Percentage, not absolute amount

Reader comment on: Glenn Hubbard in Politico
in response to reader comment: One must look at the party platform as a whole

Submitted by benjamin (United States), Aug 5, 2010 21:13

Of course Warren Buffett pays more in absolute taxes that almost anyone, but his challenge is to find a ceo who pays a greater percentage of their income than his/her assistant. Of course, limiting the discussion to income tax is a bit unfair. As you have noted, because payroll taxes are not means tested, they end up being regressive. Even after adjusting for this though, surely the top 1% still pay a huge amount of money. And why not? They are the ones with the money. In many cases, they did nothing to earn it themselves anyway, or even if they were "self-made," they still relied on the infrastructure, labor and government to allow their ideas to take root and prosper. Have they been discouraged from working or investing by paying so much? Are they struggling to feed their families? Must they forgo owning their own private jet and have to subscribe to a jet sharing service?

When looking at the trends since 1980 of the richest 1% having their income gains far outpacing the middle class, I would imagine your average middle class guy would gladly pay more in taxes if he experienced the same growth in income as the wealthiest.

Does Obama favor the rich? More than I would like. The man is far from perfect. Look at his spineless, gutless take on gay marriage! Talk about an issue that brings out the bigots. The reaction to that case makes the Islamic Center thing look downright tolerant. But every time I doubt Obama I remind myself of the alternative - Vice President Palin - then I feel much better about our President.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Comment on this item