I don't understand the analogy. The wealthy taxpayer will be affected on the same proportionate basis as the working stiff. Should the working stiff be given a break because of earning capability differences?

No, I'm sorry, but it did not. Maybe that's what you meant to say, but what you actually said was this:

"the lower 40%of the tax payers will see brackets move that will increase their share of taxes by as much as 40%"

And this is simply not true. However, it's possible that your words misrepresented your thoughts and you don't actually believe this.

They are also in no way representative of anything proposed by Obama, which as far as I can see don't include any tax increases for middle-class people at all. Certainly the proposals mentioned by the OP did not.

And yet every time I see the Democrats talk about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, they always add "for upper income taxpayers".
Half of the tax savings of the Bush tax cuts went to 1% of the taxpayers, the "bottom 99%" got the other half.
My guess is that Democrats will pass a package that includes tax cuts for the middle class that are slightly more than the expiring Bush tax cuts, and allow the tax cuts to expire.
2010 is an election year, and I believe that the vast majority of the voters will receive a tax cut in 2010.

If you have a problem with letting the tax cuts expire, take it up with the republican congress that wrote the law and the president who signed it. The reason they did that BTW, was so they could point to a shrinking deficit in 10 years, as without the tax cuts expiring, the country will rack up enormous deficits forever.
It was just a small concession to reality................

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

BINGO!

Now we can add to the language a new term, a derivative of one coined by one George H W Bush, we'll call it :Voodoo Tax Policy!

Can I get an "AMEN?"

Doubling the capital gains tax is an example of flamboyant, militant stupidity. It hits the people who can least afford it and makes the US far less attractive to foreign investors. It drains money from the economy and has no economic benefit.

But it sounds good - it is vaguely associated with the stock market and so it must be good to increase capital gains, it in the childish, pseudo-Marxist fantasy world of the far-left.

They claim to "love" the ordinary person. They are stuffed with compassion for "working people". Yet they slam them with taxes. What a crock.

Phht. Nonsense. It hits people who make most of their money off investments, who are definitely NOT the ones who can least afford it.

This might happen. But any tax has consequences. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the consequences, and in the case of a necessary tax increase to correct years of fiscal irresponsibility, also whether a different tax increase might be better. That I don't see.

The idea that taxes automatically "drain money from the economy" is not correct. What they do is shift money from some portion of the private sector to the government. Whether that amounts to a "drain" depends on where the money is coming from, and what the government spends it on. If the money is coming from the middle class, which make up the bulk of consumers, and is spent on something with no net economic benefit, such as the military, then indeed it is a drain on the economy (although sometimes necessary, unfortunately). If however the money is coming from the investor class, who currently have a whopping surplus that isn't being invested in productive ventures anyway because the consumer demand to justify such investment doesn't exist (hence the current recession), and is spent on reducing the deficit so as to strengthen the dollar and lower the income redistribution from the middle class to the rich that deficit spending entails, then it will end up being a net economic gain.

It tells me a lot about who I'm talking to when someone uses the term "far-left" to describe anything in mainstream American politics.

When I was in my 20s, there was such a thing in this country as the "far left." I used to run into those nuts on streetcorners in Seattle hawking their Maoist papers and yelling that they were going to "make revolution in this country." But even then, there was nobody in mainstream politics in either party who could be described by that term. Today, the suggestion is not only false but absurd. I don't even know if the "far left" still exists. If it does, I certainly haven't encountered it recently. But it has never existed in Congress, in the White House, or in either of the two main parties.

All for "FAIRNESS" say "I".

__________________


Bote OBAMA BIN BIDEN, OTAY!!




I say what many think but fail to say but would like to.

OK

__________________


Bote OBAMA BIN BIDEN, OTAY!!




I say what many think but fail to say but would like to.

LOL that's right, Lost Soul. Not even her.

spending was the issue goober NOT tax revenues....

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

For some people anyone is "far left" if they aren't part of the Republican party.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

You didn't read the post did you? Lower capital gains tax RESULTS in a higher tax base revenue--which means more taxes paid on capital gains. It's been proven on two separate occasions. Obama didn't know this, or completely disregards the PROOF.

Obama continually brings up Warren Buffet & how Warren Buffet told him he plays less % in taxes than his secretary. But if is poor secretary owns any investments at all, Obama is NOT helping her. She will still be paying the same amount of Capital Gains tax as her boss.

Got it yet?

Some of these lefties do not realise, that this is not only about the stock market. It's about any investment a person has. Including, but not limited too, investment in property, passbook savings accounts, & safe financial instruments including life insurance annuties, etc. etc.

What they don't understand, is why a lower capital gains tax, actually bring more tax dollars to the federal government.

In the stock market for example.
An average working class American who owns stock in AT & T will be married to that stock if they have to pay 28% capital gains upon selling it. At 15% they will look one day, & see Micro-soft is doing a little better, & will sell At & T at a profit, pay the 15% on the At & T sale & buy Micro-soft. If they see another company they like, they will sell Micro-soft, pay 15% on that, & then on & on, it goes. Resulting to more taxes paid, to the government.

But hey, if Obama doesn't get it, how can I expect his supporters to?

Sorry but I know for a fact that McKinney is part of the far left.

She has called for the overthrow of the GA state govt.......told the people to get out in the streets and take it back. Her father went on to say from the Jews and Whites.

She believes in socialism.

Said she doesnt believe in property rights, all property should be used as public.

She is now part of the far far left Green party.

She and her father both have long history of being radicals.

Both have praised the "black power" movement.

If she is part opf the far left than there never was one.

__________________


Bote OBAMA BIN BIDEN, OTAY!!




I say what many think but fail to say but would like to.

But she's not in Congress, the White House, or either of the two main parties, is she?