> Funny that the tip top elite do better under Obama's tax plan than
> McCain's.
>
You seem to be misreading the graphic. The Washington Post version of
the graphic makes it clear that Obama is proposing a massive tax
increase on high income earners. By uncapping FICA the way Medicare
taxes are already perversely uncapped, Obama will be stealing tens of
thousands of dollars more per year from my family, but these increases
in our "premiums" won't buy us one iota of extra "social insurance"
benefits. Before Obama, FICA at least had some mathematical connection
to benefits later received, but that doesn't stop lefty propagandists
from lumping FICA in with income taxes and thus disguising the
progressivity of the tax code. Under the Obama Administration, at least
the pretense of "social insurance" will finally be gone, and the goal of
income redistribution will be effectively admitted.
Why are people surprised that when you cut taxes, the people who pay
more of the taxes get more of the benefit? The top 1% of earners pay
40% of all income taxes while earning only 20% of all gross income. The
top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes while earning only 46% of all gross
income. The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all income taxes, while earning
13% of all gross income. Data are from
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf.
The Democratic Freedom Caucus platform rightly says that income taxes
are unjust. Should the income tax not be eliminated, simply because it
is currently so heavily progressive? When you take less of what you
have been unjustly taking from me, does this mean you're giving me
something?
When you folks talk to non-libertarian Democrats, do you ever ask them
what tax rate, if any, on high earners would be too high? I asked that
of my Democrat opponent (Rep. Anna Eshoo) in a candidate forum once, but
of course she didn't answer. I wonder if the answer would even be
bounded by the Laffer Curve -- or would income redistributionists raise
marginal tax rates even higher, just out of pure spite?
