So when the very rich don't get a tax break 'it is called raising taxes'

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Do the Republicans agree with giving the very rich a tax break? Yes they do.

The majority of the public does not agree with giving the rich a tax break or bonuses.

This was not made clear during the November elections.

It is about time Democrats got the message out.

[vi5]

1. Democrats need to get the message themselves....

..before they can get it out to the people. But they're so insulated in their beltway, 24 hour cable news chattering head lifestyle, all of which is occupied by wealthy people that they just don't understand that themselves. Or I should say not enough of them do.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Perhaps someone should have a quiet word with them

and tell them to get their act together?

[Better Today]

3. THEY ARE GETTING A tax break, just not an out of proportion one!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. I wish we could flash your chart on TV every morning and evening

[patrice]

5. I have been using it in FaceBook. Notice the difference between the proposed tax cuts

in what would be the largest constituency amongst those experiencing the most increase, i.e. $200-$500K. Apparently Republicans are perfectly willing to enslave all future generations to, for example, our War spending excesses, for something over $400. a year in their taxes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. the Republicans should be exposed

pity we couldn't pay for a few ads?

[Igel]

7. That's true.

But I bet my wife's 3% raise increase a couple of years ago was bigger than my neighbor's 3% raise--and a lot less than my mother's lawyer's 3% raise. Was this difference fair? Why not have all raises be in equal dollar amounts?

Well, I bet if your income's $200,000 an inflation rate of 2% costs you a lot more than it costs my family with its $60k/year income and a whole lot more than my neighbor's with their $35k/year income.

Similarly, if you look at the amount of taxes paid you'd see that the amounts for brackets look more like the right-hand "column" than the left. By that token, you already pay little but you get a big tax cut (in %), but if you already pay a lot then the tax reduction is very small and the effect is that in percentage terms you pay even more.

We use % or absolute values discrimately to buttress what we want to convince others of. What "good" is "common" is easily reduced--often cynically--to a function of the means used to display the data.

[win_in_06]

10. Your post reads like an argument for a flat tax rate.

Which I think would be fair.

[applegrove]

8. Obama should run on this in 2012.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. The GOP will insist that the very rich will have big cuts in taxes, so yes

Obama can say a lot about this

[applegrove]

11. And upwards of 60% of Americans want to see taxes on those who make over $250,000. So it is

Something Obama could run on.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. yes, he could up it to $300,000 for a married couple and then bingo

the rich guys above $300,000 could be taxed a lot. Especially those over $500,000

[Greybnk48]

13. Don't forget "Class Warfare" It's only class warfare though

if something affects exorbitant profits of the wealthy. Their raping of the middle class, of course, is something different--more natural.:sarcasm: