Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[Al B. Sure!]

Jaguar, I messed with Kuci before but to be clear, interest income is taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains

[Hauldren Collider]

Alby, are you trying to suck up to Jaguar?

[Al B. Sure!]

Alby, are you trying to suck up to Jaguar?

Not sure what would give you that impression.

[Jaguar]

Jaguar, I messed with Kuci before but to be clear, interest income is taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains

There's the further loopiness of special exemptions on municipal bond interest. I am acquainted with a rich guy who moved large portions of his money into municipal bonds years ago, to hedge against the possibility of a "Buffett Rule" making it through Congress.

I filed my taxes Thursday and some of the exemptions are beyond absurd.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is it only munis that are exempt? I thought Treasurys and state bonds were also exempt.

[Al B. Sure!]

Is it only munis that are exempt? I thought Treasurys and state bonds were also exempt.

Most state bonds are exempt but Treasuries are not exempt from federal taxes.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why only most?

[Al B. Sure!]

Why only most?

Private Activity Bonds, issued by a state or municipal entity for the purpose of financing a project of a private user.

I had said think sports stadiums but doing some googling, it seems like sports stadiums still are financed by tax-exempt bonds. I had thought the IRS reined that one in.

[Elok]

If you could have understood that in fewer words, great for you. Other people might benefit from the airtight algebra. Most of the formulae are just copy and paste from the initial version, with the new taxes added in. I don't feel bad about spending seven or eight minutes on a post that explains a simple concept that many leftists, including and especially President Obama, are unable to understand.

Without commenting on the argument itself, I have to say (as an economic illiterate and liberal arts weenie) that looking at that mass of variables hurt my eyes. Al's concrete-example way of expressing it, assuming you're talking about the same thing, was better. No offense intended.

[onodera]

Al, your article is talking about top 10 percent, not top 1 percent. The former includes quite a lot of middle class and everyone knows that it's the middle class that pays the heaviest.

[DinoDoc]

The big majority opted for a lower tax bill when asked to choose specific rates; precisely 75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below.

The current rate for top earners is 35 percent. Only 4 percent thought it was appropriate to take 40 percent, which is approximately the level that President Obama is seeking from January 2013 onward.

The Hill poll also found that 73 percent of likely voters believe corporations should pay a lower rate than the current 35 percent, as both the White House and Republicans push plans to lower rates.

The new data seem to run counter to several polls that have found support for raising taxes on high-income earners. In an Associated Press-GfK poll released Friday, 65 percent said they favored President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” that millionaires should pay at least 30 percent of their income. And a Pew poll conducted in June found 66 percent of adults favored raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 as a way to tackle the deficit.

The American people already seem to think the rich pay more than their fair share: http://thehill.com/polls/212643-hill...duals-business

[Jaguar]

Without commenting on the argument itself, I have to say (as an economic illiterate and liberal arts weenie) that looking at that mass of variables hurt my eyes. Al's concrete-example way of expressing it, assuming you're talking about the same thing, was better. No offense intended.

None taken. My post is the formalized, general algebra of what his second paragraph said. His first paragraph made additional points that I didn't make, but they are worth thinking about.

[Al B. Sure!]

Without commenting on the argument itself, I have to say (as an economic illiterate and liberal arts weenie) that looking at that mass of variables hurt my eyes. Al's concrete-example way of expressing it, assuming you're talking about the same thing, was better. No offense intended.

His post is a lot cleaner and straight-forward. Algebra is a lot more concise than words. I also like his preference for taxes restraining consumption better than my use of ordinary and capital gains income.

In general, I have criticized KH and Kuci for assuming the education of their audience, but Jaguar is always pretty good at explaining things. The way he kept indicating which portions were wage income and which were capital gains would be helpful to a student.

[dannubis]

I'm actually making this argument on facebook right now. Among my friends, I feel like you on Apolyton

You must know some ****ing dumb people then...

[Al B. Sure!]

You must know some ****ing dumb people then...

I know. They're liberals.

To be fair, only one guy bit and I'm not sure he's very liberal. He's currently a law student, though.

I was hoping to argue more.