you think are making that kind of money?

I would wager the percentage to come in around zero.

Unfortunately, that has become the face of our country- A bunch of people standing around bitching about something they don't understand.

The issue is not capital gains compared to regular income, it is the loop holes. A lot of holes exist for the wealthy, but also credits should not result in 40.5% of Americans getting free money from the government as that is wealth redistribution. Closing the loop holes for the Rich and Poor will help rebuild the middle class in this country.

If they are making 80% of the wealth, they should be paying 80% of the taxes, not 65%.

I'd say that Buffett is a tax cheat because he does not pay himself a fair market value salary. He receives a salary of $100,000.00, which, although a lot for most of us, is extremely low for someone in his position. So he avoids paying tax at the higher rates imposed on wages and he also does not pay the additional medicare tax of 2.9% on the missed wages. Based on executive market pay and how well Buffett has managed his company he should be making tens of millions of dollars in salary per year.

One point made at the end of the article that I thought was very true is that inequality is a pre-tax phenonomen and to what extent should taxes rebalance that inequality??

yea jac

there are alot of progressive liberals and a few digressive conservatives out there.

We know who 99% of the problem comes from.

I'd say that Buffett is a tax cheat because he does not pay himself a fair market value salary.

That is an odd definition for 'cheating'. If Buffett et. al. pay their legal tax obligations (follow the rules) they by definition are not cheating. If Buffett chooses to NOT take a large salary (or take zero salary as is true for retirees) he is in no way even stretching the law.

When you buy a product from a cheaper source are you cheating? Paying more for a product would infuse more money into the economy and exact a higher sales tax from you. So why don't we pass a law forcing everyone to pay top dollar for everything?

Buffett et. al. do have a decided advantage over the rest of the population but it is not what you are complaining about. The advantage of the aristocracy is their power to influence the rules of the game itself in their favor (see: lobbying, collusion, FRB, etc.). This silly bickering about capital gains taxation misses the point. Besides, everyone (the 99%) with a 401k or other similar investments would not want to see capital gain taxes rise (the common 'solution') since that would effectively cut their retirement, college, etc. nesteggs.

First of all, it is common knowlege Buffet has a huge tax bill in duspute with the IRS. Google it yourself rather than being a sanctimonious pi$$ant.

Second, in response to "tb," above, you are dead on. We know the facts the libs love not to know:

50% of all Americans pay no taxes. Whether they fall under the rate or get tax credits is irrelevant. They pay no taxes!

20% (that's onin five) of all Americans are some of gov'y assistance (net including medicare). You kn ow they check that you and many heres wait for in the mail. The food stamps the unwashed pi$$ away on junk foor and soda. Welfare....remember that? this accounts for 70% (SEVENTY PERCENT) of the federal gov't budget.

Look it up yourselves, m,ost of you have plent of time on your hands, but as is the reule, are too lazy to do the legwork.

And yes....I think you are mostly lazy, waiting for that check in the mail.....Pffffffffffft!

And what's the current firgre, I think, the 1% pay over 50% of tax revenue, no?

This article is deceiving. Yes the wealthy bring in more taxes at a lower rate but that is missing the point. If the majority of people pay 30% taxes then so should everyone else. And to say that wall street produces anything or makes our society better is a joke.

obama's mortgage bailout is just one more of his redistribution of wealth effort's!!!

Not to mention that he screwed over the people who lost their houses due to fraudulent foreclosures implemented by the banks. When the government stepped in and negotiated this deal, it is clear that political expediency trumped doing what was right. The banks are getting off the hook by making some token gestures that Obama can use as talking points in his campaign for re-election, while some of the parties damaged by the banks may get a paltry couple of thousand dollars.

SI

mdsj,

I think you are the one who missed the point. The article pointed out the following effective tax rates:

> $1,000,000 per year = 25% tax rate

$100,000 to $500,000 per year = 19% tax rate

$100,000 to $200,000 per year = 12% tax rate

$75,000 to $100,000 per year = 8% tax rate

So who are the majority of people paying 30%? By definition of the tax code, nobody.

It sounds to me like the high earners are paying, what I would consider, their fair share.

The different rate for capital gains may need to be changed, but doing this may also have an unwanted negative affect on the poor and middle class by driving those investment funds to other countries (the wealthy probably won't be affected much because they have the means to take advantage of other tax options).

The wealthiest Americans may pay at lower rates, but they pay more in total taxes.

Oh! I feel SOOOO sorry for them!

Mitt Romney's kids paid ZERO taxes on $100,000,000 in income! ZERO tax!

Americans earning more than $1 million in 2009 paid at an average income tax rate of 25 percent (13% for Mitt Romney), while the average rate for taxpayers earning $75,000 to $100,000 was 8 percent.

Conveniently omitting the fact that taxpayers earning between $75,000 and 100,000 ALSO pay 15.6% in Social Security and Medicare taxes, while Romney and the other millionaires pay less than 0.1% toward Social Security and Medicare.

Those people earning $75,000 to 100,000 are paying federal taxes at roughly DOUBLE the rate of Mitt Romney.

Anyone notice the other article about how far behind America is in Math and Science?

Liberalism has taken America from a nation of doers to a nation of whiners. Why learn to fish for yourself when you can vote Democrat and wait to be rewarded with a "free" fish?

commonsense....

Romney and the other millionaires pay less than 0.1% toward Social Security and Medicare.

Obama already took care of this by implementing a 3.8% Medicare tax on all investment income effective in 2013.

Conveniently omitting the fact that taxpayers earning between $75,000 and 100,000 ALSO pay 15.6% in Social Security and Medicare taxes,

You must have a bad accountant. The current rates are 4.2% for SS and 1.45 for Medicare for a total of 5.65%. I want to be the first to thank you for paying the extra 10% to help cover my retirement.

IMHO our tax system is so convoluted, complex, and distorted that it is difficult for the so-called tax professionals to even decipher it, because that tax code contains over 72,000 pages of information. If revenues and expenditures don't complement one another, the only solutions are to borrow, print money, cut spending, or increase taxes. Currently, since our expenditures far outweigh our revenues and our trade deficits are at record levels, we have opted simply to borrow and print dollars to sustain our viability. One day when the house of cards collapses, monumental changes will have to be forthcoming. When the U.S. dollar is replaced as the international trade currency, specifically for oil, we will all be in for a rude awakening. It will be interesting to see how the New World currency will be defined. After all, "everything" has to be based on "something".

Commonsense...(yeah right). Mitt doesn't pay in, but Mitt doesn't get to take out either. You pay in...you do get to take out.

Is that not simple enough to understand?

This article is pretty bogus because it tries to imply total taxes when they are really only talking about federal income taxes. If you look at all federal, state, and local taxes and mandated fees (such as license tag fees) the picture changes dramatically.

1) If you consider ALL taxes, the lowest 50% in income pay over 70% of all taxes and fees. This is so because taxes such as a sales tax are incredibly regressive and hit the poor harder than the wealthy.

2) Deductions are rigged so that the same deduction benefits a wealthy person much more than a working poor person. If a poor person gives a dollar to a charity, he is most likely to get no deduction for it. But a wealthy person who gets most of their income from low-tax sources such as capital gains, get a deduction at the rate at which they pay taxes on ordinary income.

3) Even programs like Social Security are rigged for the wealthy because they have a low cap and are based only on ordinary income. Why should a wealthy person get a free ride? If we want the wealhy to get much lower rates, then at least we can means-test SS benefits and make every person with more that $1 million in assets or $250,000 annual income from all sources be ineligible for SS benefits. As it is, the wealthy benefit from the Social Security far more than tyhe working poor.

4) One reason that the federal income tax attempts to be progressive (that is, your tax rate goes up with income) is an attempt to offset the seriously regressive nature of taxes and fees paid by the lower half in income. Sales taxes, property taxes, tag fees, school taxes, etc all hit the lower income folks much harder than the higher income folks. The federal tax system attempts to remedy this by factoring out the tax burden already being paid before calculating taxes owed. That is the single most important reason why so many people pay little or nothing in federal taxes --- they are taxes so heavily at the state and local levels.

5) Reagan effectively used this ignorance of total taxation in order to saddle the country with the largest tax increase in the history of the country while having his constituency believe that it was actually a tax cut. This example of "voodoo economics" did cut taxes very slightly (almost entirely for corporations and the wealthy) but eliminated a program called Revenue Sharing in the process. This was a huge amount of money that was sent back to the states and localities to do with as they needed. When Revenue Sharing was eliminated the end result was about $1.35 in additional state and local taxes to replace each $1 lost.

6) A national sales tax (often called a "fair" tax) would be the most regressive of all. It would essentially move 92% of the tax burden to the lowest half of the country in income. The wealthy love the idea --- no capital gains tax and a huge federal sales tax would effectively end their payment of taxes altogether.

7) One of the things that is almost never discussed is the tax situation for online merchants. Some pay state taxes, but most do not. This has hurt states and localities dramatically by cutting sales tax revenues. Millions upon millions have been spent by lobbyists to keep it that way because it is substantially the only way that many online businesses (such as Amazon and eBay) survive. But how did it get to be "fair" to online businesses pay far less taxes that a brick-and-mortar business across the street? One remedy for our current budget woes would be to impose a 5% federal sales tax on all internet purchases. If a state(s) were already collecting taxes from the online company, the amount of the federal component would be reduced to 2%. No exemptions, no exceptions, and little to no impact on online sales (research says the sales tax would have to exceed 9% before there was a measurable impact.)

I have no problem with taxes as long as the wealthy get treated the same as the poor and hit just as hard as the poor. There will always be some degree of inequity in taxes but at least we can work on reducing it, not making it worse. As just one example of where my head is at: My wife inherited some natural gas wells from her grandmother. They bring in about $250-400 a month. But by virtue of the sequence in which taxes are calculated, I end up with a deduction that is greater than the gross income from the wells. As I do my taxes, I always feel like a crook as I take a deduction intended to benefit the very wealthy. I really don't mind paying my full share in one of the lowest-taxed countries in the world.

50% of all Americans pay no taxes.

That's not true. The percentage of Americans who truly pay no taxes at all is more like 10% - which is less than the percentage of Americans who live below the poverty line.

Most of the rich pay income tax on a much lower percentage of their actual income than most of the rest of the country. That's not fair. Period.

The article is a rather odd mix of facts and fallacious claims. Difficult to determine if the fallacious claims are supposed to support the facts - or - if the facts are supposed to support the fallacious claims.

What is glossed over is that people that generate income by working are taxed more than people that generate income by not working. Someone earning $1 million through a salary is taxed more than someone earning $1 million through 'investment' gains. The tax code favors the 'idle rich' instead of the 'working rich'.

Our tax code is encouraging Americans to NOT work. The incentive is for everyone to become one of the 'idle rich'. Wealth can only be created by combining resources and labor - someone HAS to work or the economy cannot sustain itself.

Investments do not create wealth - investments create inflation. The government's economic and tax policies are designed to create money from money - to gamble our way to prosperity. That is why our economy is no longer working - we have a money surplus and a wealth deficit.

The economy is not going to recover until we, as a society, recognize that capitalism rewards WORK - gambling rewards RISK. We need more workers - and - fewer gamblers.

Investments do not create wealth - investments create inflation. The government's economic and tax policies are designed to create money from money - to gamble our way to prosperity. That is why our economy is no longer working - we have a money surplus and a wealth deficit.

What a total load of crap, why do we have our 401k's and IRA's invested in the markets if they don't create wealth, why not bury it in the back yard? Printing and spending money we don't have creates inflation, government takes money OUT of the economy that is why we are in the toilet.

Investments absolutely create wealth. Where do most new, breakthrough products and technology come from? Many are from projects in new startup companies that are funded by venture capital - whether private or public. Others are from existing companies that are funded by internal resources. All projects require investment (risk) because they may or may not succeed.

When a new project succeeds, it creates wealth. There are many examples of exactly this - from Tang, to video games, to cell phones to new treatments for cancer. All of them created new wealth by creating products that didn't exist before.

New products can come from work (called sweat equity), but it is still an investment for the person who isn't getting paid...

@dadoftim -- The returns on your 401k and IRA investment come from several sources.

Those returns can be a redistribution of existing wealth (wealth created in the past) from a 'losing' stock to your 'winning' stock. For you to 'win' - someone else must 'lose'. Most gambling operates on this principle.

Those investment returns can be from creation of new money through speculative inflation - creating new money by price increases. Speculation is driven by artificial supply and demand. Price inflation means your actual return is smaller than it appears. A 5% return on an investment is devalued by 4% inflation.

Those returns can be a redistribution of future wealth creation. Loans create new money today - but - are backed by wealth that will be created in the future. The worker that creates wealth in the future receives less profit in the future - to pay for the money you received.

401k and IRA plans simply make money from money. You may end up with more money - but - your extra money will have less purchasing power.

Only work creates wealth in an economy - money never creates wealth in an economy. Ever.

@armurray -- Here is a very oversimplified analogy. A carpenter creates new wealth by using a pile of lumber and their labor to build a house. The house has more value than the lumber it contains. That added value is the new wealth that is created.

An 'investor' provides the carpenter a hammer. How much new wealth will that hammer create? None. Place a hammer on a pile of lumber and you definitely will not get a house. Only the carpenter builds the house - and - creates new wealth.

So what portion of the new wealth should the 'investor' receive? What did the 'investor' actually contribute? The carpenter could have made a crude hammer and built the house anyway. Did that 'investor' actually contribute anything - or - did the 'investor' simply take a portion of the carpenter's new wealth?

Money is a tool - nothing more. All those new products and technologies were developed because of work - not money. Lay a trillion dollars on a lab bench - and - you will never get any new products or technologies. Money cannot create new wealth - only work can do that.

Common Man - I had to laugh when I saw your source for Warren Buffet being a tax cheat!!! NEWSMAX?! That Republican on-line tabloid?! That's not even real journalism...it's purely a Republican rag! And who doesn't cheat on their taxes...both people and corporations...at that level of wealth? I think you'd find that the wealthy all get away with not paying their fair share while the poor and middle class are hounded to death for every little cent. Frankly, I think this article is a real joke because it doesn't tell the real story...

If the managers at Bershire Hathaway did not do everything they could to reduce the amount of taxes paid, the board of directors would fire them. It is not cheating to fight the IRS in its interepretation of the tax code.

If the IRS had its way the rules would be simple: did you get some money, give it to me.

Warren Buffett has repeatedly said that the tax code is not fair and that it favors the wealthy over the middle class. That's not class warfare or anything else, its simple fact.

What really annoys me more than anything else is that the highest income earners are complaining about the tax rate going up from 35% to 39%. That's just 4%. They act like the government is intending to take away their 3rd and 4th houses and their 5th and 6th cars.

Common Sense... Social Security and Medicare are NOT taxes. Look it up.

Social Security is FICA... Think of Life Insurance. The funds go to the Feds, not as taxes, but to be deposited to the Fund to help her when she cannot be hired any more.

My mom has to pay Medicare's $98/month premium out of her $1,500/month Social Security retirement benefit. Somebody who does math multiply that by 12 months...is that about...$18,000 a year? That is the poverty level, isn't it.

Medicare is Medical Insurance. She owns the wee house she and my dad bought... both of them working. The taxes on that went up. She does her own gardening, but my son goes over and mows her lawn and does chores for her. I take what groceries I can (my kids still in school) to her every week but I am worried. She says she's aok.. :) She bakes for me and I scold her but she is sharp as a tack, helps me looking after the kids while I work (teaching).

Mom worked from the time she was 14 years old when her dad died and she and her brother went to work to support their mom and kid sister.

There were no "entitlements" back then. They thought differently from us. No free rides. Never questioned it.

Period.

95% of the energy used in production comes from tool energy --- capital. Less than 10% of gross earnings are profits (payment for the use of tool money). More than 80% of gross earnings go to pay for wages. Therefore, the wage earners are getting a GREAT deal when investment in capital is high.

High wages are the result of high productivity. As noted above, high productivity is primarily the result of the quality of investment in tools and other forms of capital. The hardest working people in the world live in the poorest countries. Productivity is not the result of hard work. High wages do not necessarily result from hard work. High wages are primarily the result of the investments that capitalists make in their businesses.

Countries with the highest Gini coefficient (generally accepted measure of income inequality and increases as inequality increases) are also usually the wealthiest countries. The poorest countries are usually the most equal in income distribution. More equality is not a good thing, it is a bad thing. More equality is usually achieved by reducing levels of capital investment --- which as noted above, reduces productivity and wages.

@expatdownunda -- Your analysis appears to be flawed.

Productivity is a measure of the distribution of revenue generated by business activity. High productivity indicates that generated revenue is not distributed among those contributing to the generation of the revenue. In business terms, high productivity suggests increased revenue per unit labor cost. The workers (those generating the revenue) receive a smaller share. That may be due to many factors - automation, improved tools, or stagnant wages. The generated revenue may or may not be the result of creating wealth (combining resources and labor to create something of greater value). The generated revenue may only be the result of redistributing wealth created elsewhere in the economy.

The fatal flaw of Gini index is that it indicates how income is distributed within an economy. The Gini index does not measure whether the income is derived by combining resources and labor (wealth creation) - or - if the income is derived by inflation (creating money and devaluing wealth). Income is not necessarily the same as wealth. As you point out, a higher index indicates unequal distribution of income - usually concentrating income at the high end of the Lorenz curve. The Gini index does not account for negative income - debt - that may be needed to participate in the economy. The low end of the Lorenz curve will carry a larger debt burden than the high end of the Lorenz curve for fundamental participation in the economy. The Gini index also does not provide any information on how that distribution of wealth is achieved. A high Gini index does not indicate if those receiving more of the wealth distribution worked to earn it - or - if they simply stole it.

Free enterprise - free trade - free market economics - are about creating money. These economic policies reward risk more than they reward work. These economic policies promote concentration of wealth and creating prosperity through risk - a form of gambling.

Capitalism is about rewarding work by creating wealth - by combining the abundant resources of the universe and work (skills, ingenuity, labor) to create something of greater value. Capitalism rewards work and distributes the created wealth according to contributions in creating the new wealth.

Your discussion of capital investment is based on the false assumption that income equals wealth - that risk is a function of capitalism. Our economy is suffering because everyone strives to be the 'idle rich' instead of working to create wealth. The 'idle rich' are damaging our economy by promoting risk - gambling our way to prosperity. We need fewer gamblers - fewer capital investors - and - more workers.

I love HeartsQuest talking about helping his Ma.... We used to be like that as a Nation. You know, we were family groups.

With the onset of many children born out of wedlock, and with the massive influx of poor people from here or elsewhere, The US sorta started sliding. Any child born of parents who lack a strong family setting, children who are not supported by a strong safety net of family and friends, well those kids don't do as well, let's face it. It's not about race or origin, it's about the family structure. It's about support for each other. Some types do it, they band together, some types don't. I"m in Boston... I could walk through the North End (italian) or Chinatown NAKED with 100$ bills pasted all over me and never worry (except for the cops! lols) but some neighborhoods, you wouldn't live through it. I'm going to come right out and say it.... In a black neighborhood, you might not survive.

Is that my fault? Am I a racist for pointing out something that black people already know?

Sadly, we live now in a world where many people lack that family and friends system of support. If the support you are getting is from your friends and family, you see it, it's personal. You're damn sure not going to live off of them for years.

Today it's beat on the rich from Obama. What's next? Beat on the jews because they have money? Beat on the Saudi Arabians because they have money?

We need LEADERSHIP, and blaming everybody else is, frankly, Pathetic at best.

Sure, we could use some changes to the tax laws. But vilifying everybody who followed the tax laws is just asinine.

If you don't like the tax laws, there are methods in place to change the laws. Crying about people who follow the law is just stupid.

armurray wrote:

You must have a bad accountant. The current rates are 4.2% for SS and 1.45 for Medicare for a total of 5.65%.

No, according to www.ssa.gov and my latest pay stub, the rate is 6.2% for SS and 1.65% for Medicare. Employers match this for a total of 15.3%. Self-employed are on the hook for the whole 15.3%.

You are both wrong: the current Employee rate is 4.2% for FICA and 1.45% for Medicare, the Employer rates are 6.2% and 1.45%, respectively, thus, a self-employed person who is not smart enough to dodge the taxes would be paying 13.3%.

However, since most of this is treated as capital gains, the "self employed" (if they have a tax planner with any intelligence) would legally avoid these taxes and be paying, at the very most, 15% on their "earnings".... see W.M. Romney's tax return for example on how to do this.

Google "Reason" Magazine and Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger. He buys stock, lobbies congress for bailouts then makes a ton of money.

(1) I noticed the author DELIBERATELY did not add the total cost of payroll taxes to the federal income taxes and publish the TOTAL tax load for people making less than $200K (basically everyone but the top 5% of households). This is DISHONESTY by any other name.

(2) The main issue with the tax code is NOT about the rate. This is WHY the article wasted so much breath on the subject. The CORE PROBLEM is that there are different classifications of income: equity income vs. earned income. There should be no differences. ALL income at the same level should be taxed at the same rate. The only reason that these different classifications exist is so that the you have two tax systems: one for the wealthy and one for everyone else.

(3) There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF (show me something that has been peer reviewed by economists not just in the U.S. but globally) that the lower rates on capital and equity has done anything to improve economic or job growth. NONE. If anything, it has been DETRIMENTAL to economic and job growth because the focus becomes not investment but speculation. The resulting market volatility and economic chaos it causes is not in the interest of anyone except a few people who make their living trading securities.

(3) The ridiculous pretense that the non-wealthy do not take risks should have been eliminated in 2008 when the retirement plans of millions of Americans were laid waste and millions more lost their jobs due to the economic collateral damage.

(4) The tax code is extremely complicated and even an author who apparently writes about the tax code often failed to mention the important differences between corporate and salary income. And, the fact that the complexity of the code hides all sorts of loopholes for institutional taxpayers. There are also trusts, offshore accounts and tax-loss schemes.

The issue is not what is LEGAL; it is what is FAIR. And, for some dirt bag from the Manhattan Institute to say: "Hey, if you don't like it, change it!" is incredibly arrogant. Hey, dirt bag, we have been trying to change it and YOU (and your over-paid but useless hoary cohorts in the think tanks and K Street) are in the way! We have an entire generation of people who have been raised with no morals and seem unable to distinguish the two.

@expatdownunda

The problem with your analysis is the same as every other financial and economic analysis created in the past 20 years. IT IS SIMPLISTIC.

Nowhere in there are the EXTERNALIZED COSTS counted. The problem with economics from this generation is that it continues to ignore that your studies are only as good as WHAT YOU MEASURE. If do not want to include something, don't account for it and don't measure it. Or, if the thing that needs to be understood cannot be measured or cannot be measured accurately, it is completely ignored because it does not fit into someone's formula.

But, the real world is not that neat and clean. Reality always catches up with you. This why the Financial Crisis happened and why we are still dealing with the consequences (Euro Crisis). BAD ACCOUNTING AND BAD ECONOMICS.

The problem goes far beyond discussions about taxes, government expenditures or markets. It gets right down to the core beliefs of the society we live in.

The questions are: can you see beyond the tip of your nose? can you understand anything NOT in your college economics/finance textbook?

I am not a slave to the needs of others. I am not a slave to the government. I am not a slave to the irrational demands of society.

All I have done here is to explain why the government has created the mess we are in. It is up to government to create a system with the right incentives that will encourage prosperity and growth, it is not within my power. I will not respond to threats or insults however. I am not obliged to meet the needs of those who will not help themselves.

If the government says that it is illegal for me to make more from my business than my employees make, then I will not go to the trouble of keeping a business or employees --- why should I? I have a life of my own to live, I am not here to sacrifice my life to the needs of others, and I will not do it.

It is the government that makes the tax laws, not me. If they make laws that make it more attractive for me to go fishing rather than run a business, then I will go fishing. It appears that this is what you, and the government want. Why be angry at me if I do it?

When the Bush Tax Cuts expire, as they will at the end of 2012, the rich WILL pay more in income taxes...and so will all of you. And many of those paying no Federal Income taxes will begin paying as well.

Frankly I'm tired of all the whining...mostly from those paying little or nothing...that everyone else should pay more. Cancel those tax cuts...for everyone...and match it with cuts in spending in every category...the real whining will then begin!

@expatdownunda

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Like I said, no sense of responsibility. If everyone thinks this way, America got the economy and society it deserves.

Well the issue from what you say is not about the amount of taxes we pay, it is about how the money is used.

I don't mind paying 25% or 35% in taxes if I am getting a great army, great road and bridges etc. as long as we all are sharing in the cost equally and the money is not wasted....but then that is the main issue, we are not.

Yea Right, you are a progressive liberal yourself.

Jacq - ? yea so.....I operate on facts not party ideology. I was a RRepublican until 2009 and became an Independent because the party has been hijacked by the likes of you.

If a progressive liberal is someone who wants to operate efficiently, less waste and fairly then I am proud of the association....thank you.

I'm right there with you - jumped off the Republican ship in 2008 after more than 25 years.

IMHO - the person working in the factory, mining coal, etc. should not be paying a higher percentage than the guy sitting on his duff clipping coupons. Income is income and should be treated the same.

If a progressive liberal is someone who wants to operate efficiently, less waste and fairly then I am proud of the association....thank you.

I doubt that anyone will complain about the first 2 here. Your problem comes when you put fairly in there.

Your version and someone else's version are more than likely very different.

Like the Tax Code this seed is about. Personally I think that it should be taxed at a different level than payroll tax.

One you get for showing up to work and preforming your job, the other you get by risking your money to earn more. Two very very different things.

K N Pepper and Yea Right,

I guess that neither of you read the article which points out the rich do pay a higher tax rate percentage.

KNP and YR,

right there with you.

Being self employed I pay over 15% to S.S. and medicare. Then 15% income tax, and on a good year more.

SS is not technically a tax since social security was intended to be a means for those without government pensions to save for retirement, so it is a savings plan. If SS was really a tax I believe it would be unconstitutional since we are taxed on thev money we contribute , and I believe you cannot tax a tax.

"as long as we all are sharing in the cost equally and the money is not wasted....but then that is the main issue, we are not."

I'll do the liberal to normal translation. "equally" = even though I advocate for high taxes, I shouldn't have to actually pay anything. That's for the little people

"Money not wasted" = Liberal pipe dream that government can actually do anything right. Social security, medicate, defense dept, dept of motor vehicles...whatever the government tries to do it fails miserably. So of course liberals give it more to do.

Oh...and then you go on and on about you are so much more intelligent than us. That's the part that cracks me up.

The article contains a number of factual errors on the numbers. Maybe typos, but it leads to the wrong conclusions.

"Money not wasted" = Liberal pipe dream that government can actually do anything right.

The neo-conservative habit of labeling everything the government does as piss poor and a waste, while those of us who served in the armed forces know better. Whatever happened to your pride, dude? The US Government, on the whole, has done far more good in it's 200+ years of existence than any other government on the face of the planet!

Stop denigrating our nation.

The capital gains tax rate on investments currently tops out at 15 percent, while the highest rate for earned income is more than twice that at 35 percent.

To have capital you need to have income. Tax earned income at a higher rate than investment income then you are guaranteeing the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. This is how economic slavery works and our government sponsors this reality. Income is income and should be taxed equally with no loopholes.

Most investments are made with after-tax money. It has already been taxed before any income is realized from the investment-- thus the lower tax rate. And that discounts the risk that an investor takes when he invests. Why is this so hard to understand?

Yeah, the corporation already paid the taxes. The recipient didn't. Your money working for you is the same thing as you working for your money. Should both be taxed equally.

Absolutely correct. Using the argument "its already been taxed" really does not make sense. By that argment, no one would ever pay any taxes. If my payroll money has been taxed and I hire someone to do something, like maybe a painter to paint my house, what I pay him should not be taxed because I've already paid tax on that money. From that standpoint, I should not have to pay any taxes since the money my employer received has been taxed somewhere along the line too. It's a ridiculous argument that does not make sense.

The countries that are the most equal, are the poorest countries. Right now Greece is one of the most equal countries in Europe.

@expatdownunda

And, Germany and Sweden. #3 and #4 respectively in the EU in terms of per capita income despite having among the highest GINI scores in the world. Also two economies and governments that survived the Financial Crisis intact. You cannot take a single example as a case study for everything else in the world.

The evidence does not support anything you are saying.

they also make more money.

edSmith: You read the title and not the article, didn't you?

edSmith....of course they pay more in total...1% of a million dollars is still more that 25% of $50,000...any idiot can figure that out. I think what makes people mad is that the millionaires are taxed at a much lower percentage...of course, you probably know this already and are just trying to twist the truth. Why should money earned by pushing a pencil or making a phone call be taxed at a lower percentage than money earned teaching a child or saving a life?

witchywaterwoman@yahoo.com...

Um.... actually, 1% of 1 million dollars is less than 25% of $50,000....

1% of 1 million dollars = $10,000

25@% of $50,000 = $12,500

no point to it... just pointing out the math flaw.

The wealthy pay the bulk of our national bills, even if it is at a lower tax rate. The point should not be that they should pay the same rate, but the amount they pay.

Do we feel they do not pay enough in amount?

Personally, I feel the entire cost of running the nation should be calculated, and then an equal bill be sent to every adult in the nation. After all, I pay the same for bus fare, movie tickets, and a pound of rice as everyone else, so why is my responsibility to the government less than others?

Just remember what happened when England increased their 'wealthy' rate in the 80's ... many of that class moved their money permanently to the US. I am sure China would be willing to set up tax havens for pissed off wealthy Americans.

We are screwed until the bottom 50% pay more. The NY Times wrote a piece that said that even it you took 100% of what the wealthy have, it would not save us.

We can't continue to have them subsidize the bottom 50% at the current rate (they pay less then 3% of our total tax burden). That is the real problem.

I am not rich either.

Another David - First of all we all ignore the fact that the wealthy are able [and do] invest their money in offshore investment [more like legally hide] shielding them from taxes....this is not discussed in this article so their effective tax rates are estimated to be even lower than available data shows.

A really good article to read [among many] is Wealth, Income & Power by William Domhoff [google it]. This article presents much facts about income in America.

No one suggest penalizing the rich for being rich [at least I don't] but it is about loop holes and fair share. Fair share and proportionate share is different. Also, in a time of economic stress those well off should temporarily do more to help with your survival .... they have a vested interest [even if they don't think so].

The largest value of Bill Gate's, Warren Buffet's wealth is on paper ... they don't have billions in gold and silver hidden somewhere. Their interest is guaranteed by the faith, trust and protection of the American people. How can one ask a people to protect the wealth of a few while they become poorer.

Yea Right

Another David - First of all we all ignore the fact that the wealthy are able [and do] invest their money in offshore investment [more like legally hide] shielding them from taxes....this is not discussed in this article so their effective tax rates are estimated to be even lower than available data shows.

That is a flat out lie.

Our Gvmnt does not care where you put/have the money. You by law have to declare it, and tax it. A swiss account or an account in the Islands, is taxed just like an account in the states.

Fair share and proportionate share is different

Fair Share is nothing more then Democratic Buzz words for the year. The question has been asked to countless Democratic Supporters over the last year, and not one of you have stood up and answered it.

WHAT if their fair share?

According to you, if I make 250,000 a year what should I be paying it taxes? how bout a Million a year, or 10 million a year.

Of course the one aspect that this article, and all those like it on this topic, omit is that those dividends taxed at 15% to people like Romney, are already theoretically taxed at the corporate tax level too. However we all know how well corporate taxes work. Maybe, a simple rewrite to exclude taxes for corporations on dividends and shifting the tax burden to individuals would solve a lot of this bickering. Corporations could then increase their dividends as they would be gross instead of net. I'd make a wild guess and think it would generate substantially more in taxes than is currently being received. And at the same time I doubt there'd be any real impact to the individuals.

Does it ever dawn on anyone that all the tax loopholes are there because our representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, wrote them in to law?

Why don't they simply remove them? It's within their power to do so.

Could it be because the wealthy donate so much to the politicians campaigns? Could it be because many of them are wealthy and/or realize they will have more wealth after they get out of government? How much was Bill Clinton worth when he left the Presidency? How much is he worth now? Do you think a sitting politician would push tax laws that would later affect his/her own ability to accrue wealth? Fox guarding the chicken coop concept ring a bell?

Good post Jeremy.

@ Kevin C from your comment: "We are screwed until the bottom 50% pay more. The NY Times wrote a piece that said that even it you took 100% of what the wealthy have, it would not save us"

From the article:

"60 percent of those who pay no income taxes earn less than $20,000..."

So how much should we tax these people that will equate to an amount that 'saves us'?

The operative term is FAIR SHARE. The absolute value (meaningless) or even the percentage (a better benchmark) are not the point.

THEIR FAIR SHARE.

The RICH used WAY MORE RESOURCES to get that way. More roads, more education (the rich corporations stopped training and now whine that they want THAT SOCIALIZED TOO), more of everything, but THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

I AM SICK OF THESE RICH SOCIALISTS!

WHo didn't know this? A 4th grade mah student knows that even 15% of a million ($150,000 for those who can't do the math) is much more than even 30% of $50,000 (that would be $15,000 for the liberals out there). $150,000 is more than $15,000 for those still having a hard time following. And there is no question that the wealthy person does not get near the benefits and paybacks that the lesser income person gets.

Reality Check and Kevin C just keeps repeating the same Reich-wing Hannity induced lie that the bottom 47% pay NO taxes... they DO pay an abundance of taxes i.e sales, etc, just not federal income taxes because they don't make enough. Get your "facts" straight from sources other than Fox.

Reality Check-1104333 (thats a joke)

We know the facts the libs love not to know:

50% of all Americans pay no taxes. Whether they fall under the rate or get tax credits is irrelevant. They pay no taxes!

(So much for spouting "facts" that certain people don't want to know!)

The three most important qualifying statements about the 47 percent who pay no federal income tax are: (1) Paying no federal income tax, or FIT, is not the same as paying no taxes, since payroll taxes account for as much government revenue as FIT, and state and local taxes still exist; (2) the vast majority of those who don't pay FIT make less than $30,000 a year; (3) the reason the "47 percent" exists is not because some people are lazy free-riders, but because Congress, at the behest and prodding of the public, has larded the tax code with benefits and deductions that can wipe out a family's tax burden.

Who pays no federal income taxes? I think I have the picture you're looking for. This piechart shows the households paying no FIT, with all inset numbers in thousands of dollars (i.e.: 20-30 means $20,000 to $30,000). The big takeaway is that more than half of the folks who pay no federal income tax make less than $20,000 a year. It is also true that 7,000 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2010.

Do the 47 percent still pay taxes? Most of them do. About one seventh of the country pays no payroll taxes or federal income taxes, because of deductions and working benefits. But when you zoom out to 30,000 feet, you see that even the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers fork over about 1/20th of their income to the IRS through all federal taxes, including payroll, income, and excise. The next 20 percent hands over about 1/8th. With each quintile, the effective tax rate increases.

edSmith

Finally - msnbc tells the truth! Wealthy people actually pay MORE taxes.

------------------

But as anyone can see, they don't pay their fair percentage.

Soupwithafork,

The 60% number may be correct, but it also includes many people like my high school daughter who pays no income tax, but is a dependent...

I agree that there should always be a threshold on minimum income levels, just like the current law which is $17,400 for a married couple. These same people also receive tax credits that actually provide income (as stated in the article).

The article also states:

Still, about one-sixth of those not paying income tax in 2010 earned more than $100,000

Maybe they could pay something.

Good post. Must have been a Socialist Workers Party holiday, so the truth seeped out. They won't let it happen again..

GovHater - Unfortunately for you the article basically says the Hanity's claim that 47% of Americans aren't paying income tax is true. Currently there is no "Federal Sales Tax". Both the article and the Fox news statement were only looking at income tax.

Armurry, you kinda hit the nail right on the head. This 47-50% of people who pay no income tax is really polarizing misleading statistic. It most certainly includes people just like your daughter, also people who are elderly on SS, or even the disabled.

So it's not like 50% of American's at $0 FIT are perfectly capable of paying taxes yet instead want the rich to pay more. These are mainly people who are in no position to be paying federal income tax.

Additionally, yes, just as the article says "one-sixth of those not paying income tax in 2010 earned more than $100,000." So I'm a little shaky on fractions, but I think 1/6 of the 50% works out to roughly 8-9% of tax filers. I still don't think we're going to get anywhere fast squeezing this group of people either. But yeah sure, if you make over $100k and pay 0 FIT, that's kind of a problem. I make way less that $100k and definitely fork over a lump sum of FIT, so believe me I want to see everyone else who is capable pay up to.

What gets conveniently ignored anytime the "__% of those making >$100,000/yr pay $0 taxes" argument is made, is the fact that prior year or future carryforward or carryback losses are zeroing out taxable income. They may have earned $100,000 this year, but lost $150,000 last year. For income tax purposes, the loss is used to offset income in other years. Why? Because in that example, if their income was averaged over the 2 year period, they actually lost $25,000 per year. I would posit that anyone earning $100,000 consistently year after year will definitely be paying their fair share of taxes on it, no question.

Truth: Mit Romney made over 40 million dollars last year.
Truth: he paid about 13.9% in taxes.

Opinion: I don't care what you say, that's not FAIR.

Dennis,

Romney donated ~15% of his income to charities, the most by far of any candidate, Democrat or Republican. Also, hard to say how much he's paid out in sales and property taxes. Seems to me it all adds up to a big number that goes back to the community in some form.

So, Dennis, what's your definition of "fair?"

"A faster path to increased revenue would be for Congress to allow tax cuts enacted under the George W. Bush Administration to expire at the end of 2012. Continuing them, the Congressional Budget Office has said, would slash revenues by $5.4 trillion through 2022, forcing the Treasury to increase the national debt to cover the difference."
So it is 'fair' for the rest of Americans to subsidize a few wealthy people who benefit from the Bush tax cuts?

"So it is 'fair' for the rest of Americans to subsidize a few wealthy people who benefit from the Bush tax cuts?"

Don't you think the proper question should be: "Is it fair that a few wealthy people subsidize ~50% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes?"

Wealthy people pay more taxes? Those same wealthy people receive more in tax breaks, too.

A 3% reduction in a millionaire's taxes is still more than a 100% reduction for someone earning $30k. To make the income tax cuts fair - a lot of people are allowed to pay no income taxes.

The wealthy can also make the tax system 'fair' by simply not taking as much income out of the economy. If the 'idle rich' are envious of the lower taxes paid by the 'poor' - the 'idle rich' can easily become 'poor' themselves and not pay taxes. too.

@ Rob
I was just trying to show that the system is screwed on both sides of the spectrum. Is there a problem with welfare and the poor? Yes. But there is also a problem with the rich as well. And don't forget the billions we hand out to companies like GE who pay nothing in taxes but make billions in profits.

The real funny thing is, if you tax at 100% the income of those earning less than $30,000 it would not equal the revenue generated by increasing the top tax rate by 15%.

However, by all means, eliminate the lower middle class, make them poor and then take everything from the poor. But who will you tax when the poor and the middle class are all dead.

Tax 20% of all income over $20,000 and 28% of all income over a million dollars. No deductions except corporate business expenses.

No subsidies to businesses, oil companies, or farmers and no foreign aid to countries that plot against the U.S.

Millionaires do not spend all their income to live on like those making under $20,000 so the money they hoard does not keep the economy prospering.

Rob-523523

Don't you think the proper question should be: "Is it fair that a few wealthy people subsidize ~50% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes?"

Does it really bother you so much that 46% of the people don't make enough money to be required to pay income tax? It doesn't bother me because I know that they would be more than happy to pay their fair share if they were able to earn enough money yet those that do earn the big money are so full of greed that they want to push the poor farther into the gutter so they can have a few bucks more in the bank. Pathetic.

Ed, too bad you cannot read. This was a Reuters article.

Also there is a reason they pay more in taxes, they make more money. When you make more money you pay more in taxes. It is mathematical common sense. Although seeing as our country sucks at math I can see why you have a problem understanding that concept.

Did you miss the part that 44% of the capital gains and dividends goes to 0.1% of the population? Or that nearly two thirds of it goes to the top 1%.

It's not a coincidence that the lowest rate applies to the type of income that the wealthiest get the most of. After all, they make the rules right?

Didn't think of that, did ya? Duh!

I cannot believe the Not Fair Brigade who didn't take Logic and Arithmetic... yes Arithmetic ... in school!

15% of $1.5 million dollars a year equals, I think, $225,000 net per year in Income Taxes alone. Then, of course, all the other taxes not just to the Feds, but to the States (most of US states charge State Income Tax)... all of which we pay too, but, of course at considerably lesser amounts.

You guys are comparing bananas with sour grapes.

PERCENTS are actually irrelevant to us wage earners as well as the smaller businessmen. Actual DOLLARS are what you should be looking at! Compare the dollars you pay to the Feds to the dollars the rich pay the feds.

The alleged demons, as the stand-around, sounding-off, ignoramus-Occupiers call the 1-%ers, pay dollars in one year to the feds that most of us wage-earners wouldn't earn in ten years to live on, let alone pay that much to the feds.

Whine whine whine... and start thinking about the money the government gets from them compared to the money the government gets from us. We are darn lucky they do it, because if we were all put on the same "percents" we'd be lost in the shuffle.

And not totally off the subject... Mr. Romney made his federal income tax return public voluntarily. Why doesn't multimillionaire (from personal legacy) Barack Obama do the same?

What "percents" does Mr. Obama pay... except, I'd rather look at the dollars.. and his income from investments plus income as President should be included, with all his government paid expenses for his trips... as he went to Hawaii (where his friends all live.. he was born and raised there)... for "meetings." Hawaii? And you don't think we wouldn't be interrogated closely if we were rich as he is?

Be sure to include Michelle. And his aunt and uncle on Welfare.

I want to see his income tax to compare with Mr. Romney's.

btw... what did he accomplish on that trip... ? with the Asian and Australian stops planned... were they curtailed?

Everyone should pay something, even if only $20/yr. It's human nature not to value that which you don't invest in...

Everyone is going to have to pay for the burden Obama has inherited from Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.

At the end of Carter's administration the Gross National Debt was going down and the ND was 30% of GDP. All republican presidents since Reagan raised it. If Reagan and both Bushes had balanced the budget our National Debt today would be about 15% of GDP....facts

@Yea Right

How come the burden we are inheriting from Obama is more than all the rest combined? Yet you don't mention that?

How come the burden we are inheriting from Obama is more than all the rest combined?Yet you don't mention that?

Not mentioned because it isn't even remotely true. Where the heck did you get that idea? Source please.

Repubs DO spend more on average, but it is typically to rebuild the military and intelligence services that were gouged into non-existance by the preceeding Demo admins.

Clinton did great by generating a surplus ... unfortunately he cut Intel so short that when 9-11 happened, we never saw it coming.

As for Repubs playing crony politics and lining the pockets of their friends ... the Demos do it just the same. Does anyone remember a truly honest, upstanding man actually getting elected to the WH?

Chuck - tell me about what we inherited from Obama and all the rest combined.

The ND so far since Obama took office has been raised 15%. The ND is now at 100% of GDP. As I said every republican president [Reagan, Bush, Bush] raised the debt since Carter left it at about 30%.

Since WWII republicans raised the debt by an average of 69% and democrats lowered it by 38%....fact.

When FDR came into office in 1933 (Great depression) the unemployment rate was 25% and he doubled the ND by 1941 which lowered the unemployment rate to 9.66%.

With 10 million people out of work Obama had no choice but to spend money to keep us out of a depression. Who is more at fault forthis mess...we all are but more so it can be blamed on Reaganomics [supply side economics] and de-regulation.

but don't let facts get into your way.

Yea right,

Don't forget the national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office.

Yea right, the "facts" are people in government have been living high on the hog for a long time and have put a tremendous burden on the people of this country.

"facts" its going to take everyone to get us out from under the burden the government has placed on the people of this country.

canman - wrong, the data does not support your claims. Clinton lowered the Gross National Debt as a % of GDP by about 15% compared to Reagan who raised it about 30%.

Common - do you really go by facts or your perceptions?

First of all remember the government is still elected by the people so we have placed this burden on ourselves. If we go on facts and demand our representatives to operate accordingly then we will get somewhere.

Look at the facts of who is mostly responsible for placing this burden on us...democratic policies or republican policies....let the facts speak for themselves.

OK Yea RIght..

you throw out thoes little things like

Clinton lowered the Gross National Debt as a % of GDP by about 15% compared to Reagan who raised it about 30%.

While yes that maybe true, Clinton DID add to the nation debt every year he was in office. There has not been a single president since what Carter who has not increased the national debt. Clintons " surplus " was not a true surplus. We still borrowed money and added to the national debt. Clinton Raided SS funds to support his spending JUST like every single president around.

Your facts are northing more than more spin to support your viewpoint.

Yea Right...here are some more facts:

Paraphrase of comment by Roy Wilson 2011Jul14:

Congress Controls Spending:

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (1987 – 1994, 2007 – 2010; 12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006; 10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split 1980 – 1986 and 2001 & 2002 - 8 years) = $1.063 Trillion

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

When Reagan took office in 1981, according to President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, federal revenues were $599.3 billion. When Reagan left office in 1989, federal revenues were $991.1 billion, a nominal increase of $391.8 billion. Even when adjusted for inflation, this represents a real increase in revenue of $173.6 billion (from $817.5 billion in 1989 dollars in 1981 to $991.1 billion in 1989 dollars in 1989). During Reagan's eight years, real federal revenue increased 21 percent.

After Reagan left, as he predicted, federal revenues continued climbing. By 1993, they reached $1.154 trillion. Had federal spending been held at 1989 levels for four years, the government would have run an $11 billion surplus in 1992. But federal spending grew $266 billion, and the government ran a $255.1 billion deficit.

Looks like Reagan's long term economic plans were greatly responsible for what Clinton takes credit for.

The Democrats may be TAX AND SPEND but the REPUBLICANS are SPEND and TAX CUT.

That is INSANE. That is STUPID.

THAT IS NOT CONSERVATIVE!

Obama has given us 4 years of $1 TRILLION+ budget deficits, each one more than triple Bush's highest deficit. Enough said.

Revenues under Clinton: $12.371 trillion.

Revenues under Bush: $17.159 trillion.

Difference: $4.8 trillion.

Over 80% of the tax cuts went to the middle/lower class.

Economics 101: Cutting taxes increases revenue in the long run. Increasing taxes decreases revenue in the long run. Our children will already inherit enough problems from us. Stop all the wasteful spending.

The biggest problem is spending, voted for by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Obama has given us 4 years of $1 TRILLION+ budget deficits, each one more than triple Bush's highest deficit. Enough said.

Not quite enough said. Bush's last budget started in October, 2008 with a projected deficit of $1.2 Trillion on the day Obama took office. Obama simply maintained Bush's deficit level despite a crash in the GDP that resulted from the financial crisis, and resultant collapse of expected tax revenues to support it.

hs321, a simplistic description of a complex issue and totally wrong. Revenues were going up in large part based on the building housing bubble and spending based on those increased house values. Not because of the Bush tax cuts.

Funny, the revenues were higher but we were still going into debt more every year.

Yea Right - you forgot to mention that unemployment was 18.9% in 1938, 8 yrs after FDR took office. WWII is what took the US out of the depression, not FDR's policies (though some were useful, but too many were wasteful). Also, here's a nice quote:

" Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt, whom Schlesinger’s historians ranked among the top four presidents, broke all records for budget deficits"

Good quote Bes... but you know.. I bet because they saw us through big major wars... Civil WW I, and WW II

No need to worry if your a democrat running for office????

One more obama term and that percentage will be 60%!!!

everyone pays taxes. thats what you miss. even illegals pay taxes. everytime you buy gas or a pack of cigarettes you pay tax. Anytime you buy anything you pay taxes! its not just income tax guys. The middle class pays a lot in taxes. The rich don't pay their fair share. So what? The point is we need to spend it better. I don't mind paying taxes and i sure wouldn't mind the rich paying more. But is that really going to solve anything? Lowering taxes won't solve anything either. We just need to do more with the revenue we are getting. It's interesting because since this economic downturn many americans have learned to do more with less. The government should take a lesson from that. I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. It's childish really. Obama this, Reagan that. Who cares? It's over. We need to learn from our mistakes not repeat them. Both parties are guilty of that.

47 percent of Americans pay no taxes because they don't make enough money! That's something to worry about.

Jose - amen!

What is 15% of nothing or almost nothing?

Plus how many of that 47% are retired and on a fixed income???? They would owe no taxes anyway, but that never gets mentioned as part of the 47% and I'm willing to bet it's a large part.............

Steve- The average rate for taxpayers earning $75,000 to $100,000 was 8 percent, so how do you come up with the middle class paying at 35%?

Roscoe, it's a fair amount. However, this nation has a large percentage of dead baggage in the national community. Still, there is nothing to be done except maintain the welfare state for them, and try to entice their children to lift themselves higher.

Many lower middle-class have slid backwards into poverty, and these are the people we need desperately to help. They WANT back into the tax-paying circle, and they are willing to work hard to get there.

Unfortunately, Romney states publicly that he doesn't care about them, and all Obama wants to do is cuddle them up and collect the vote.

ADIF..

Many lower middle-class have slid backwards into poverty, and these are the people we need desperately to help. They WANT back into the tax-paying circle, and they are willing to work hard to get there.

I disagree with what you said here. There was a survey done last year that said many people will keep collecting U.E. over taking a job out of their field, because U.E. paid more. No matter what we give people, unless they want to help themselves we are wasting our money.

I know many people who are in this lower middle class, to poor group. Hell I am in that group making 40k a year living paycheck to paycheck due to my home.

Most of these people I know, some I call friends, are lazy lazy people. They know how to work the system to get away with doing very little, AND they have better things, and take more vacations than I do.

They manuplate their earnings to stay below X dollars so they get full Earned Income Credit each year come IRS time. They had three kids so they could get more " child credit " come tax time. The wife works maybe 4 mths out of the year and abuses U.E. the husband works a going nowhere job that gives them insurance. That is the only reason he works.

On top of the IRS perks ( they usually get a check between 5 and 8 thousand every year from Uncle Sam ) they are on a housing assistance for that bill, gas and electric assistance for thoes two, and foodstamps to help pay for food. They have Zero desire to better their standing in life, and will actually brag that gaming the system for free money is their primary job.

Good point.

This entire discussion focuses on INCOME TAXES. If you add CONSUMPTION TAXES, FEES and LICENSES the poor pay WAY MORE of their income than the rich.

ZERO OUT consumption taxes and make it ALL income tax THEN make capital gains REGULAR INCOME.

Done.

Balanced budget. Fair taxation.

SRS-798254,

You are missing the tax credits that the poor and middle class receive that wipes out most and in many cases all of those other taxes paid.

From the article:

In 2010, not only did 45 percent of taxpayers not owe income taxes, 90 percent of that group received government payments through refundable tax credits.

I agree with the capital gains taxation as long as it is balanced by a reduction in corporate tax reduction on that same money.

Show me the middle class worker who pays 35% in taxes. Go ahead, show me.

Steve, that 47% you're talking about only took in 12.75% of the total income. That's split among almost 50% of the people! They don't bring in enough of the income to make a difference! All you have is a right wing talking point that misleads and means NOTHING!

The illegal aliens do NOT pay Federal Taxes nor State Taxes... Sales taxes, sure.. I'd be interested in the percentages on their having Welfare via "anchor babies" (which do not anchor them, as they were misinformed... minor children are always citizens of the parent... mommy dearest).

Um, I don't think you understand what you are saying.

I worked overseas as a US contractor for the C.O.E. in Iraq. I paid taxes but if I didn't stay on US soil 330 out of 365 days, I got back the taxes I paid on the first 80K. There are more than the idea you think is going on here.

Another person who has no clue how things work. You think it is fair to end up paying more in taxes that you actually make...

If you look at some countries you can pay 70% income tax on investment income and you get no deductions because you are not a citizen. Now you want them to pay 35% in the US and get no credit. Gee 105% tax is fair rate.

Tax exempt bonds are to government entities in the US not foreign. The interest rate in effect has a tax built in. If you could get 10% and pay 30% income tax it is the same as a 7% tax exempt bond. What happens is you would get 7.01% instead so that is the HUGE profit these investors are after but it encourages them to lend money to cities rather than companies

Bill0000, absolutely. If there is someone 'saving' tax money by using tax-exempt bonds, then they are actually doing more for the communities than tax payers.

"If you look at some countries you can pay 70% income tax on investment income and you get no deductions because you are not a citizen. Now you want them to pay 35% in the US and get no credit."

Yes.

Why are you investing in countries that have 70% income tax, not batting an eye, then whining about paying 35% in the country in which you are a citizen? I'd raise it to 70% here, too, for overseas investments. Invest in America, you eliminate the 70% paid to a foreign government and you build from within. Or get out.

What is wrong is simply this... there would be no more tax politics. no one would ever want to raise taxes and people would demand more for their money, because they have skin in the game.

That scares the hell out of washington.

the answer is a consumption tax, and no income tax. Since the wealthy SPEND money in wide disproportion to the middle class, they would automatically pay more in taxes.

Consumption tax has a natural 'tax-dodge' incentive to save your money, which would spur investment capital that compounds naturally until it is 'spent' on goods thus generating tax revenue.

Unfortunately, it would put accountants and tax lawyers out of business, so it'll never see the light of day.

Unemployment would then go to unprecedented levels because we would have to fire everyone in the IRS, everyone working at H&R block, lots of accountants and lawyers and even politicians....

What a great idea!

David, that is completely backwards. The wealthy hoard wealth, they do not spend it proportionately more. Low and middle class incomes get pumped right back into consumer goods, the stuff needed to survive. They are the demand. The wealthy invest in things that promote their own wealth, consuming very little. Since their are fewer wealthy people, their needs are far less. The balance is hoarded.

How is an incentive to save money an incentive to growth? If everyone hoards their money, no one is spending it. The economy stagnates. This is what is happening right now. I can think of no better way to stop an economy than to switch to a consumption tax.

If you can't develop a pet rock in America, don't cry to me that you are poor!!!!

Gary - get real. While all have the same opportunity relative to each other we all cannot be successful. If 10 of us were to work real hard, take risks and develop a pet rock only two of us will be successful. It has to be thisway or capitalism will not work. So what happens to the other 8, they are losers?

And as for the rich with all their money, they are taking risks with investments? So if they don't invest their money and grow the economy what might happen....the economy goes to hell and guess what happens to their money. They are not taking risks as they would like to make you think.

So if the rich supplement your welfare check, the economy soars??

Isn't that the soros/pelosi/obama road to American ruin???

The first step to American prosperity is obama's ouster!!!!

Yea Right, you are totally wrong. In Capitalism proper, there are no losers.

David - on a personal basis I am well among the 1% and never collected welfare or any other government assistance.

I am talking about people who work hard and will continue to work hard regardless of their unluck in life. The best that most of the middle class (60%) can hope for is to be average and stay there.

My comment was based on your statement that implied if we we did not make it to the top 1% becausee we did not develop a pet rock then don't cry that you are poor. Most of the middle class can't make it to the top [no matter how hard they try] and hoping to remain average these days is against them because the middle class is losing ground.

There is something wrong with the American dream these days where the rich is getting richer and the middle class getting poorer and you suggest it is because they are not developing pet rocks....what a bunch of crap.

Yea Right, I agree the middle class is losing ground, but its not because of the rich. Its because of what the government takes from us. I wish everyone were winners in life but the fact is that it won't work out that way. The fact is that our government tries to engineer so everyone wins, but in the end they just really take from one to give to another. All this talk of tax rates is nothing more that another politician trying to buy votes. I'm sick of it all, and just wish the government would quit trying to dictate to the people.

of course, unless it's about a woman's body or gay marriage. Then your party is in love with dictating to the people!

I'm pretty sure that's called a strawman argument. It's one of those signs that your position is indefensible using facts and logic.

No, it is called sarcasm. I am illustrating the nonsense that is "trickle down economics".

Therman, you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of supply-side economics. When taxes have been cut, it was not just for the top earners, it was for all levels of earners.

We hear many hear complaining about 47% not paying federal income taxes. Why don't they? It is because the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 took 10,000,000 off the tax rolls when the bottom bracket was dropped.

Supply-side economics is not about "trickle down" (a phrase introduced by the left to demonize the tax cuts); it is about more money in the market rather than the government.

Supply side economics is a proven failure. A rose by any other name...

You have your economists who say it is a failure. I have mine who say it works - as shown by increased revenue to the treasury (a side affect of supply-side economics - like what happened when Kennedy lowered the rates).

Who are your sources, Bookem'?

Glad you at least realized the key word there is MAKE.

How much money do you MAKE, holding out your hand and complaining about the success of others? 0.

and they create MOST of the jobs.

They "make" it by taking it from someone else. The jobs get created by demand, i.e., economic activity driven by consumers. If you give a wealthy person a dollar and he "invests" it, imo it does not usually create meaningful economic activity - compared to the less wealthy person who would be forced by his circumstances to immediately spend it.

The wealthy would probably benefit in the long run, if they protested a bit less.

Just consider higher taxes to be "forced spending to raise economic activity" with the added public relations benefit that, for a short while at least, the amount you contribute monetarily to the country is more comparable to what you gain from it.

Don't like them making more money? Too bad.... maybe you should try to improve yourself.... struggle... strive and do it too... it is STILL a free country where anyone can do anything.... case in point.... a Black President in currently holding office.....

Nice right-wing talking points, Beev, but how about explaining what you think they mean? What is Obama advancing? What is destructive about it? Identify your "class warefare".

Mr Obama has worked diligently on the problems that conservatives have brought on this country. Cons have used patriotism, class, religion, race, sexual orientation, you name it to take over.

We have saved the country from the conservative taliban. Lets not give it back.

Rick-881466 I don't care about ideology personally, but when a group of businesses writes you a letter spelling out which policies the government is pursuing which makes them uncomfortable hiring and why... in the middle of the worst recession in history (recession not depression)... and you ignore it and continue on your merry way... that's a problem in my book.

Rick, I think he said it. "Class warfare" which reminds him of the pre-Bolshevik Revolution. If you don't know what it means, pick up a history book the subject.

No, he should explain what he meant by the comparison. I've read lots about pre-revolution Russia and I have no idea what he was talking about...just a vague reference to class warfare.

Mark, "Class warfare" is a Republican term to describe the novel idea that the rich should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us. It's only "Bolshevikian" upside down.

Chuck, no business will turn down the opportunity to make more profit because of a tax rate; that is merely incorporated into the price.

Can you show me where anyone said "the rich should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us" If you cannot discern tax rates on Income and Investments, then there is no way have a dialogue. Stating that Republicans think that, is a "Left wing talking point"

It takes some level of intelligence and sense of history to join a discussion. You expect him to narrate the Bolshevik Revolution?

And I don't mean that as a direct insult to you.

Sorry for the delay Mark, but you are still wrong. I didn't say any thing about what Republicans think, I pointed out that it is Republicans who call it "Class Warfare" - their words. And you are right, the discussion is for the rich to pay more, but as it more than they do now, as in equal effective rate.

The income tax started out as class warfare. The first rates only applied to income over $20k in 1913 -- that's 66K in 2010 $$s, only 1% earned that much and rates were from 1-7%. In 1942, FDR dropped that to just $500 ($6600 in 2010 $$s), rates went up to 19-88% and it never looked back. How do you like that "new deal?"

It must have looked back, as rates don't come close to 88% now. By the way, FDR couldn't have done that - Congress would have had to, and FDR himself would likely have been in the higher rate range.

Your effective tax rate depends on your deductions [kids, businesses, rental property, 401k, work place SIP, medical, property taxes etc.].

You are correct. And it sounds like whomever does her tax preparation doesn't know about those things!

Buffet adds the 15.3 %FICA taxes she pays on her income to the income tax rate paid on her income. Both are federal taxes on her income. The right wingnuts always leave out the FICA taxes for some reason. Makes for better spin.

no one speaks about 'effective' rates, because it exposes other issues that neither Dems or Rebubs want to tackle.

Rob, maybe she does not have any deductions.

Then maybe Buffet should pay more to himself in salary and less in stock options. That way, he would pay a much higher rate of FICA and other withholdings.

Also, if you want to discuss paying FICA, etc., then you need to add that amount paid by companies when you say that they pay no taxes. Afterall, they are paying the employer share.

Maybe buffet can find better uses for his money than giving it to the govt. I heard he's a decent investor. :)

Nice bill, but combining corporate tax and personal income tax tells no story. And no sane business person will turn down the chance to make a profit, regardless of the tax rate.

15% Capital Gains Tax Rate is the lowest it's been since WW2, so please explain to me how we got by back then if no one was investing their money?????

Do away with income classifications and take all forms of income as income on your income taxes and everything else should straighten itself out.

Sure no business will turn down the chance to make a profit but you always will choose the easiest and fastest way to make that profit. Why bother taking a long term risk if I do not end up with more money in my pocket after.

A rich person can make $1 million dollars sitting in front of a computer day trading or they can start a company hire people and make $1 million dollars. Hmm I will chose the easy route and sit on my butt and day trade and guess what I pay the same exact tax

Rick, it sounds like you don't know any sane business people. There is far more that goes into a business decision than the potential tax. However, tax rates do affect the price and market stretch of a new venture, and it does cancel more initiatives than anything else.

Roscoe, the rate was lowered to spur economic investment by the community as a whole, which is what has built the nation that currently stands. Prior to WW2, we weren't exactly a wealthy state, and no one had much incentive to put their money into other people's ideas.

Yet look how many things were invented during and right after WW2. Somehow we got investment money to develope all those inventions even though the capital gains rate was 30% in 1940 and 25% in 1945. Capital Gains is income and should be taxed as such.

Rick-881466... Who read the article? Well, I'm guessing it wasn't you.

Comprehension problems? The headline reads "Actually the wealthy are taxed more, but...", while the article points out that they are not taxed more. There is a significant difference between paying more because you make more and being taxed at a high rate.

Rick- The earned income of people who "make more" is taxed at a higher rate. Investing is voluntary, therefore capital gains are taxed less.

You want to kill private investing then raise the capital gains rate, you will soon see all income tax rates rise and government intrusion into new sectors because government will be the only one doing the "investing".

Nonsense, pjam, and even a passing look at the past 40 years prove you wrong.

witchy, do you think that Buffet and those like him are thinking "I've got mine so no one else should be able to get theirs as well"? In other words, do you think people like Buffet don't want anyone else to get rich?

The corporate media? The kid with nothing will have a much lower std of living and won't be able to contribute as much as the harder working individual.

Why does the right cry and whine so much about how picked on they are.

Hogwash. Tax on capital gains is not a second tax on anything. When someone sells something and makes money on that sale, it's called income.

You seem to be having no effect on illustrating the pitfalls of actually saving money to the crowd on this board...........Maybe that's why so many are in debt, the value of saving is not nearly the same as spending, consuming and squandering which seems a lot more "fun"........off now in my Mercedes to buy my second 85 inch 3D plasma set to watch in stereo (?).

Don't confuse the audience, K1975. You make it sound like the lad who saved 1 million dollars over 40 years has to pay capital gains on the million dollars he saved. Not true. He only has to pay on any earnings he has accumulated, not on the base amount he saves.

A lot also has to do with how he saved that money. If he put it in a 401k, then he didn't pay taxes (yet) on the amount he put into the 401k. So up into that point, he actually paid fewer taxes than the non-saver.

What I don't like, is if you do the 401k rout, you have to actually pay full taxes on the money when you take it out, not the capital gains rate.

But back to your point, yes, it does seem like we're punishing people for saving.

Brian - "Hogwash. Tax on capital gains is not a second tax on anything. When someone sells something and makes money on that sale, it's called income."

Except that the overwhelming majority of investors do not own anything other than a meaningless peice of paper, they do not have a controling interest in the companies they invest in. They are lending money to the company, that the company can use to finance it's operations, if the company does well the value of the paper goes up. It is not about selling property, it is about growing value. Totally different than a sale of a physical item.

Tell us why you get a tax break on Interest you pay on your home mortgage? Didn't the bank sell you a mortgage at a rate you agreed to pay? If you can't figure it out it is because the Bank pays the taxes on the interest income it makes so you don't have to pay taxes on it before you hand it to them.... businesses pay taxes on the income they make with invested money, having the investor also pay taxes for increasing the wealth of the company is double taxation.

That piece of paper is a negotiable security that signified part ownership in the company of issue. Unless it's an original issue stock, the money "investors' pay for stocks never goes to the company on the the security. It goes to whoever bought the stock last. The only reason mortgage interest is deductible is to encourage people to buy homes. It has nothing to do with multi-layering of taxes.

By your measure the only time money should be taxed is the first time it leaves the treasury, which is stupid.

No, he can draw on his principle tax free. If you extend your logic it would mean that someone who paid for college and maybe a professional degree should not have to pay tax on their income. No, it is an investment to enable higher earnings in the future.

Brian-1075075, how much does a company have to earn to provide me $1 in dividend income?

Concerned..............good point BUT guess who makes those laws on taxation? Could it be our millionaire "Representatives" who would be mashing their own incomes?

In a depressed economy you want to raise the penalty for VOLUNTARILY investing in business... what a brilliant idea.

You also realize that then the tax forgiveness for capital losses also would need to be raised as well.

take your meds

Really...99% are impoverished and living in boxes...is that what you want us to believe? I'm guessing you're not sitting in a public library typing your drivel... perhaps on your iPhone or Mac in the comfort of your home? I've had an a$$ful of this 99% crap.

All you want is for someone to redistribute wealth to you because you never made it on your own. Tuff @!$%#.

Thetrust: And what's wrong with that ? Isn't that how all of the 1% "made" their wealth ?

If that is the way the world looks to to you then you are just another poor me story.

THIS IS WHAT AMERICA GETS WHEN THE WARMONGERING CONSERVATIVE GREED BASE COMES IN ; Two unfunded wars (one based on lies and non existant WMD's)

- A switch in focus from Afghanistan to Iraq

- Trillions of unfunded $$$ spent on Nation building

- The death of capitalism through bank and Wall Street bailouts

- Massive debt from bailouts, revenue reductions, socializing Medicare Part D

- $4/gal or $150/barrel oil

- Collaspe of the housing market through predatory lending

- Reduction of middle class - increase in lower class

- New gambling technique called "credit default swaps"

- Stagnant wages/Lower earnings

- Massive layoffs and job losses in the MILLIONS

- Corporate "perfomance" bonuses paid for with bailout funds

And there's plenty more! So keep talking Booby. Your minority of conservatives might choose to live in ignorance of their own record but the majority of Americans clearly understand how devastating it has been. We've been living with your trickle down economics and corporate greed bailouts/bonuses/welfare long enough. Why don't you just go back with your fellow conservatives and decry the president for his moratorium on drilling permits too! Just when I begin to think you guys have hit bottom they some how manage to sink to new depths!

If you think getting rid of deductions would not cause a huge debate you are mistaken.

Flat percentages? are you out of your mind? WE would end up paying more (I am working class and not upper income either) and the rich would be paying less.

This is not remotely logical!

The solution is a flat tax to abolish the IRS and then if people want it can be replaced with a department of handouts. So if politically favored individuals/groups like HeartsQuest want a refund on their taxes the DOH can cut him a check from the treasury. That way it's in the light of day and we'll know exactly how much HeartsQuest thinks the rest of us owe him for gracing us with his presence.

It's an amazing statement on america when paying your own way through life is "not remotely logical"!?

Did you say anything other than you just hate the president?

Your assertions are simply not true. Income is income no matter how you earn it.

First of all, everyone that works for their living pays either self-employment tax or payroll taxes. Unless you're self employed, the government hides half of this tax by having your employer pay it without reporting it to you as income. But regardless, it is a tax on you. That tax stops at about $109,000. Earn more than that and you don't pay any more of that tax. Without current tax breaks, this tax amounts to 15%.

And then you pay income tax on top of the payroll tax. Everyone pays exactly the same amount of tax on each dollar earned. But the more dollars you earn, the more the additional dollars are taxed. Put another way, every pays the exact same tax on the first $100,000 earned. But the third $100,000 that you earn is taxed at a higher rate than the first.

Now if you're simply rich and can sit back and earn income from investments you both contribute nothing to the economy and are simply subject to a 15% flat tax. No payroll taxes, no self-employment tax, and no graduated income tax. You simply pay a 15% flat tax. For the rest of us, that is the tax paid on payroll taxes or self-employment tax alone. This is how Romney can pay so little in tax and it is the consequence of the corrupt government that we have.

To have investment income, i.e. dividends, the company paying the dividend already pays a 35% income tax. The 15% is the second tax on that money so the true tax rate is about 46%. That is if a company I own shares in earns a dollar I can only ever get 54 cents out of it. Of course if they go under I get to lose my whole investment and the government isn't going to refund me any of the taxes I already paid.

I think you have hit right on the head. Whats more, even if the employer is paying it, the employers contribution is a de facto tax on ther individual. In effect there is a 14% tax before you even get to federal taxes.

Another area that is overlooked is Social Security Income. Because of the way Social Security income is taxed our tax rate was an effective 64% on part of our income last year (46% federal, 16% self employment and 4% state). The 46% federal may seem unbelievable but it is the result of the tier 2 (35%) additional taxable Social Security income for incomes over a certain amount.

Occasional Comment, you have no idea what you are talking about. Social Security is a program that people pay into, not a tax. The more you pay into it, the more you get back. So, someone who is making $100k is paying more into the system and will reap a higher benefit than someone making $40k. If you take off the cap (which I believe is around $116k now), then it becomes a tax that unfairly penalizes people who work the hardest. Removing the cap would make it an unfair tax.

Miss-clicked here... sorry. Jeff is right.

Common Sense... you echo, I think, ideas that many people have. That idea really isn't accurate. Social Security is not a tax. FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) is the 1935 Legislation signed by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrat Administration.

Note... Social Security is a Trust Fund... the Funds are not taxes... they are investments just like taking out Life Insurance.... And that fund, totally, belongs to us who have been paying into it.

During 2011 the Trust Fund held $2.6 trillion, up from $2.5 trillion in 2010. The Trust Fund consists of the savings of worker contributions and associated interest, to be used towards future benefit payments. Funds are held in United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government". The funds borrowed from worker contributions are part of the total national debt of $14.3 trillion as of March 2011.[3] By 2015, the government is expected to have borrowed nearly $3.25 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund.[4]

What is a huge problem is improper usage of those funds ... loans to both sides of political administrations down through too many years to finance projects. There began the series of Amendments... changing the scope of the original intent.

All in the name of "Entitlements" that mysterious recently coined word. We are entitled to Welfare? Entitled to College Educations? Entitled to Wars? To shore up Banks? And... then to pay the loans, the payments we having been making have been looped into the National Debt...

And Mr. Obama in his wisdom since he took office, has frozen the minuscule Cost Of Living Act increases as a blink at our astronimical inflation. #25,000 thirty years ago is equivalent to the buying ability of $50,000 today.

But do notice Jeffs comment. Wish I could spell it out, Jeff, as accurately and concisely as you... :)

I don't see a problem with raising the cap on Social Security. What would hurt would be the increase a business pays with that increase. Maybe there should be a cap, such as where it is now, for the business and a graduated decrease for the personal after that and would reach a minimum of 1%. EX: From the business cap to $150,000 5%, $150,001 to $200,000 4%, and so every $50,000 till it reaches the 1% minimum. If the business cap rises to within a set amount of the next rate then the personal cap rate would shift up by $50,000. Most that make that kind of money would see some benefit as their pay increases but contributions would not stop altogether. There are a lot of entertainers, business bigwigs, sports stars, politicians, that reach the present cap well before the end of January of a tax year. This way there will always be some income to SS no matter how much is made and it doesn't become a socialist method of taking from the rich to support the poor or less fortunate.

Then again, like HeartQuest pointed out, there is so much waste, unaccountability, and dipping into the SS fund that it should be addressed now before it gets too late.

The biggest part of the entire political debate in America is that the Republicans are liars and cheats. They don't want an honest discussion on taxes and conveniently choose to ignore payroll taxes with affect the non-wealthy far more than the wealthy. Somehow holier than thou Republicans think that while they can condemn homosexuals for their feelings, the less fortunate for their life circumstance, their own lying and cheating ways will be excused because they go to church on a Sunday and beg forgiveness for the evil that they do all seven days of the week. I certainly hope that if their is a God, the religious right will find that they are the first to be cast out.

they can lift the cap on SS so long as they also lift the cap on 401K contributions so I can have all my savings tax free.

But you realize that if you lift the cap then baseball players and actors could be paying in hundreds of thousands a month to a supposed "retirement" program. That means SS would have to pay them back hundreds of thousands a month when they retire if they want to continue to claim it's not a welfare program.