"Warren Buffet obviously understands. I would hope that you would take the time to do so as well, for your own good if nothing else"
I do understand. Income is taxed differently than dividends. When you lump them together you can come up with all kinds of different scenarios. I try to keep it simple, and look at income as income. If you are for raising taxes on dividends, then just say so. The other poster is telling us that Bush's tax cut is really an increase, and that we the public) are too stupid to see that it is an increase. That is ludicrous, and I am trying to point that out to her.
And I may be using the term "double taxation" incorrectly, but my point is that if someone has $200,000,000 in investments, he or she has already PAID TAXES on that amount (as you have acknowledged). This gets us back to the dividend tax vs. income tax issue. Why not keep it simple (as I try to do) and just say that you think dividend income should be taxed the same as income. Then at least we are talking about an issue, as opposed to coming up with various (and ficititious) scenarios that "prove" her point that the tax cut is really an increase.
Convaluting arguments is what dems do best, because the not so educated easily buy into their rhetoric about how the greedy "rich" people get a free ride at the expense of the hapless poor overtaxed average joe. The truth of the matter is that the top 10% of EARNERS pay 60% of the Fed Income tax.
I also note that you use FICA as a tax, but it is really a forced savings program that is supposed to benefit these poor soles that the demo party is supposedly so concerned about. I would happily give up my future FICA if the will just let me out of this ripoff system, but we know that will not happen. I would rather invest the 15% myself. But the dems think I am too stupid to do that, so they will sell bogus arguments like you and cyndwelr (or whatever her name is) do.
"In a perfect world a flat "effective tax rate" (including FICA)without any deductions, on all income is best because it represents equal treatment under the law"
I agree. I think I just said that in my last post. But don't tell me that the top earners do not pay their share, or that 25% is really higher than 28%. |
