I agree on the lowering of tax rates at lower brackets, but there isn't much to be done there. At the lowest bracket (<$8000 or so), those people aren't paying federal income tax anyway (I should know; I'm one of them). A standard deduction + 1 exemption eliminates all that from being taxable. You might as well make it 0% for those people. I think there should be more brackets myself, and labor should always be taxed less than any capital gains.

The "liberal" argument is at times simply an argument to punish people for being too rich, rather than to actually increase revenues or any sort of logical end. I know first hand that in my benevolent dictatorship, I'd simply confiscate most of the assets of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al. I don't believe, in a moral sense that anyone for any reason deserves that much money. I'd be more than happy to simply beat the tar out of them for being too rich; it is immoral to have too much wealth. Chalk that up to envy or something else if you must (we can never know the true nature of our moral compass).

In a political sense this is incredibly wrong headed and counter productive. I'd never advocate this policy in a political context and would actively oppose it if introduced. It simply doesn't work as advertised.

That is the problem with many hard-left policy ideas. They are based on appeals to emotion rather than via cold facts.

you managed to pack into just one diary, John :)

Where to start...

So, income is up for the top of the top of the top. In itself, a rather non-point, IMO. So what? Good for them. It's not like they took it at someone's else's expense or "stole it" legally through some law.

No, actually, it is exactly like they took it from someone else. They took it from everyone else, in fact. The US has, at any given moment, x total wealth. When your personal share of x is greater than the median you are in fact taking from everyone else. Your portion of the group pie is bigger, meaning everyone else does with less. That's pretty much the definition of "taking."

Ahhh. No we are on tax percentage of income....and why? Because, thanks ATQB, a look at absolute percentages of total taxes collected on this group shows an INCREASE in total taxes paid and a decrease in percentage on lower income groups. SO, when the share of taxes paid by the rich compared to others doesn't support the narrative that the rich are "getting off easier" than before, these bloggers simply shift the paradigm a bit and scrutinize the percentage paid on those incomes.

An as before this metric is completely useless. I don't know why you are bringing it up but since you did I guess I need to througohly debunk it.

You total tax paid is a simple formula:

%taxation x total taxable income = total tax paid

What Klein is telling us is that the first part of the equation (%taxation) is too low for the wealthiest. You on the other hand are pointing at the right hand of the equation (total tax paid). Yes total tax paid has gone up. And this in no way changes Klein's point.

Total tax paid can go up through two ways (or some combination of the two): %taxation going up OR total taxable income going up. We KNOW it isn't the former so that only leaves that the Wealthy are gobbling up larger and larger portions of the pie and paying the same or less tax rate (%) than people who are far poorer.

I have no idea why you think this "disproves" the meme that the wealthy are getting off easy when it in fact strongly supports it.

The part they ignore is that these higher incomes are symbiotic with lower tax rates. Reported incomes would drop with higher tax rates.

And? When the point is that the rich are eating up a disproprotionate amount of resources the idea that they'd recieve less income is a feature, not a bug, John.

Notice that there isn't really any "there there"? The rates on capital gains were cut and the percentage paid dropped but the percentage share of total income collected went UP.

Gosh, that seems like some "there" to me, seeing as it, again, supports Klein's thesis.

Bottom line, let's remember what arguments we are making and what arguments tell a worthwhile story. Total taxes paid and share of taxes paid by the highest brackets is UP. That the percentage paid on that income is down for some of these top tier earners is, in itself, irrelevant.

*shakes head*
I don't think you could write a statement on this topic that was more wrong than what I quote of yours above. You have it insanely backwards. It is the tax percentage that is important because that tells you precisely how much of their income they are using to support the state, as opposed to everyone else. It is the total tax amount paid that is irrelevant because all it tells you is that rich people have more money. Well duh. The question is whether they unduly benefit, meaning if they get to keep a larger portion of their income than people who are far less well off, and they do.

But hey, if the fact that many of these upper echelon earners are "only paying" 18-25% of their total incomes is such a travesty, I see only one solution:

Lower the tax rates at lower brackets to make it more progressive!

Yes, that's one option. Or raise their taxes. Either would help resolve the disparity you refuse to admit exists.

is that our next debate should be windows vs linux :-P

Total taxes paid and share of taxes paid by the highest brackets is UP

Isn't that because the "rich" are making relatively more. And more of the money being made is being made by people who are far above the poverty level.

Taxes should be based on and levied when people have the wherewithal to pay the taxes, the rich generally will always have both those conditions.