[brentb]

Never confuse marginal rates with average rates.

I didn't... I clearly stated that those were the top marginal rates and further down in my comment, I noted the difference between what someone making 400K would pay marginally and on average.

When folks don't spend their money, they buy dumb.

I don't understand this comment at all... please explain.

If it's so patriotic [to pay taxes], why do you want to exclude people from it?

I, like Buffet, Gates and many others, believe that those of us who are in a position to pay 40% of our income and still live in extraordinary comfort should do so. Those who aren't in such a position shouldn't be expected to do so. I don't have rich parents and I started out relatively poor... if it wasn't for low tax rates when I was broke and not making much, it would have been much, much harder for me to make a success of myself. Now that I'm doing better, I'm happy to pay it forward to the next generation struggling to make something of themselves and make everyone in the country better off a result. Even from a purely selfish viewpoint, graduated tax brackets make sense.

[anamax]

> Now that I'm doing better, I'm happy to pay it forward to the next generation struggling to make something of themselves and make everyone in the country better off a result. Even from a purely selfish viewpoint, graduated tax brackets make sense.

As I've pointed out, the fraction of tax revenue paid by the richest 1, 5, and 10% are much higher now than they were when the top tax rates were higher. And, as the fraction of the tax burden paid by the rich has gone up, the fraction by the poor has gone down, to the point that nearly half don't pay anything.

Higher tax rates for the upper brackets don't lead to less taxes paid by the poor - they lead to more taxes paid by the poor.

Basically, it's a choice between steeply graduated rates and steeply graduated revenue. It's interesting that you choose the former. You claim to be concerned for the poor, yet you advocate a return to a system where they paid more taxes.

Feel free to downmod me for being mean.

[brentb]

I just happened upon your response and I can't tell if you realize how much you're twisting the facts to support your conclusions or not. I suspect you don't, so let me help illuminate where your argument goes wrong.

"Higher tax rates for the upper brackets don't lead to less taxes paid by the poor - they lead to more taxes paid by the poor."

You're confusing correlation (or, perhaps more accurately in this case, coincidence) with causation here. You correctly point out that "the fraction of tax revenue paid by the richest 1, 5, and 10% are much higher now than they were when the top tax rates were higher", but this obviously can only be the case because the income gap has widened. Despite paying lower marginal rates than they have through much of recent history, the richest 1, 5 and 10% of Americans now make so much compared to the other 90% of Americans that they still account for a larger share of revenue. If the income gap had remained stable or shrunk, the opposite would be the case. Now don't get me wrong... I'm certainly not anti-income gap and I have no agenda around redistributing wealth. I'm simply explaining why your statement is dead wrong.

What I do have an agenda around is making the tax burden distributed in the way that is best for society (and, thereby, individuals within that society, including myself). I feel that this involves heavily graduated taxation, despite the fact that I'm in that uppermost bracket. I'm not being selfish and looking for a handout and I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with making obscene amounts of money... I simply feel its better for society to impose higher taxes on those who can more easily afford it. Warren Buffett (and countless others) agree with me. You obviously don't, but that's no excuse to twist facts to support your agenda.

[anamax]

> I, like Buffet, Gates and many others, believe that those of us who are in a position to pay 40% of our income and still live in extraordinary comfort should do so.

Buffet and Gates won't be paying 40% in income taxes. And, nothing has stopped them from paying 40% in the past, so ...

Hmm - have you been paying the higher tax rates that you propose? If not, why not?

Most people are employed by folks who make more money. Why don't you want more of that?

And then there's the actual effect of luxury taxes. It turns out that people of modest means are employed making them, so when you reduce the sales of said goods through taxes, said people lose their jobs. What is the benefit that exceeds that cost?

Buffet and Gates have also arranged things so that almost none of their wealth will be subject to estate taxes.

[anamax]

>> When folks don't spend their money, they buy dumb.

> I don't understand this comment at all... please explain.

When you're spending your money on something for you, you have to live with both the costs and the benefits.

When you're spending your money on something for someone else, you have to live with the costs but not the benefits.

When you're spending someone else's money on yourself, you have to live with the benefits but not the costs.

When you're spending someone else's money on someone else, you don't have to live with the costs or the benefits.

In what situation are you likely to make the best buying decision? In which situation are you likely to make the worst buying decision?