Replies

“I think all Americans should pay the Mitt Romney rate. Romney should not have to pay more than 15% of his income in income taxes. Neither should anyone else!”

You sure? Lets see, in order to get money to invest, person A (Romney) makes gross $100 and nets $65 in order to invest $65. Then over time he makes 10% a year for 10 years so that $65 grows to $176. Now $176 - $65 = $111 and now person A owes $111 x 0.15 = $17 more in taxes. So person A earned income of gross $100 and has paid $52 taxes or 52%.

If the investment is for only 1 year, then with a 10% return it is $6.50 x 0.15 or $0.975 owed in additional tax, so his effective rate on $100 earnings is $35+$1 or 36%.

Person B (average Joe) grosses $100 and does not invest anything, so he pays his 15% (according to Buffet’s secretary). He earned $100 and paid $15.

It should be all of our goals to invest enough over time that eventually our investments are making more in the market than we can make on the job.

“There is a word for that kind of system. It is called CRONY CAPITALISM.”

Your thinking is reversed. If I pay taxes on my earnings, and then invest it and still owe more taxes because my investments were successful, that is not crony capitalism. It is called self reliance.

“Define “a Fair Tax”. Who gets to decide what is “Fair”.”

Are you being purposely obtuse or are your emotions getting in the way? I said FairTax, as in the abolishment of the income tax, cap gains tax, soc security tax, etc, etc, to be replaced by a national sales tax.

“If I say that the Ditch Digger should pay the same favorable tax rate as the inventor of the back hoe (and vice versa), then I am arguing for equal treatment under the law.”

Go back and look at that “favorable” rate you are so upset about. Both earned an income of $100 and paid an income tax, at progressive rates, then the investor pays again...his true rate is about 52% over that 10 year example.

“If you argue that the inventor is of more value to society and therefore should pay a more favorable tax rate than the ditch digger, then you are arguing a socialist world view. That the individual is only valuable in relation to his contribution to society.”

That is not what I said at all. What I said is that the “second bite at the apple” by the government drives the total “rate” the inventor pays to be well above what you would find acceptable for the ditch digger. Both are already paying their different rates on their earnings, then they do different activities with their net wages. One spends it all and the other invests it all. The reality is that each is probably somewhere along that range and not completely at the “spend it all or invest it all” extremes of the range.

All I am doing is pointing out that the totality paid by one is already MUCH higher than the other. If you want to give in to the twisting of the leftist, then more power to you. Just don’t be shocked when Atlas Shrugs.