I think you're misunderstanding the idea of a stock trade tax.  But I guess I could be misunderstanding the idea as it was told to me.  What I understand it to be is like a sales tax on stock.  You trade it, 0.1% of the money you get goes to Uncle Sam.  That's aside from capital gains tax and whatever. 

I guess I could probably go dig up studies if you want, but I thought it could be settled as an intellectual exercise.  If a man makes $10 million, I'm sure he could find a way to spend it all, but I seriously doubt he would be "harmed" by the government taking half ($5 million) of it away as much as a man who makes $50,000 would be "harmed" by the government taking half ($25,000) of it away.  I am confident this is true even if we take it as given that the cost of basic survival is not counted in those incomes.  I mean, unless you defined "harm" as "number of dollars they don't get", but I don't think that's a good definition. 

Anyway, Warren Buffet says he keeps a bigger percentage of his income currently than do his secretary and housekeeper, so I think we can afford to raise the top marginal rates even if you support a flat tax. 

Tell me about it Kasz. I only had a McCain sticker on my shirt after coming from a debate party and I was railed on. Talk about the People's Republic of Arlington!!!

Makes sense to me as for taxing the stocks.  Though i'd think you'd want to do it with buying not selling if you were going for the fairness angle.

As for the second arguement... by that line of reasoning it would suggest that the best tax method would be to tax the rich exclusivly.

Also to tax them on savings and not spending... since Warren Buffet is going to be less harmed by his taxes then Bill Gates since Warren Buffet doesn't have expensive tastes. 

At what level do you consider the 200,000 person hurt as much as the 20,000 person?  When they have an equal amount of money?  If not... what level do you consider equal... and how do you reach said number?

That is because technology makes lives better.  The quality of life get better for everyone as time goes on.  Some of the poorest people of today in industrialized nations live "better" than the ancient royalty.

But that doesn't matter I am talking about today.  The tax code is set up where somebody who makes money off of investments pays a lower percentage than a middle class worker.  The person who gets to not work because of the strength and security of the economy should pay more than the people who contribute to the strength and security of the economy.

One last thing, the middle class not wealthier than they were 8 years ago. They make less money than they did then, when adjusted to inflation.

Yet the Gini coeeficient is about equal as the end of the Clinton era interestingly... which is surprising since usually the Gini Coefficent gets much higher president to president.  One of it's biggest increases infact was under Clinton.  Seems like the Bush Tax Cuts really weren't helping the rich "Break away" as for whatever reason they've been held in check from the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.

That's still something i can't figure out.  Guess when the economy goes bad, the rich hurt more.  Or something.

I never said they were.  I said that the quality of life went down.  I am not talking about the separation of rich and poor.  I am talking about where the income comes from.  The wealthy get their money because the government provides infrastructure, workers (through education), physical protection, and much more.  Why should the people who do not benefit as much (the working middle class) pay for foundation that the wealthy built there businesses on?

Yeah I know.  I'm just curious why that is though.  Figured since you claim to know a lot about the economy you'd be able to fill me in on that.

I do agree that taxes on investments should = taxes on other earnings.  Though I do not believe they should be greater then it.  Since investments are another type of work.  Just more of a mental one.

Being taxed at a lower rate if you earn money from investments as compared to earning money through income has very little to do with giving the 'Rich' people in the world an easier time ...

The primary group of people who make most of their income from investments are pensioners, and (even though they have a lot of wealth) they're not particularly 'Wealthy' because the wealth they have built up over their life exists to provide them with an adequate income for the rest of their life. Beyond this, a important thing that has been lost over the past several years is that most people should live below the lifestyle they're able to pay-for and to invest money; some people would term this as "Living below your means" whereas it would be "Living within your means" in a more classical sense.

Now, why people today are worse off than they were 8 years ago is not a problem related to "trickle down ecconomics" and is a problem with poor ecconomic policy for several decades. Wealth is generated in an ecconomy when someone creates something of value which could be a physical product, an intellectual property, or a valueable service. Over the past couple of decades, as jobs that produced wealth were transfered to developing nations, the federal reserve propped up the ecconomy by flooding the market with inexpensive credit. This created a major problem, unproductive labour which is paid for through artificial equity which results in high inflation.

If you look at house flippers you can see this problem quite clearly ... In most (major) markets there were quite a few people who would buy new homes, or homes with fairly minor problems, do (practically) no work of value and then (somehow) earn a large return on investment as the home's value increased by 5 to 10%.

The average individual is no better off than they were 8 years ago because as more and more unproductive jobs have been created the average individual has had to pay more for everything to pay for these people's false labour.

I never claimed to know a lot about the economy. I know what I know because I happened to learned some of these things through studying international policy and because my mind finds flaws in reasoning pretty well.

I understand where you are coming from in your opinion. I won't try to rationalize my opinion about why one type of work deserves to be taxed more, anymore than I already have. I'm just going to rephrase it. Those types of mental worker are the major benefactors of naval and air power, the internet and telecommunication, and foreign diplomacy. The U.S. isn't getting invaded, because of geography. Yes, the middle class workers benefit by having those goods and services but the upper class gets that as well as the profit from selling those goods in services provided in part by government sevices.

I study politics, so I am going to get a little more political science-y. Typing fast so I can get back to Warhammer, so please excuse typos.

Everything in a sovereign nation is ultimately the governments. Whether we like it or not, we allow them to use force to control us. We have a government, that has rules that they must follow, the constitution. The governments gave up certain powers.

I understand the difference between federal, state, and local gov'ts, but I am going to keep this simple.

I used to own a restaurant. The land lord paid property tax, because the government lets him use the land. I want to put up a sign, so I have to pay to uglify the city and have it inspected so the sign doesn't fall and kill a tax payer or block a road (another source of revenue). Suzy Eaters buys a cheeseburger, they pay sales tax and I pass it on to the gov't because they used a road, a sidewalk, or a train to get to my restaurant. Joe Burgerflipper, works, the government paid for his ability to read those tickets and taught him how to follow rules, so he pays some taxes and I pay some employment taxes because I am gaining as much as he from his education. At the end of the year, I add add up all my sales, subtract all my costs, and I have my profit or income. The grain for those buns came on federal train tracks, the power came on power lines on land leased from the state. The uniforms and nametags came from China, on a boat protected by the Coast Guard and the Navy. The paychecks came from Fedex on a plane, from an airport protected by the TSA and the Airforce. Etc. etc. etc. Out of that income, there is significantly more of my income that is provided by the government through infrastructure, defense, and diplomacy then Joe Burgerflippers income.

Why should Joe Burgerflipper or Suzy Eaters have to pay the same share of those programs as I used to, when they get less of a benefit from those programs than I do?

Edit: I never said anything about the negatives of trickledown economics.  I am mostly talking about the fairness of who should pay for what, which is opinion based on my feeling as a former business owner.  The fact of the matter is that in a mostly free market the gov't or any other large organization can't help but to disrupt makrets, it's natural.  The best thing to do is not overreact or base decisions on ideology and make changes as they are needed while maintaining your core values and judgement of what is right and wrong.  In 2001-3 we needed changes to take the burden slightly off the top end, today we need it reversed a little bit.  Times change, I wish people would stop reacting to everything as if it were some insult and realize this is just the real world and we have to try really hard to prevent ourselves from killing one another en masse.

There are also plenty of government programs that the rich don't beenfit from at all...

or even the middle class. 

Or even most poor people.

Heck there are some government programs and services nobody benefits from except the people within the department.