Comment And Response

Comment from "Anonymous", regarding my post of 2/2/12 Dispatch Taxes My Patience:

Buster, Warren, and Obama need to drop the secretary vs the rich thing. It is truly an absurd attempt to mislead the ignorant while promoting higher taxes ON ALL who pay long term capital gains taxes. But hey, it will get Obama some praise and most of the media does not have time to explain the whole story. When Buster downsizes from that big suburban house to a smaller Florida condo does he want to pay 15% on the long term capital gain from the big house sale? Apparently not because that is unfair to the poor and downtrodden and he would rather pay 35%. Yes, Mr and Mrs Buster worked hard making regular income and paying the higher 28 to 35% tax rate on that income while paying for the house over 30 years but now you want to pay 35% AGAIN. Even though much of the capital gain income from the house sale has been eaten up by higher costs of living. Doggone it, the government and the poor deserve it. When the secretary saves for the rest of her life, and she will need to because Social Security is a pile of steaming dog pooh, should she pay 35% on her mutual fund generated retirement income that she needs to survive in her retirement years? Oh wait, she's not rich. Hopefully, she is a government secretary. Then her retirement will be taken care of for as long as she lives and, in the equitable and benevolent way that the only the government can guarantee.......as long as they can keep finding ways to collect more taxes.


Buster responds:

Interesting comment, Anonymous. It's flattering to be grouped with Buffett and Obama. Good company, I'd say.

We have not advocated for a 35% flat tax on all capital gains. Nor have we suggested the secretary should pay 35% on her retirement income. We know, however, that the current 15% flat rate can produce inequitably disproportionate results, with very large investment income taxed at a much lower rate than small ordinary income. Such a situation has been famously illustrated by the case of Mr. Buffett and his secretary, and also by Romney's $22 million taxed at a net 14%. This is the inherent flaw in any flat tax -- the advantages are skewed to the top end of the scale. Consequently, our point is that there needs to be some degree of progressive taxation of capital gains, at least on very high investment incomes. It is, as the President said, a matter of fairness and common sense.

And thanks for sharing with us that you really don't care for the poor, the downtrodden, the government, or the very idea of taxation. And since Social Security is such a steaming pile of shit, we trust you will not be taking your benefits when you retire. Just as a matter of principle.

Better check your kitchen -- I think your Tea kettle is whistling.