Meaning investing and trading stocks etc. is taxed less than employment?

And is this why it would be that somebody like Steve Jobs "pays less taxes than his secretary"?

So raising the capital gains tax would counter that?

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill

The Christian Right is neither

I guess so... but the consequences of raising the capital gains taxes would likely be harsher. It would encourage more dodging of capital gains taxes by the rich and discourage investment by the middle class.
Plus the point of progressive taxation isn't to equalize income- it's to make taxation less burdensome.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Okay, how about the fact that the so-called successful people (i.e. the rich) are the driving force behind the rise in inflation and stagnation of wages, meaning that the rich get richer, and everyone else stays poor.

Inflation in a typical free market society causes the cost of living to double every 18 years. This means that something that cost one dollar in 1990, will cost two dollars today. Inflation is a direct affect of investments, which makes currency shrink due to aggressive spending, causing the multiplier affect to increase the value of money in circulation, which leads to a larger amount of currency in existence.

Yet, for the majority of the workforce, which works at close to minimum wage, hourly wage has not risen to meet this. In fact, minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) has dropped by 21% since 1979. This forces individuals in poverty to have to work more hours to survive. Thus, there is limited ability to seek education which is necessary to 'rise up' in our society, because poor families have to work more hours.

Point is, the rich are responsible for inflation, which devalues currency, but as the controllers of the market, have not done enough to ensure that wages have risen to meet this. They have (collectively) been irresponsible, and thus a balancing mechanism is appropriate.

Eventually, without a balancing mechanism, the owners of production are going to have a pretty hard time producing anything when their labor pool simply can't afford to survive.

No, people can't afford it. But gasoline is not a luxury, it is a necessity for many who have to drive to work. So they cut money out of other areas and put it into gasoline because they have to. That is money that now can't go towards advancement opportunities.

Because the rich enjoy more benefits of society, and those benefits aren't free. Without paying more into that society, your labor pool is going to dry up, period. Unless you want to advocate forced labor camps, I suppose that would work too.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

Id actual expect taxing Capital Gains would be far more progressive than Income tax as the first taxes wealth while the second taxes work. It'd probably encourage long term investment if a reducing tax scale was used over investment time.
But there are ways around this. Plus theres no more sure fire way for a government to get income than by cutting CGT as people cash out there investments at the lower rate, and the public never see the loss to the Revenue because the tax on the gain is further off.

Im not one for income equalisation though operation of high Capital Gains and Inheritance is better than Income Tax and Corporate Taxes as the first set discourage indolence while the second set discourage work. Better people pay tax more on unearned money and less on earned, that would be more effective economic stimulus.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

I think income tax is really the least intrusive tax... sales tax comes in a close second.
People are going to earn and spend money regardless, as long as the earnings can feasibly support living. People will work more or harder to earn more, all things constant, as long as each income bracket only takes from the next $100 as opposed to retroactively all.

Capital gains taxes will affect the rich most, but will also discourage more people from investing. I can agree with inheritence taxes, but do not see them (at least at a reasonable level) as a possibility for raising necessary revenues.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Taxation is not rape. Who feels a 10% tax more? A guy earning 20,000 or a guy earning 2,000,000?

B/c I pay for that gasoline 2-3 times. I pay at the pump. My tax dollars pay 40 or so billion dollars a year in subsidies to big oil and my tax dollars are being used to fund the Iraq debacle.

But really, you're talking about commodities in a thread devoted in part to a discussion of the proper top marginal tax rate.

Go back to the 1950s when the top marginal rate was something like 91% on dollars earned over 250,000 or 500,000 (I forget which).

Do you think that people will stop trying to earn those dollars in excess of 250,000 just b/c the tax rate is 91%? NOpe, didn't happen and the 1950s is largely considered the country's golden age.

And if those earning 250k don't want the market share that would pay them over that amount, then they'd better get out of the way for those that will put in the effort--the essence of the free market, don't you think?


Good man.

What so few people realize is the fact that the top 50% pay 96.54% of all taxes, as it is. The bottom 50%, only pay 3.46% of all income taxes. While some people think this is fantastic, let's "Soak the rich" let's keep things in perspective. The top 50% also happen to be the employers for the bottom 50%, especially the top 1%, who provide the most jobs of all.

The question is, will the top 1% continue to provide as many jobs as they do now, in the face of such a massive transfer of wealth to the government. Let's face it, WE won't get any of that money, the government will take it and spend it on something.

__________________
http://www.nosocialism.com
-----------------------------------------------
America is not a Socialist country, this is why the only democrats who ever win, are democrats who SOUND like Republicans (Hello Bill Clinton - Low taxes, Free Trade, Welfare Reform, Era of Big Government Over - Sounds Republican).

I'm ok with this. We've both outlined the reasons for our differing perspectives on a progressive tax system particularly the one used here in the US. It's far too easily obstructed and cumbersome. Albeit online tax services aid in filling out tax forms, but they overlook many deductions a qualified tax advisor could find. The tax code shouldn't be something so complicated the average American can't understand it.

__________________

Some points already made in this thread, but repeated for your benefit:

1. Income taxes, only. Payroll taxes, especially, hit the poor harder.

2. The top 50% earn roughly 80% of all the income:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lab...a99-07cht1.gif

So it's not out of line, in a mildly progressive system, for them to pay 96% of taxes. Especially because....

3. It's *reported* income. The IRS admits that it only gets reports of about 70% of business and investment income -- vs. about 99% of wage income. So the wealthy are hiding somewhere between a quarter and a third of their income. Meaning the 80% income share I mention above is an understatement.

__________________
Man up.

Judging by everything that has been discussed here, I wouldn't think that the average American will ever be able to understand the tax code.

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill

The Christian Right is neither