DNC Instapoll: Cut Taxes for the Rich

Reader Comments
Back to blog

ontyime1.txt;4;5

AnAEODpN of 1:02PM August 10, 2009

Wealthy Americans are more able to take advantage of tax breaks such as the capital gains tax because most of the poor cannot afford to invest in these assets.
Also, it's only fair that the cap on social security tax be removed because those making less than $100,000 (usually the middle class and poor) pay social security tax on every dollar earned whereas the rich do not. If social security is in danger of becoming insolvent for the future generations, then it doesn't make sense to have a cap. The cap was set in place because the rich could not collect above a certain amount, yet now that arguement does not apply since many of today's youth are paying for social security and they may not be able to collect even a penny of what they pay into it.
And as far as the income tax rate, it doesn't matter that the rich are paying more of the total tax than the poor. This is like comparing apples to oranges. A millionaire subject to a 35% income tax rate pays $350,000 in taxes. It will take about seven middle income people earning $50,000 a piece taxed at 100% to put in $350,000. It shouldn't matter that the rich are paying more of the total tax than the poor.

of WA 8:38PM September 22, 2008

From your discussion of the delegate's answers, it seems you meant to ask about what marginal tax rate should be paid by the rich. But the marginal rate is actually far different than the average rate - 20% is actually near the average tax rate for 'the rich'.
The lesson - imprecise questions yield imprecise answers leading to little meaningful value gained.

tegwar of VA 10:07AM September 03, 2008

Sorry to tell you folks, but the financial bubbles are created by greed not a lower tax rate for capital gains. Higher tax rates will discourage hard work and inovation.

LARRY of NV 5:33PM August 28, 2008

I suspect that most delegates to the DNC could not tell an interviewer what their incremental rate was nor the percent of their taxable or total gross that they paid in taxes.
I suspect that most think the percentage they quote is the tax paid on total income.

bob of TX 5:21PM August 28, 2008

The top tax rate is 35%, but after you earn, I think around $145,000, your itemized deductions start to phase out, which, in effect, raises the effective top rate anywhere between one and three more percentage points. Consider, as well, that Obama wants to take the cap off of the Social Security tax (having it apply to all income like the Medicare tax rate does now). So, the idea that Obama merely wants to return to the Clinton top rate of 39.6% if, correctly, a lie.
Let's not even talk about the "cap and trade" "tax" on energy that this clown will tout.

MET of MI 5:07PM August 28, 2008

"We'd be better off taxing capital gains more in order to tax earned income less. Low or zero capital gains tax rates are the recipe for creating bubbles in valuations of things like stocks and houses. Bubbles are not a "good" thing. They get everybody all excited and hurt VERY BADLY the last ones in."
Yes, let's tax the actual vehicles of growth more than the reward of work. That sure would be a good thing to do.
By the by, bubbles don't happen because of lowered taxes on them. Otherwise, we should have a bubble in equities now, because the cap gains rate now is lower than what it was under Clinton. No, bubbles happen when investors see other investors making money. This is also known as the "herd mentality", or, as Alan Greenspan put it, "irrational exuberance".

Chris of AZ 4:29PM August 28, 2008

We'd be better off taxing capital gains more in order to tax earned income less. Low or zero capital gains tax rates are the recipe for creating bubbles in valuations of things like stocks and houses. Bubbles are not a "good" thing. They get everybody all excited and hurt VERY BADLY the last ones in.
Tech stocks in 2000 anyone? How about a house purchased in 2005 in good ole Las Vegas?

of 1:58PM August 28, 2008