Why? Why should someone making $249k on financial speculation pay nothing, while someone making $106,800 on actual work pays the highest rate around?

Over 50% of Americans pay absolutely NO TAXES whatsoever..

THAT's what I call "gross unfairness"

It's what I call a big fat lie.

Over 50% of Americans pay absolutely NO TAXES whatsoever..

THAT's what I call "gross unfairness"...

The problem here is the Left's definition of "fair"...

The Left defines "fair" as the rich giving all they have...

Ironically enough, even if the 1% were taxed at 100%, that STILL wouldn't even scratch the surface of the debt that Democrats have ran up...

Michale

Why all the hulla-ballooo over Buffet's secretary???

She and her husband are millionaires.. They are part of the 1%, not the 99%...

Do ya'all REALLY want to make her the poster child for helping the middle class???

Michale

Of course, stocks don't pay dividends so much any more, because of the tax advantage of capital gains. If a firm wants to give money to shareholders (which is supposed to be its purpose, after all) it does so by buying back some of its stock. That's exactly like a dividend, except for what it's called and how it's treated for tax purposes.

First off, welcome to the site. Your first comments were held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly, unless you post more than one link per comment (these are held for moderation to cut down on comment spam).

Math Matters -

If you read the whole article, you would likely see that I agree with what I read to be your position. Just a suggestion.

I'm not a tax expert, nor have I ever called myself one. Just for the record.

The AMT, as it stands, does not (I believe) apply to capital gains. Obama's plan would change this, or else Buffett is still paying a lower rate than his secretary. He hasn't released specifics, but I bet they'll be something close to: AMT below $1m as usual, above $1m capital gains taxed as regular income.

Um, did I mention investors or ROI?

I'm not sure why you think I'm "on your ass" but I actually agree with Obama's plan, and I have been pushing for capital gains to be considered income like all other income for years.

Here's a suggestion: read this article I wrote back in 2007 and see if it says what you're looking for or not.

valleypeach -

Um, I think we actually agree as well. Obama's new AMMT would -- by definition -- have to include capital gains, or else Buffett still pays less than his secretary. The old AMT doesn't, which is one reason why it needs reform.

The AMT causes problems over and over for the middle class precisely why I said it does -- because it is never actually "fixed" -- instead, each and every year it faces the same "it's going to impact millions of middle class folks" problem, and Congress "fixes" it for precisely ONE year.

As for "honest," here is the whole quote: "limit the loopholes and tax giveaways that very wealthy people use to reduce their taxes far below the rate honest workers pay." The flip side to "honest" is "the loopholes and tax giveaways" not the rich. Mitt honestly paid his taxes, no question. But the capital gains thing is merely the biggest, most egregious of these loopholes, which I consider dishonest. Capital gains is either a gigantic loophole or a monstrous tax giveaway (take your choice), to put it another way.

I was already in the weeds far enough with this article, so I didn't think I had to retrace the whole capital gains ground (see article I cited, above, to Math Matters). What I am suggesting is that Obama combine his new idea on the AMMT (which would HAVE to treat capital gains as straight income, or it just wouldn't work for Buffett) with the idea of permanently fixing the AMT, so we don't have to watch the yearly charade about the "fix".

dsws -

Again, that's what the AMT was originally designed to do -- limit the loopholes to higher-income-earners. They usually phase things like this up, so if you make a certain amount, you're allowed 50% of the loopholes, but if you make twice that, you are allowed 0% of the loopholes. That's the theory, anyway, which gradually cuts the loopholes off as income rises.

Der Farm -

What I find hypocrisy from Mitt is the "I'm unemployed" or "I fear a pink slip" quotes -- pandering on the campaign trail to the unemployed voter. How many "unemployed" folks have a $21m income to fall back on?

To put this into some perspective, I heard recently a stat that something like 97-98% of the tax income which comes in as capital gains tax falls on 2% of the people. That means that those 2% are making 98% of the profits on Wall Street -- and that middle-class folks' investments are literally peanuts beside their share.

I actually agree with one piece of Mitt's tax plan: go ahead and set capital gains taxes to zero for anyone making $250K or less -- give the middle class a break. But above that is where Mitt and I differ, because I would then tax everything above that as income, no matter where it came from.

-CW

Well, I am. It is unfair that 22MILLION dollars A YEAR pays less percentage than 35K/year.

It is obscene.

So what is this bullshit about the upper middle class not paying their fair share? You literally need millions to seriously avoid a large portion of taxes.

I'm not pushing a judgment one way or the other over whether the AMT constitutes "their fair share". I'm wondering about the discrepancy between how it's supposedly "their fair share" when applied to the very rich, but not when applied to the merely upper-middle-class.

I'm not the one making the claim that the AMT hits the upper middle class, either. I don't know what tax rate they pay under the regular tax code, but we sure hear that the AMT would "unfairly" hit the upper middle class if not fixed every year. If you think it wouldn't apply to anyone without "literally millions" in annual income, take that up with the people making the claim.

Geithner Says Obama Won't Ask Him to Remain Past First Term
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLYDGJ30D9L3501-LYDWE.DTL

Liz is going to be devastated....

Michale

And so should everyone who complains that the rich ain't tax'ed enough...

Absolutely NO ONE is stopping ANYONE from paying more in taxes..

I'll listen to the likes of Buffet (and Buffet's secretary) and Obama and Pelosi and Reid when they show me that they voluntarily paid more than what is required in taxes..

Until they do, they are just talking out their asses... And rank and file Democrats enable such ass-speak...

Michale

I have a tax lawyer (actually, I have 2 because I pay taxes in 3 states) and I've never been able to get below 28%.

So what is this bullshit about the upper middle class not paying their fair share? You literally need millions to seriously avoid a large portion of taxes.

It doesn't seem to me that Mitt did anything illeagal at all in only paying 14%. It does seem to me that it is more than a little hypocritical to try to tell people that he's "one of us" when he makes 20M per year. It is the infrastructure of the US that allows him to make that kind of $$ on stocks and such. He should be willing to pay for that infrastructure.

I did.

It certainly does!! :D

Which is why I have always said that Democrats and Republicans only pay lip service to actually making the tax code fair..

Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that lawmakers are going to enact laws that will cost them MILLIONS of dollars every year!??

If ANYONE here honestly believes that, then I invite them to come own down here to FL, because I have some really nice swamp-front property I want to sell them... :D

Obama should go ahead with his A.M.M.T., and at the same time reform the A.M.T. so that Congress won't have to perform this fudging of reality every single year.

Once again, you are dead on ballz accurate CW....

But Obama won't do it... He will pay lip service to it, he will campaign on it....

But you can bet that every December there will be another AMT "fix"....

Obama is not about to change something that will cost him and his cronies millions each and every year...

Even if, by some miracle of the gods, Obama does try it.... Congress won't let him...

These are our representatives...

Ain't they peachy??? :^/

Michale.

First, your comment "...reduce their taxes far below the rate honest workers pay...". Really? Honest people? So the rich are not honest? I think you meant to say "wage earners" or something to that effect.

And second, this whole discussion on the AMT is not even relevant to the current dialog. The AMT became more and more a problem for middle class wage earners and that is why it had to be "fixed" again and again. rightfully so. But the ultra wealthy, like Romney, who get all of their income from interest and dividends pay a lower rate of 15%, ( and that income is not even subject to the AMT). The dialog is about the differences in the RATES!

You really need to consult a tax accountant before you solicit articles to HuffPost. I have no idea how this one slipped past their editors!

Your article, as much as I read of it, doesn't even mention this. Nor do 90% of articles on taxation mention it.

Does the ATM -- before, or as Obama proposes -- apply to all income?

And why the hell even have a term "capital gains"? LEt me answer that -- to give it special treatment.

Oh spare me this shit about "investors" and "ROI" for investors. My family runs a printing business, employs people, and invested millions in time, money, sweat, worry, and work. Why the hell should our profit be taxed out the ass, while some ass wipe does "creative destruction" take overs, and short sells stocks, credit swaps, pay little or no tax, while we pay very high taxes, even BEFORE we make a dime.

Tax income as income, period. Let the market work. If your ass wants to invest in credit swaps, great, invest away. If you want to make your money short selling a stock and leverage buy outs, great, go for it.

But get off my ass and outta my savings by telling me I should pay 2-3-4-5 times the tax rate these guys pay.

If anything, people who actually invest and work in their business, who produce a good or service, who hire, and pay taxes, and make this country function, THEY should get the low rate, if a low rate is going to be had.

Romney and others should be ashamed of their tax rate --which is not even 13.9, but more like 8%, if he would reveal how much he has hidden.

So why you "tax experts" get real, let me know.

Luckily, just now, just the last week, since Mitt Romney was pressured to release his taxes, do people seem to get it. Maybe a Mitt candidacy would get this out more, though he has no chance at nomination. Newt wants ZERO taxes for people like Mitt. But with FOX news lying their ass off about taxes, with almost every tax "expert" like you babbling on without even mentioning the biggest determinant in taxation, I don't see much hope.

By the way, Ronald Reagan raise the shit out of capital gains, and said it should not be given preferential treatment. So did Abe Lincoln. Why the hell isn't anyone calling these politicians today on this stuff?