Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Equal protection? How can government single out the rich?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 14, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    To "Mister J" it is possible to pay nothing in income taxes. If you want to do that, you invest in municipal bonds. According to the IRS, the interest you get is tax free.

    Who do you think would be best to lead our contry out of a recession. A man with no actual business experienc, or a person who has run a highly successful business?

    Why worship a man with marxist mentors who is determined to transform the US into a failed nation?

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 9:04 p.m.

    in regards to RedShirt 12/10 1:42 p.m.

    I guess the apologies for & placing Willard on a pedestal *NEVER* stop.

    How is it possible for Mitt to pay taxes at lower of a rate than he already does????

    He has to keep some money here in the US; its not like he has free time to go island hopping... oh wait...

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 12:10 p.m.

    Re: Patriot "It was your Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the rest of the progressive Democrat's. Yes this was the same Frank and Dodd that oversaw the banking committee as well as Fanny and Fredie for TWO years prior to the collapse (2006-2008). There were NO Republicans preaching this nonsense about home ownership ...." Yes this was a piece of the puzzle, but the reckless securitzation of unserviceable mortgage debt and the sale of these securities with the full knolwedge of the banks (fraud), well sir, that was the banks 100%. But then they were just responding to the message of the market. But then, as Marx would say, it's not the people, it's the system.

    Now, as to Marx, the problem is that most of you have no knowledge of just who he was. He was a critic of capitalism, not a socialist constructor. I dare say our kids and grandkids will live under some variant of capitalism, but Marx's insights are critical to understanding the system.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    If a farmer has two horses, one strong and one weak, is the farmer unfair to the strong horse if he makes it work harder?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:52 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "Happy Valley Heretic" you realize that even with the 90% tax rates, the rich still found ways of avoiding taxes.

    Absolutely agree...
    They paid their employees more.
    They reinvested in the company
    They provided benefits
    They built businesses not sold them
    They didn't think Communism was a great way to increase their bottom line.

    Sean paid himself and close friends millions of dollars gave out thousands a non profit is required to give 36% to the charitable cause, your hero gave 7% and that was at the height of his selfless giving?
    Not a hero!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you realize that you are not refuting what I have said. You are just distracting from the facts.

    Again, the facts are that Socialism and Communism do not lead countries to economic prosperity. If Germany, Japan, France, England, Canada, Korea, Norway, Sweden are all so great, why is it that prior to 2008, the US had greater GDP growth than any of those other countries? What has changed in the US that has cut the US GDP growth?

    Yes China is communist, and China is also growing its economy by releasing control and allowing capitalism into their country.

    What success has their been within socialism and communism? Their biggest claims to fame involve millions of people dead.

    Again, where is the proof that communism or socialism is good for an economy? The countries that you list depend on Capitalism to fund the socialism.

    Let me repeat, if socialism or communism work so well, why is it that Communist China had to resort to capitalism so that they could become a world economic power? Why is it that the nations that hold fast to socialism or communism like Greece and Spain are failing?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 2:26 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    If socialism or communism work so well, why is it that Communist China had to resort to capitalism so that they could become a world economic power? Why is it that the nations that hold fast to socialism or communism like Greece and Spain are failing? The evidence shows that the more control exerted by government on the economy, the worse off the economy will be.

    ============

    Always pulling the failures of evil "Socialism" from Greece and Spain who's #1 commodity is tourism.
    Meanwhile - Those in the G-8 -- Germany, Japan, France, England, Canada, Korea, Norway, Sweden, even Irael are all SOCIALIST, and all are doing much better than the United States.

    Capitalism or not, China remains COMMUNIST.
    China will surpass the United States in the next 10 years.
    Therefore, Communism must be winning.

    The only difference I know of with America is we have WALLSTREET.
    Given the astounding sucesses within Socialsim and Communism,

    I'd start looking at WallStreet as the primary source of our economic Woe's and failures before looking at anything else.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:32 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" you realize that even with the 90% tax rates, the rich still found ways of avoiding taxes.

    And how many people had a job that day because of the CONCERTS that Hannity's Freedom Alliance put on? You realize that Hannity did excactly as promised. 100% of all profits from the concert went to the charity.

    If you look at it in terms of employment and fund raising, Hannity is doing great. The $12 million employed many people from musicians to food vendors to fireworks displays, and it pulled in a 7% profit, which is better than the 3% to 5% that normal concernts generate.

    Just because you don't like his methods, it doesn't mean that they are wrong.

    If socialism or communism work so well, why is it that Communist China had to resort to capitalism so that they could become a world economic power? Why is it that the nations that hold fast to socialism or communism like Greece and Spain are failing? The evidence shows that the more control exerted by government on the economy, the worse off the economy will be.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    @Redshirt-Sean Hannity's Freedom Alliance’s 2007 tax returns aren’t much better. Out of $12,459,317 it raised that year, only $895,347–or just 7%–went to seriously wounded troops and scholarships for fallen troops.

    Yeah I bet he's a great employer like he was a great fundraiser for the troops?

    patriot says: I really get tired of people like you bashing capitalism and appearing to be completely ignorant as to how America achieved financial greatness over the past century. It sure wasn't SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM that elevated America to the top of the world and made it the land of opportunity.

    Was it Slavery and or super cheap labor
    or was it the 90% taxes in those glorious 50's
    It sure wasn't unregulated capitalism was it?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    re:marxist

    I really get tired of people like you bashing capitalism and appearing to be completely ignorant as to how America achieved financial greatness over the past century. It sure wasn't SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM that elevated America to the top of the world and made it the land of opportunity. Talk to those poor souls who have lived under communist repression and ask them about "opportunity" and having a dream of home ownership and financial success. What you WILL find is millions of former communists flocking to the United States to get away from socialism and communism. Of course Marxist there is potential corruption in capitalism - people by nature are greedy and corrupt but capitalism has proven to be the BEST solution in the world even though it certainly isn't perfect. This insane idea that we can now throw out capitalism and adopt a Mount Everest sized failure such as socialism or communism will be the down fall of America. To be honest I highly doubt you really understand socialism / communism / marxist ideology.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    re:marxist

    Let's talk about 2008 for a moment. You seem to think that capitalism somehow is to blame for what happened in 2008 and under your socialism or communism which ever you prefer things would be so much better. 2008 happened for one reason - bad loans. Lots of bad loans. Who was it marxist that championed the idea that "every family should have a home"? Do you know?? It was your Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the rest of the progressive Democrat's. Yes this was the same Frank and Dodd that oversaw the banking committee as well as Fanny and Fredie for TWO years prior to the collapse (2006-2008). There were NO Republicans preaching this nonsense about home ownership and how we have to lower the standards to be "fair" to all ... this was YOUR democrat's and it's high time you owned up to it!! Bush was not strong enough after the GOP lost congress in 2006 and he should have resisted this insanity and for that he certainly does share the blame but do NOT blame capitalism - capitalism has nothing to do with it and if you really understood capitalism you would know that.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:03 p.m.

    Oh, and Patriot have you noted that some of the most prestigious banks in the world have been caught luandering money. Let's defend them! I swear you can't make up this stuff!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:01 p.m.

    Well Patriot, the capitalists nearly destroyed our country in 2008. Let's be sure to keep their taxes low!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 6:38 p.m.

    How can a country single out a class of people and punish them?? This is called SOCIALISM. Happens in every socialist / communist country and now it is happening here. To be honest I don't blame Obama - he is simply the orchestrator of socialist policy but it is the American people who CHOSE socialism over capitalism on November 6th. America crossed a line in the sand on election day and there is no going back. The end of the socialist road is always the same - bankruptcy. Some people like to point to small northern European countries to show how socialism has worked there but a country of 3 million is hardly a country of 300 million and in every large country socialism has failed miserably. America was founded as a free society built on Christian principles and our financial greatness was achieved through capitalism. Now America has thrown capitalism out and with it the American dream. Expect more class warfare going forward and expect the "evil rich" to simply move out of the US and along with them millions of jobs.... Obama and his progressives will them be left to tax the middle class to death - the new "evil rich".

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    Higher top marginal rates are justifed because labor (the 9 to 5 crowd) produce a surplus for which they are not comopensated. The higher marginal tax rate on top recovers some of this surplus for the good of all. This is surplus value, a concept about which the majority (including so called economists) are completely ignorant. The rate of surplus value became extreme in World War II, when soldiers were risking their lives for a couple of hundred dollars a month. FDR wanted to pass legislation to the effect that the maximum possible income for ANYONE would be $100,000. FDR reasoned, how can we ask guys to risk their lives for peanuts while the wealthy get all of the benefits?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    The tax cuts set to expire should have been reversed when a second Trillion dollar war was declared to fund it (plus a surcharge). The fox mass hysteria is evident in the robot like answers that avoid raising money to pay the debt.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" here are some of the stats:

    Glenn Beck currently has over 100 employees, and is expanding his business.

    However, if you look at their stock holdings, like Warren Bufett, then Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Beck also employ 100's of thousands of employees.

    To "Old One" can we also go back to 1950's regulation and spending? If we did, we may just the prosperity and shrinking deficits that we had back then.

    To "one old man" do you read your posts? You realize that you are advocating for smaller government, a simplified tax code, and less spending by government. You should also realize that capital gains and payroll taxes are not the same. One is compensation for work performed, the other is for the sale of something of value. Do you pay payroll taxes when you sell a home?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:16 p.m.

    BRM
    Actually, I don't particularly like paying taxes. I just get what they really are and why they're really necessary. And I pay them without whining about it. And neither I nor any responsible Democrat, including the President, is proposing taxing rich folks out of existence. We're talking a minimal tax increase, back to where rates were in the Clinton years. I favor it, though, because of all the proposed adjustments, that one will cause the least pain. And absolutely no one thinks that tax hike will solve our fiscal problems alone. We simply think they should be part of the package. Stop misrepresenting my views.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:53 p.m.

    page 118 "Who Stole the American Dream" by Hedrick Smith.

    Arthur Leavitt, former head of SEC tells of an attempt to stem dishonest stock options accounting practices for top executives, "During my 7-1/2 years in Washington nothing astonished me more than witnessing the powerful special interest groups in full swing when they thought a proposed rule or piece of legislation might hurt them, giving nary a thought to how {it} might help the investing public. With laserlike precision, groups representing Wall Street firms, mutual fund companies, accounting firms, or corporate managers would quickly set about to defeat even minor threats. Individual investors, with no organized labor or trade associations to represent their views in Washington, never knew what hit them."

    This book should be a must read for anyone who sincerely cares and wants to go beyond spouting propaganda from either side. We are in big trouble in this country and solving the problems requires informed voters.

    The big problem, however, is that too few are willing to make an effort to become informed of just what the truth really is -- or isn't.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:50 p.m.

    From page 104 in "Who Stole the American Dream:"

    Two trends are responsible for today's hyperconcentration of wealth in America -- collective decisions over time by corporate elite to take a far bigger share business earnings for themselves, and increasingly pro-rich, pro-business tile in Washington since late 1970's.

    "The U.S. tax code is the most political law in the word," Jonathan Blattmachr, tax attorney at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy.

    According to Forbes, capital gains account for 60% of the income of wealthiest Americans.

    15% tax rates for gains means that most of the megawealthy pay only 15% on the majority of their incomes while less wealthy pay far less in tax than their secretaries, charffeurs, or butlers.

    And ordinary employees pay higher payroll tax - 7.65% than very wealthy whose taxes are capped on anything over $106,800. As a result, super-rich pay as little as 1 or 2% of their earned income in payroll taxes -- much less than the 7.65% of lower paid workers.

    About half of all capital gains go to just 315,000 people at the top -- out of 315 million Americans.

    Read Hedrick Smith's book and learn something.

  • BRM Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:45 p.m.

    Eric likes taxes but can't tell the difference between reasonable taxes and excessive taxes. We went to war with England over taxes. Nobody wants to address the real problem which is that even if we took everything the rich make in taxes it would not reduce the deficit or pay on the debt. We have a budget problem.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:02 p.m.

    Folks,

    Can we please stop this foolishness? Despite the nominal rates, the rich are hardly paying more tax. The effective tax rate of the wealthy is much less than the upper end of the middle class. Period.

    As to this being class warfare, was that what we had under Reagan when the top rates were higher? Were Reagan and the Republicans in Congress waging a class war?

    Please, please stop talking nonsense. This is not about class warfare. It is simply whether or not rates should be raise to where they were PREVIOUSLY.

    Will that solve the problem? No. Will it help? Yes. But cuts and other revenue sources will be needed. The pain will have to be shared by all.

    And to those who actually made statements alluding to the rich having inadequate representation. What planet do you live on? In America, the rich are VERY well represented both directly (most of our Congress of both parties are quite well off) and indirectly (they don't collect those multi-million dollar campaign war chests from the poor). Further, in every place I have ever lived, it is successful business folks at the core of the parties.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 5:44 p.m.

    We need to address the revenue side of the problem. Including, but not limited to, the rich.

  • Old One Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    You may feel it not fair for the wealthy to be taxed more than they already are, but is it right for the 1% to own 70% of all financial assets in the country and over two-thirds of all the wealth in the country? Let's go back to the 50's when the really rich folks paid a 91% tax
    rate. Let's give them something to squawk about, those whiners.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:39 p.m.

    @L White
    "They have accepted Obama's preaching of envy, of class-warfare, of hating the "rich guy".

    ============

    I don't hate the "rich guy" L White.
    I just despise Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck for what they say, not for how much money they make.

    BTW - I'm curious, just exactly how many "jobs" do these Billionaires actually employ or create?

    Meanwhile, the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gates of the world who actually hire 100's of Thousands say taxes need to go up for them and their Corporations.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    @L White
    "They have accepted Obama's preaching of envy, of class-warfare, of hating the "rich guy". They think that everyone should be on welfare"

    Uh... people who talk about the rise in wealth concentration at the top and speak of it as a bad thing (the people you refer to with the class warfare thing) specifically want more equal wealth distribution (like say workers not facing salary cuts while CEOs get massive raises) so that fewer people are on welfare.

    "Shame on you for thinking that you're too good to share equally the burdens of being an American. "

    Says someone who voted for a guy who promised a 20% tax cut. What's your contribution to the deficit reduction you care about so much? Paying even less than you do now? That's just hypocrisy and greed on your part.

    @Redshirt
    "they could follow Romney's example."

    Nonsense, Romney only chose to not take some deductions because it'd look bad if he openly violated his claim to have never paid below 13 or 14% in taxes.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    BRM said, "...it is a myth that the rich get richer my taking money from the poor."

    One way they took money from the poor is by keeping the pay due to their own employees. They oppressed them in their wages.

    According to a report called, "The Great Divergence in Pictures: A Visual Guide to Income Inequality," the average CEO in 1980 made 50 times more money than the average worker, but about 30 years later the the ratio was almost 300 times greater.

    Taking this as fact, consider what it would mean if the average CEO’s pay had stayed the same (let’s say $200 per hour) throughout the time period, but the ratio of average wages had remained the same.

    In this case, the average CEO would have been making $200 per hour throughout, while the average worker would have his wages shrink from $4.00 per hour to just over 67¢ per hour.

    Sounds unfair to me.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 3:45 p.m.

    So Joeblow,

    You decry the migration of wealth to the already wealthy, but when there is a chance to really level the playing field for the regular folks, you won't even consider it because the republicans are the ones putting forth the plan.

    You would rather assume the Republicans are dishonest, worship Obama, and continue all tax loopholes for the rich. In other words, keep that money flowing to the rich. That is your plan.

    You make the fiscal cliff look really good.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 10, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    Romney never passes up a loophole, unless politically risky?

    In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money.

    Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. That included Mitt Romney, who established such an arrangement in June 1996.

    In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity, the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing, to defer taxes for more than 15 years. At the same time he is benefiting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires, according to tax returns obtained by Bloomberg this month through a Freedom of Information Act request.

    In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment, said Jonathan Blattmachr, a trusts and estates lawyer who set up hundreds of such vehicles in the 1990s. The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation..

    (Bloomberg Oct 2012)

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 3:40 p.m.

    Kent C. DeForrest: "I would gladly have government raise my taxes to 75 percent on my taxable income over $250,000. Wouldn't hurt me a bit."

    I take it that your income doesn't come close to Obama's definition of "rich".

    What if instead of $250,000 we used the average person in Haiti's definition of rich - $25,000? Still interested in giving 75% in taxes over that amount? If not, why?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" that is nice, but it doesn't change the fact that Romney intentionally does not take tax deductions.

    Why don't we see headlines from Sorros or Buffet like we did about Romney? From teh Daily Beast, we read "Romney Cut Deductions on 2011 Taxes to Maintain Campaign Pledge"

    If the liberal millionaires were serious about paying more in taxes, why don't they? Do they know that Obama and his minions will increase the rates, while adding enough loopholes so that any rate increase is nulified?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 10, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    "but now we have an honest group trying to close off that undo influence of wealthy men's money in government"

    The GOP is trying to close off loopholes only to keep from changing the rates. No Honesty about it at all. What a joke.

    "Mitt Romney has openly admitted that he could be paying a much lower tax rate but won't. He even admitted to intentionally NOT taking deductions so that he would pay more in taxes."

    Redshirt. You and I both know that Romeny paid more in taxes than he owed to make himself look better.

    And, in his own words, makes him unqualified to be the president. LOL

    "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 10, 2012 2:11 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    •7:13 a.m. Dec. 10, 2012

    We've all voted AGAINST taxing the rich at a higher rate.

    ===============

    Really?!
    In who's reality?

    I have some news for you – You are not the majority.
    You do not speak for the rest of us.
    The majority clearly voted FOR letting the Bush Taxes lapse on the uber-wealthy 1-2%.

    Do you want to know how I know?

    1. Because Pres. Obama won.
    2. Because the GOP lost Senate seats,
    3. Because the House also lost GOP seats [btw - MOST Americans voted Democrat, but because of the GOP gerrymandering (cheating) of districts, Rep. John Boehner managed to keep his Majority Speaker position].
    4. the TRUE Majority, 67% of Americans polled WANT the Bush era tax CUTS to expire on the 1%
    5. Grover Norquist is to blame for the Fiscal Cliff.
    6. The GOP WILL be blamed for any Government Shutdown.

    So, your idea of “WE” is not reality.

    And speaking of rants, raves, and tantrums –
    The people have spoken.
    It is up to you to listen to what is being said and stop thinking for the rest of us.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 10, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    I think this has been clearly stated by others but it bears repeating. Everyone pays the same rate of tax in this country. For the wealthy, they pay the same rate as I do, on the same amount of money I make. They pay a higher rate on higher income than mine. If I make $100K the wealthy pay the same rate as I do, on $100K. If I made more I would pay that same high rate on that income. It's a complex issue for those who want to claim foul and convince us that the wealthy are being cheated, but it's true. All American's are subject to the same tax rates...on the money they make. It's a preogressive system, that's all.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:58 p.m.

    L White,

    What a pathetic rant. I would gladly have government raise my taxes to 75 percent on my taxable income over $250,000. Wouldn't hurt me a bit.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:54 p.m.

    Mr. LDS Liberal,

    Are you ever going to be able to think for yourself, or are you just going to mock?

    I PAID for my Social Security. I PAID for my Medicare. I had no voice in the PAYMENTS. You know that, but you mock those of us who obediently pay our SHARE. You cheer on your community organizer in everything he does, ESPECIALLY cheating those of us who paid all of our lives for empty promises from your liberal heartthrob.

    Admit it. You adore Obama. You adore his ability to mislead, to lie, and to misrepresent. You uphold his willingness to steal from us and then deny paying for those benefits. You mock those of us who tell the truth. You mock those of us who openly defy your idol.

    Obama is a Chicago politician. He could have never succeeded without you. You have enabled him to split this nation apart.

    He has lied about "tax savings". He has lied about Medicare. He has lied about Social Security funds. He has lied about the amount of taxes in he going to impose. He has lied about his intentions. Why do you continue to support him?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    The fundamental problem with this entire letter is this: the writer assumes that there's something punitive about taxation.
    This is preposterous. Taxes aren't evil, they aren't punitive, they aren't theft, they aren't somehow imprisonment. Taxes are how government is paid for. And taxes are always, always skewed one way or another. It's completely unfair, for example, that I've never paid a nickel in cigarette taxes. I avoid them by never buying cigarettes. For many years now, I've managed to avoid paying estate taxes. I avoid them by not dying.
    If, for examples, Americans with a certain high income were flogged, then the equal protection clause would be relevant. But that isn't happening. Instead, there are different tax rates for people in different categories, both in terms of how much money they make and where it comes from. For some people, the most onerous tax is FICA. For others, it's the federal income tax. For others, it's capital gains. And any change to any of those taxes is going to be unfair to someone.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:42 p.m.

    Ok you liberal hypocrites. Time to put up or shut up.

    Your leading millionaires and billionaires that claim that the rich should pay more taxes don't. Your leaders say that they should pay more taxes, but like Ron Garrett they also say "I pay the taxes that I am required to pay, just like everybody else." They say they should pay more, yet don't.

    Meanwhile, the liberal arch enemy, Mitt Romney has openly admitted that he could be paying a much lower tax rate but won't. He even admitted to intentionally NOT taking deductions so that he would pay more in taxes.

    If people like Sorros, Buffett, Bill Gates, or Obama had the personal integrity that Romney does, they could follow Romney's example. They could intentionally NOT take deductions so that they can pay more in taxes without having to go through the pain of getting legislation enacted to force them to do the same thing.

    Why can't the left follow Romney's example and pay more taxes voluntarily?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    This is all crazy talk. You all fight over 3% increase of nothing. It's been deducted.

    I just read the terms of the Budget Control Act, AKA the fiscal cliff. It is so much more sound than anything I read here, except that the rich will still be deducting everything they make and paying 15% on their capital gains.

    I guess the way ya'll think you can "stick it to the rich" is to tank the market (economy, too). That will stop those nasty rich people from getting capital gains income. Brilliant!!

    Why do you think the president and his congressmen don't want to close loopholes? The president wanted to last year. It is because the rich came paid them to keep the loopholes open. Have republicans benefited from selling some of those loopholes in the past? I am sure yes, but now we have an honest group trying to close off that undo influence of wealthy men's money in government, rather than trying to get their hands on the money they offer. It is easy to see whose hands are dirty with the bribes of the rich today.

    Here is a hint, look left.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:37 p.m.

    @L White
    You lack a understanding of the topic. Shame on those who claw their way to the top and fail to realize it was the shoulders of everyone else they stood on that made the difference.
    Unless of course, you are really rich, and then you were just born into mind blowing amount of wealth. You know... a rich person.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    Why are the Bush tax rates considered sacrosanct? During the Clinton era the rate for the top income earners was 4.6% higher. No one was screaming "class warfare" and punishing "job creators" then. And if you argue "equal protection" why do we allow a tax system that had Romney pay a 13.9% of his $21 million yearly income in federal income taxes, when I, as a middle-class retired teacher, paid 16.2% of my income in the same year?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 10, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    @j Thomas
    I already pay more then twice the rate the wealthy pay but thanks.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "We've all voted AGAINST taxing the rich at a higher rate. The election results are in. The House is controlled by Republicans, the party that said no to higher taxes. "

    Democratic house candidates got more votes than Republican house candidates. Its not the voters fault the republicans gerrymandered the heck out of states like Pennsylvania (something like a 13-5 Republican advantage among their congressional delegation).

    Besides, the voters voted to keep a president in who promised to veto a plan to keep the tax cuts for the rich.

    @JoeCapitalist2
    "The truth is that the vast majority of "Rich people" (over $250K income according to Obama's definition) pay a way higher tax rate than anyone in the middle class."

    On income taxes yes. However... when you include payroll taxes which are going back up to 6% for the people at the bottom and is about .1% of Romney's tax burden since payroll taxes only apply to the first 100ish thousand of income... it gets a lot closer very fast.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    Yeah well cutting funding to PBS and Planned Parenthood pays for about 8 hours of gov't and I might be overexaggerating it significantly.

  • BRM Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Again, most of you are missing the point. I am not discussing what is a fair tax or whether loopholes are ok. The point is using the votes of the 98% to take money from the 2%. The other point is that the proposed tax increase will not reduce the deficit or the debt. When someone says that it will help, I am reminded by the cartoon where the little boy holds up a coin and says,"I just found a penny. My economy is improving! Also, it is a myth that the rich get richer my taking money from the poor.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    Look at how many posters think that they and Obama have special rights, special privileges, and special standing. Look at how many think that they have the right to tell somebody else that he has to pay a higher tax rate so that they don't have to. Look at how many yowl at the moon whenever "equality" is mentioned, unless it is tied to "free goodies" from Obama's Christmas tree.

    They have accepted Obama's preaching of envy, of class-warfare, of hating the "rich guy". They think that everyone should be on welfare, except those that Obama thinks are too rich; those get to pay for everyting.

    Shame on you! Shame on all of you! Shame on you for being petty and little. Shame on you for thinking that you're too good to share equally the burdens of being an American. Shame on you! Your parents and grandparents fought wars all over this world to keep you free, but they can't keep you free from your own greed. You want something for nothing. You want someone else to pay and you think your vote for Obama justifies your greed.

    Shame on you!

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:56 a.m.

    Blaine, bring your theories back when you've closed all the loopholes for the wealthy, when the heirs of Sam Walton pay the same tax rates as their employees, when those same heirs pay all their employees wages above the poverty threshold, when all Americans have access to affordable healthcare. Come back when higher education is in the realm of affordablity for all, when their cost of living is at the same pain index as the working class. You want equality, then quit trying to suppress voter's rights and listening to wealthy pundits attack your right to organize for better working conditions. Come back when you've solved the great housing con and banks are treating us like customers rather than cattle. You wonder why there is classwarfare? Look there, and when you fix all that and more come back and then we'll talk about the wealthy whine about an additional tax burden of 3-4% over 250k.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    " It is not about the tax rate for rich people. It is about using the votes of those who are not rich to take money by force away from the rich."

    There has been and will always be many more poor and middle class than rich.

    I still fail to understand that argument, when the rich have managed to garner a larger and larger share of the wealth, in spite of "those who are not rich to take money by force away from the rich."

    Is the money just not moving to the top fast enough for you?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    lds liberal.

    "I want to be so rich, I'm above the law and never go to jail no matter how many times I'm caught DUI, taking prescription pills, or even get away with murder."

    Exactly right. But that won't change under Obama. Only Gary Johnson would've been so noble. But it's hard to throw these guys in jail because a lot of the time their is evidence tampered with by dishonest and bribed law enforcement officals. So what we really need is incorruptable and honest people all across the board.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    When the super rich are giving massive bribes to un american republicans and democrats, they will never single them out for anything. They will just say they are singling them out. Just hollow promises and nothing more.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    BRM:

    The tax increase would only fund Government for about 10 days, by itself without any other tax revenue coming into the Government coffers. With the increase added to the current taxes flowing into the coffers, it will reduce the amount of money borrowed by the Government equal to the size of the increase.

    This coupled with spending cuts will have a noticeable and direct impact to the current debt levels. As the amount the Government has to borrow has decreased each year, the current plan that is being pushed by the White House will return the budget to a net positive amount by 2017 to 2020.

    The plan being pushed by the Republicans never has us returning to a positive revenue level.

    So, if you look at the 2 proposals side by side, which would you prefer? 1 that returns us to solvency and positive revenue flow by the end of the decade or 1 that never has us balancing the budget?

    Now, if the White House plan goes into effect and taxes are also raised on the middle class gradually, 1% each year until it returns to the 2000 levels. The budget is revenue positive in 3 years.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    How about if everybody who is so firm about taxing SOMEBODY ELSE, first demanded that THEIR taxes be raised?

    How about if everyone of them either put up or shut up?

    How about if they started considering what would happen to them if their taxes were raised by a few percent?

    How about if they stopped trying to take somebody else's money and started demanding that somebody took their money?

    How about leaving out all the "ifs", "ands" and "buts"?

    Admit it. IF your taxes were going to be raised and that everybody else's taxes were not going to be raised, you would shout to high heaven about the injustice of it all; but, since you'll get something at the expense of someone else, you're just greedy enough to jump on Obama's "free for everyone" except the "rich guy".

    Your hands are in someone else's pockets just as much as are Obama's.

    Grow up and be a real America and pay YOUR way without expecting a free ride.

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    Fair share for anyone is an equal amount of anything. Should I have to pay more for a basketball ticket if I make more money than someone else? My fair share is the number of people I want to bring in to the game. Same with gov't. A rich mans fair share is the same amount everyone else pays. Our country is out of control.

  • BRM Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    Many of you are missing the point. It is not about the tax rate for rich people. It is about using the votes of those who are not rich to take money by force away from the rich. The rich are powerful but when it comes to votes they are way outnumbered. We have accepted the progressive tax system but there has got to be a limit. Why doesn't someone address the fact that the tax increase will only fund government for about 10 days?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    @thinkin man
    I understand what you are saying and in the world of ideas it sounds like the fair thing to do but if we take 30% from the poor we are going to have to turn around and provide even more services just to keep them from becoming homeless truly a waist of money.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    A truly "fair" tax would have every citizen pay the same rate. Anything else is, in my interpretation, unfair and unconstitutional.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    I'm sitting here pondering the whole "in-equality" --
    So, How about this --

    I want to sue because I can't deduct my House, vehicles, Travels or Vacation houses as "tax shelters",
    I want my direct deposits transferred to the CaymanIslands BEFORE being reported to the IRS.
    I want my Social Security taxation capped and max'd out on just the first 1-2% of my annual earnings.
    I want everything I own converted into a Family Trust so I don't have to pay individual property taxes.
    I want to be able to writeoff my bad "investments", and only pay the maximum flat tax of 14% on any of my "Gains".
    No matter how filthy rich I ever become, I will still draw Social Security if just for the "petty cash". So what about those in real "need".
    Job creator? I want my Posterity to never have to ever work a "REAL" job again, just generation after generation living off of MY earnings.
    I want to be so rich, I'm above the law and never go to jail no matter how many times I'm caught DUI, taking prescription pills, or even get away with murder.

    Single out the rich! HaHahHa!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    One thing to keep in mind.

    The "rich" still benefit from ALL of the same tax cuts (rates) as everyone else on their income up to $250K.

    There first $250,000 dollars of taxable income ARE being treated Exactly the same as everyone else.

    What is unfair about that?

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    How is ending a tax cut raising taxes? They used to be taxed more, then they weren't. Now they are.
    Also I think people in Utah have a problem understanding the term RICH, because there are not that many RICH people here.
    Go to LA, and take a look at who's rich.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    As far as equal protections go, how about we make this deal: we'll raise the taxes on the "poor guy" by 3% for all income over $250,000 just like we do for the "rich guy". That way, everyone is treated equally.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    The reason that a government "can single out the rich" or any other part of the population is because government doesn't understand, or perhaps is not interested in understanding, the concept of "the general welfare". The general welfare is the welfare of all not just a part of the people. In the Constitution the concept is demonstrated and circumscribed in the ennumeration of federal government powers, to build post (fast) roads, free trade between the states, an uniform system of weights and measures, a common (gold and silver) coinage, punish the counterfeiting of the current coinage, establish post offices, etc. These things benefit all not just a part of the people. All people benefit from good communications, sound money, unfettered domestic trade and so on.

    Of course neither Congress, the Presiency, nor the the Supreme Court, are interested in the "general interest" . Almost to a man (or woman)they are partisans, bent on benefiting only part of the people - or else feathering their own nests?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    I think that the reason that this nation was successful in becoming a great nation and a blessing for little people, is because of the easy availability of opportunity. Despite the best efforts of tyrants and oppressors, people were able to escape from their clutches. And wealth was more evenly spread among the population.

    In the beginning, most wealth was in the form of human labor and people has a healthy supply to be used for trading. Today the relative value human labor to technology, innovation, invention and automation is much diminished. And these new wealth producers are easily garnered into the private property of the rich and powerful, leaving human labor out in the cold.

    While the rules have changed to fit the need for the accumulation and retention of wealth for some, the rules for human labor have changed little. As a society, a nation and a world, we need to revise and update the rules for the distribution of wealth so that civilization will progress and not recede.

  • Farmintown Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    Here is an idea, lets allow a vote proportional to the actual annual tax rate paid by an individual as it applies to their income so that if someone is getting all kinds of deductions to get their rate down then their vote is less. This way those paying the very highest rates, as a percentage of their income, get the most "vote".. So if Mitt Romney's tax as a percentage on income is only 13% he has far less voting power than say a person paying 25% of his income to taxes. Those that don't pay would get a minimum of say a single vote. Others would get votes based on the percentage, 13% 13 votes, 30%, 30 votes, etc. The trade off would be do I want a stronger vote or more take home.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    You are all seeing Democracy in action. Majority voting makes the rules! If there are more non-paying taxpayers voting than wealthy, the wealthy have to pay. Our rights now come from the government and they are elected by the majority voting.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    Whoa!

    So now the rich aren't being represented in government? HUH? You have got to be kidding me! If anything, they're the ONLY ones being represented! What about me? Joe Sixpack? Who represents me?

    And now a small tax increase on the rich is suddenly illegal and deserves litigation? HUH????!!!! I would encourage the letter writer to look up the tax rates on the rich during the 50s... Or the 70s... Or when Saint Reagan was President... Or when Clinton was President. Or compare our current tax rates to those among other industrialized states. You might come away surprised with how well things are here.

    The letter writer along with the rich feel so entitled to the lowest tax rates that they react negatively to even a small tax increase to pay off 2 wars! Amazing! Where is your patriotism?

    I have got an idea so that the "rich" won't be "punished."

    No more bailouts.
    No more ag or oil subsidies.
    Cut the defense budget in half.
    No more foreign aid.
    All oil drilled and/or refined here must be sold here, NO MORE EXPORTING!!!
    Single-payer Health care system

    There ya have it!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    This letter would be hilarious if it were not so tragic. The point Blaine misses is not that the tax system is out of balance (even though we're experiencing the least progressive tax rates in decades). The point is that the corporate system we have allowed to evolve very efficiently funnels wealth to the top, and in numerous ways: through excessive CEO compensation, through rewarding speculation rather than production, through debt (which is the most effective means of transferring wealth from the haves to the have nots), through productivity improvements (which enable a business to produce the same amount of product with fewer workers), and through shipping jobs off the Third World countries.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. The fruits of this system are shouted at us ever couple of months with new statistics showing how the wealth gap is widening. The only solution acceptable to at least one political party is a progressive tax code, which is inefficient at best. To actually attack the root of the problem, we would need to require businesses to share a proportional piece of profit with those who actually create it (the productive workers).

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    The whole fight over higher taxes rates for the rich is just a huge distraction, which so many of you are taking hook, line, and sinker.

    If you want the rich to pay more in taxes, tax capital gains at income tax rates, and get rid of loopholes. Come on, think people. The rate is 35% but the rich are paying 13%. It is the 13% that bugs you, so fix that. Still can't wrap your head around it? Think of it as a 22% tax hike on the wealthy.

    Does that make you feel better? Good, now let's get real.

    This president is deceiving the masses. He talks about the rates on the rich fixing the nations economy. It won't. It is just a distraction to keep you from noticing that the job market has not recovered 3 years after he declared the recession over. He has no idea how to make the economy move forward and include all the available workers. So he blames the rich for his (Obama's) inability to get people working,earning their living, and dignity.

    He is an expert at persuading gullible masses. (Community Organizer/Brainwasher)

    He has done a great job on you!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    Mike Richards --

    Do yourself a favor,

    Just type, "I hate Obama."
    or
    "I hate all Democrats".

    Nobody will dog-pile on you for that.
    You have your opinions.

    But,
    They will however jump all over you for all your off-base rantings, make-believe rationalizations, delusional world of reality, and twisted and stretching justifications for it.

    BTW - How many more years until you apply for Social Security and Medicare?
    It is voluntary, you aren't "forced" to accept it.
    You might feel "entitled" to it however...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    So help me out here conservatives who blindly follow Grover Norquist...

    This letter writer admits he's NOT part of the 1-2% and wishes he could be, [I'm also guessing he's not a business or econmic professional] and yet here he is defending their low tax rate.

    Meanwhile --
    Warren Beffett, Bill Gates as a score of the TRULY 1%, who ARE business geniuses, who ARE economic professionals, and THEY are the one's out championing that their tax rates SHOULD go up?!

    I fail to see what conservatives see --
    but I don't listen to their AM radio greedy Millionaire hacks jobs, either...

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Blue: "Ok, how about this; millionaires should pay the same tax rates on all of their income as I do on all of my income. That would at least be a step in the right direction."

    Are you willing to go the other way as well? It is very easy to single out some rich guy like Mitt Romney who has a low tax rate because all his income is capital gains and make a blanket statement that all rich people pay that same low rate.

    The truth is that the vast majority of "Rich people" (over $250K income according to Obama's definition) pay a way higher tax rate than anyone in the middle class. So if you are willing to have your taxes jacked up to their level, then welcome to the club.

    For many years, my effective federal income tax rate was over 28%. (Total FIT divided by gross income on my tax form filed April 15)

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Mike Richards:
    The people have indeed spoken through their representatives, and if the Republicans in the House of Representatives refuse to raise taxes on the rich, as you corectly say they can do, then the previous legislative action of the House will take effect, we will fall off the fiscal cliff, and tax rates on everybody, including the rich, including you, will go up. Is that what you want in order to prove your point that the Republicans control the House? Methinks you would cut off your nose to spite your face.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Mike Richards:

    You might have forgotten but Democrats received 53% of all votes for House seats nation wide yet they didn't win 53% of all House seats due to Republican Legislatures across the country disenfranchising voters and trying to keep themselves in power.

    Now, had the voters given more votes to Republicans you would have a point but since that isn't what happened, your point is moot.

    If Republicans don't find a way to compromise, they will see further losses in 2014. They are already scared about 2016 with the thought of Hillary running for President. They have already admitted that they don't have anyone that has a chance of beating her.

    So if Republicans don't or won't change, it will be 16 years of straight Democratic control of the Executive branch and increasing Democratic control in the Senate and a return to Democratic control of the House.

    But don't worry, the rich 2% will protect them. Oh, wait, even they want their taxes raised. Ugh...

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    @mike Richards
    As gas been posited out to you numerous times already the congress is responsible for developing the budget but it must also be approved by the senate and the president, who are co and equal branches not just a rubber stamp.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    I'm retired, living on Social Security and a retirement pension. Yet my effective tax rate was a little more than Mitt's 13%.

    But Mitt's a "job creator" so I guess that's okay.

    There are a lot of people in China and India who are grateful.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:43 a.m.

    To Mr. Richards..so the conversation is over because the House "originates" spending bills. Interesting. You might want to tell Mr. Boehner that because it appears he's wasting a whole lot of time negotiating with the President. The President can't "originate" legislation so Mr. Boehner what are you doing..you have all the power. Or???

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    Taxation without representation? I'm sorry, but whether you are rich or you are poor you have a vote in the House of Representatives just like everyone else. Oh wait! That doesn't actually apply to the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. They pay far more than the average American in federal taxes per capita (ie. $34K for DC residents vs. $5.6K for Utah residents) and yet they actually have no representation in the House or the Senate, just one delegate who gets to argue all she wants but actually has no vote.

    If the letter writer wants to take up a cause that is unfair to specific Americans, that would be the one to carry forward, not the tax rates for the poor multi-millionaires in the world.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    The rich that pay a half the tax rare I do? Why should the government (we)t favor the rich over the middle class?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2012 7:13 a.m.

    We've all voted AGAINST taxing the rich at a higher rate. The election results are in. The House is controlled by Republicans, the party that said no to higher taxes. The House is controlled by Republicans, the party that told Obama that his days of tax and spend are over. House is controlled by Republicans, the party that originates all spending bills.

    Obama has no more authority to write legislation than the dog catcher. Writing legislation is the responsibility of Congress. The House, the peoples' representatives, are given the special duty to write all legislation regarding our taxation.

    The people have spoken. Let Obama have his tantrums. Let him waste his time and our money flying from one end of this nation to another telling us that we were fools to elect Republicans to guard the public treasury. He can rant. He can rave. But, he can't write legislation.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 10, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    We have had progressive tax rates for decades. I don't think the equal protection clause applies.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 6:42 a.m.

    If the rich could sue for denial of equal protection for having to pay a higher tax rate than those in lower income brackets, why couldn't those who pay a higher effective tax rate than Mitt Romney's 13%, or the 47 percenters 0%, sue under the same theory? If one follows the author's misplaced logic, no one should have to pay any tax if even one person is exempt.

    And don't you think the rich would have already tried this tactic if it held any water?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 5:47 a.m.

    Re: "How can government single out the rich?"

    Easy -- just use its enormous power. Aided, of course by thoughtless rubes, muddle-headed true believers, and disingenuous political charlatans.

    It's been done to finance nearly all socialist takeovers, from Russia, to Nazi Germany, to China, to Korea, to Cuba, to Zimbabwe -- and now here.

    The Obama regime doesn't want to soak the rich to save the country -- there's just not enough money amongst the rich to make any real difference to America's finances. What the regime really wants is to send the message that ALL wealth belongs to a bloated, unaccountable government, that can take it from anyone, any time it desires to do so.

    Suing will do no good. The leftist oligarchs are practically immune to suit on tax issues. The only real solution is for people to wake up and take back their Nation and freedoms by their votes.

    If it's not already too late.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:45 a.m.

    "If the rich were allowed to vote on the proposition, I would have no problem with it."

    The rich have one vote like everyone else. Additionally, they have money to buy advertising to affect the vote.

    In the last 20+ years, the rich have been the only real beneficiary of a very large wealth migration.

    Why is that?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 4:14 a.m.

    Blaine, it's more troubling to me that the wealth gap in the nation grows for no valid or morally justifiable reason and that a portion of the wealthy and their sympathizers somehow feel that being taxed at 39% instead of 35% is somehow a moral outrage. That being rich-minus-4% is somehow oppressive.

    And if you want to invoke equal protection, you should be outraged that investment dividends are taxed at ~15% while your own salary can be taxed at over twice that. Particularly since dividend income is enjoyed in far greater proportion by the wealthy.

    For a supposedly Christian nation, we sure have a lot of people holding a remarkable reverence for mammon.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 12:26 a.m.

    What a ridiculous letter!

    Conservatives have no problem endorsing all kinds of special tax breaks and subsidies that only the wealthy may use, and they think nothing of denying "equal protection" under the law to gays, women and minorities, but let the subject of the progressive income tax come up and they suddenly think _they_ are the champions of fairness. What a joke!

    Ok, how about this; millionaires should pay the same tax rates on all of their income as I do on all of my income. That would at least be a step in the right direction.