Most Americans agree with "Buffett rule" concept, poll shows

[highplainsdem]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57364811-503544/most-americans-agree-with-buffett-rule-concept-poll-shows/

Currently, most investment, or unearned, income from capital gains and dividends is typically taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent rate. That's how Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ended up paying a rate of about 14.5 percent on the $42.6 million he made over the past two years. Wage earners, by comparison, are taxed on a sliding scale that now tops out at 35 percent.

However, 52 percent of Americans say that capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income earned from work because the current policy increases the federal deficit and is unfair to people who don't have money to invest, according to the poll. Thirty-six percent approve of the current policy of taxing capital gains at a lower rate because it encourages investment and helps the economy.

-snip-

More than half - 55 percent - think upper income Americans pay less than their fair share of taxes. Only a quarter says higher income people pay the right amount in taxes.

There are partisan differences here, too. Seventy percent of Democrats think those with upper incomes pay less than their fair share of income taxes, but that percentage drops to 37 percent among Republicans.

Complete poll results here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan12c_taxes.pdf


Note that 57% of independents also feel that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes.

[Speck Tater]

1. But then most Americans are not the 1% are they? So it doesn't matter what they think.

The 1% still handles all the levers that control their puppets in Washington.

[whathehell]

3. Unless you can prove election fraud, they do matter when election day rolls around. n/t

[closeupready]

4. Yes, the 1% will completely bypass the entire process of our democracy.

And simply make heated phone calls, "I want this done yesterday!", and presto, it will be done with a cherry on top.

[dmallind]

2. Never understood this one

I understand the usual arguments of course, but they seem to revolve around the idea that people who are sensible enough to seek out and find the best ways to invest are also dumb enough to think "Well damn it if I make $1000 (or $1B - the amount is irrelevant and directly tied to the amount risked) on this investment I'll have to pay 35% and only keep $650. Fuck it I'll just make zero instead and keep my money in the mattress."

If all gains are taxed at the same rate, investments will be weighed rationally - on risk and return. If we subsidize one form of investment over others by taxing at 15% instead of higher marginal rates, all we will do is move investment dollars from other vehicles to the less-taxed ones. It doesn't mean people will invest more - just differently. That would be a viable policy of course if we lowered the tax rates on the kind of investments which create the most benefit, but capital gains certainlt don't.

If we want lower tax rates to incentivize beneficial investments that's easy to do, and not as evil as many here may suggest. We certainly DO want to increase investments in hiring for example, or R&D. So how about this option. All income from wages, gains, inheritance, interest, etc are all taxed at progressive marginal rates BUT if your tax return shows more people than last year's employed at at least 150% of poverty rate (I'm aware tax returns do not currently show this, but easy to do) OR more investment in R&D than last year's, we'll tax the same $$ of your AGI at half the applicable marginal rate - sort of a 50% booat to your deductions.

So if you have a $2M AGI and you hire an extra personal assistant at 40K per year, you only pay 17.5% on $40k of that $2M (and of course the $40k you pay the PA is deductible and untaxed, as now). Same for giant corporations whose payrolls increase by $20M - they get to tax $20M of EBIT at half the normal rate.

[dipsydoodle]

5. If dividends are paid from net profit after corporation tax

then the subsequent tax would be at a lower rate anyway. Surely ?