Isn't it the job of the opposing political party to tag a candidate with something like "$373,000?" Sure it would be nice if the media did its job and helped report on such matters too, but there's nothing stopping Obama and the rest of the Democratic party from bringing it to voters' attention.

It's weird that you think that taking less of someone's money is the same as making them richer.

It's weird that you think that taking less of someone's money is the same as making them richer.

It is amazing, isn't it?

Taking Ezra's point, it still seems to me that the problem here is both plans, not just one. Which, I think, is why just highlighting the 373,000 is in some ways really missing the issue here.

It's weird how lots of the ultra-rich seem to think that they made themselves rich on their own, meanwhile the government and economy and infrastructure that allowed them to do so should be paid for by invisible fairy people because it's so unfair that they should have to return some of their earnings back to sustain what made them wealthy in the first place.

El Cid--your response doesn't really address my point. When you tax someone, you make them poorer. If you tax them less, you make them less poor than you previously did, I suppose, but you certainly don't make them richer.

As for the issue you raise, I think that some people become rich because of specific things the Government does (ethanol subsidies, financial incentives, etc), and some become rich despite the things the Governments does. Certainly the Government tends to favor interests that supply political contributions, and that's unfair.

But to the extent you believe that the basic infrastructure of the country makes people rich, I'd simply counter that this infrastructure is equally available to everyone, yet somehow, not everyone has become rich. So when talking about the rich, maybe it's not the infrastructure that "made them wealthy in the first place"--maybe it is actually their own hard work, ingenuity, and propensity to take risks.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have a tax or that we should just tax the invisible fairy people. But if we're going to talk about tax rates, we ought to be honest when defining our terms.

Jeff, fair enough, but you have to admit the infrastructure (that includes rule of law and respect for property rights) is a big contributor or you would see an equally wealthy society in, say, Somalia or the CAR.

I object to the notion that people become wealthy in a vacuum. That "somehow" their workers are educated and "somehow" their patents are respected. In that regard I think our "rich" have much more security than the rich in a kleptocracy like Nigeria.

That having been said, I don't think broadcasting Cindy McCains various tax breaks are a real winner for the Dems in Novemter. Discussing overall tax fairness would be, though.

Regards.

Regarding the infrastructure point... The top 1% in income pay about 40% of all taxes. The top 10% pay about 70% of all taxes. So not only are the wealthy funding the public goods that enable their own wealth creation, but they are very generously subsidizing these goods for others. Which is to say rich people fund nearly everything the government does, from building bridges to dropping bombs.If we care about democracy, we need to have the non-wealthy paying MORE, since if the wealthy are made to fund almost everything, they will insist on determining how those funds are spent.

Why can't more people have the initiative to be born into wealthy and powerful families?

ES you can figure this a bunch of different ways but I agree with your basic point. There are a lot of people who pay very little and they are not necessarily poor.

But we can't really talk about that now because the Dems defined middle class from 200K (HRC) to 300K (BO) per year. When that becomes untouchable it's really hard to talk about tax fairness.

Regards.

BTW the anon post above is mine. Ezra, your Captcha thing really sucks.

But to the extent you believe that the basic infrastructure of the country makes people rich, I'd simply counter that this infrastructure is equally available to everyone, yet somehow, not everyone has become rich. So when talking about the rich, maybe it's not the infrastructure that "made them wealthy in the first place"--maybe it is actually their own hard work, ingenuity, and propensity to take risks.

Are there all sorts of individual skill, work, initiative, education, and other factors involved? Sure.

But there are a lot of people in all sorts of 3rd world countries which are convulsed with turmoil, which have crumbling infrastructures, etc., and sure, there are some people who want to suppose that it's Ben Franklin ethics and (what used to be called) the Protestant work ethic etc. here which makes the difference.

What dragged the American South out of its complete 3rd world, disease, and malnutrition-ridden status as a quasi-colonial primary export region into a modern part of the nation certainly wasn't individual initiative, Protestant work ethics, and gumption, but the massive reworking of the area's infrastructure, manufacturing, and regulatory apparatus via the New Deal and related WWII federal investments.

Fortunately, the super-rich of the time actually backed & shaped those initiatives, and it made them even wealthier for it, and enjoying a greater stability of wealth for longer.

A subset of the super-rich can certainly whine about how much more of their own money (which came about entirely because of their own telekinetic exertion of will, of course) they'd like to keep.

Should we work always to make sure to have a social 'buy-in' as part of income taxation so that all levels of income contribute amounts to form a common social commitment? Sure. But there was a whole push to make tax breaks and tax credits seem the only sane approach to social policy, so there you go.

But there's a reason the super-rich aren't migrating from the U.S. to more tax relaxing 3rd world environments, and that's because they wish to actually enjoy their lives here.

It's not fun that I'm not wealthy, but I don't have any anger against the gubmit for taking too much of my money. Rather, I'm damned tired of too little coming back from my investment in my society. In dollar terms I give less than wealthier people, no doubt, but I pay a pretty serious percentage of my income out.

It's up to everyone to determine the common environment they wish to live in. They can certainly wish that someone else would pay for it, and hope that it will still be there even if those most reaping its rewards pay less and less of its support costs.

The top 1% in income pay about 40% of all taxes. The top 10% pay about 70% of all taxes. So not only are the wealthy funding the public goods that enable their own wealth creation, but they are very generously subsidizing these goods for others.

Two problems with this statement:

1. The first sentence is wrong. Since your statistics match those from the National Taxpayers' Union for 2005, be advised that they're only measuring federal income taxes. The remaining major taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and so on -- are highly regressive, which would put a damper on the fireworks. The CBO's 2004 estimate of total federal taxes projected that the top 1% pay 20.1% of all federal taxes. Since this leaves out state and local taxes, which are generally regressive, the real percentage is likely to be lower still.

2. Even if the first sentence weren't wrong, the second sentence doesn't necessarily follow. You can't conclude that a subset of taxpayers is subsidizing the rest from the percentage of total taxes paid by that population, unless you also know the percentages of total income and wealth for that population as well. If the wealthiest 1% paid 20.1% of all federal taxes, but earned more than 20.1% of all income, they would not only not be subsidizing the rest of taxpayers, they would be actually being subsidized.

if the wealthy are made to fund almost everything, they will insist on determining how those funds are spent.

"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

the difference in the tax programs would be more understandable if u were to show under each what a person making 20,000 would receive.

The press reaction to candidates' personal wealth is always so bizarre. Somehow, like in the example of John Edwards, it's terribly wrong to be rich and propose policies that help the poor. Rich politicians voting themselves huge tax cuts is, of course, no big deal.

Ezra,

Good post, and I tried really hard not to be nitpicky about this, but please sort out your usage of apostrophes when you talk about families.
Correct: Obama's family brought in...
Correct: The Obamas brought in...
Correct: The Obamas' tax savings would be...
Incorrect: The Obama's brought in...

How much you think David Broder makes? I bet he wants $373,000 too.