I really wouldn't compare any communist country with democrats.  Even with socialists.  I mean... functionally they're really no different then dictatorships/facisms.

Cause they never get to the second stage.

Heck not even most Modern Communists because they seem to mostly want to avoid the struggle and think that eventually they'll convince everbody that communism is right through pure conversation.

Still the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans for this stuff most of the time when the Republicans usually are the only ones that catch the brunt of it.

Correct.

Yeah.  It is just a long running GOP joke here.  We don't let it get that bad.  Although they tear down buildings that can be reused and build high rises and do the same after like 10 years and spend for pork like a fiend.  Gardens, sidewalk fountains, etc have no place when ppl are sleeping in the tens of thousands of dollar metro parks on their benches.

I am for fiscal responsibility, btw :)

(1) That might be the proposal, I don't know.  They'll probably just jack up the price by a computer program to make the buyer pay anyway.  

(2) I don't understand how you got there from my post.  I don't recall stating or suggesting any such thing, and I'm not in favor of it. 

(3) I don't think that taxing savings is a good idea by any means, except the estate tax which only takes it after you die and only if you have a ton of it. 

(4) I'm not sure.  Of course not, you're being silly on purpose (I hope).  I'm not sure exactly where it breaks, and anyway people lead different lives so you could never have it perfect.  IMO a progressive income tax is the best way to get as close as we reasonably can.  According to a calculator I found a person making $500k would owe about 30% of it overall in income tax, and I think it could stand to be higher by Obama's proposed rate (which prevailed in the 1990s). 

I also think that we could add a new top bracket at $1 million or something with a marginal rate of 50% without any of the doom and gloom that would inevitably be predicted, not that I think it's likely to happen. 

P.S.  Why is the capital gains tax lower than the income tax? 

[edit:  Some time ago I made posts talking about, among other things, a study that compared the tax burden on top 1% of earners, top 5%, bottom 50%, etc. to their wealth.  I believe it used the older rate but I could be wrong.  Would you like me to dig that up?  We could start a side thread on this topic if you like, I keep being afraid of derailing this one's purpose.]

Not at all. It's overexagerated but I think it's important to look a this scientifically. I've just got a lot of quesions. Another thread would be fine. These would be my general questions in it.

1) What is your definition of harm. With basic needs taken care of... is it ability to purchase luxuary items?

2) A direct ratio is needed for such an argument in my opinion. There has to be some relative rank. I mean ballpark it... perferably with some numbers an equation.

3) When basing it on a nebuleus definition as "hurt" instead of real numbers, your doing things based on feelings... not data. Don't you find this problematic?

4) You are using the argument that the rich pay less from there "wealth" then the poor do yet you are against taxing savings aka wealth. Isn't that contradictory? Wouldn't a straight flat tax on all wealth equal out your problem with everything? Shouldn't a system based on wealth as the measuring point actually tax wealth directly

5) When all basic needs are taken care of, will your % numbers hold out? When nobody has to pay for needs? If so. Isn't this likely do to conspicous consumption? Is it then considered a basic right to have a certain level of luxary as well?

6) The capitals gains tax is lower so people invest in the stock market more. It's really a stupid idea as i mentioned I think all taxes should be equal on income. (money coming in that's profit.) I think it's better to raise the capitals gains tax then raise the income tax.

7) Why should two people making 125K a year who live together pay less taxes then two people living together where one person makes 250K a year and the other makes nothing? Two people making 10K pay less then one person making 20K etc.

Here is the biggie.

8) Don't you think a progressive tax gives the government a big incentive to make the rich richer and the middle class poorer since the more rich the rich are the more taxes the government gets? Instead of a 20% all around... the government gets 23% if the rich get richer, and 17% if the middle class is buffed up?

Not the way progressive taxes usually work in Europe (at least in Scandinavia which is where I've been working at).

The high-income tax only applies to the portion of income above the high-income threshold. The tax percentages actually get lower and lower as you go up in the brackets (in Sweden the high-income tax is just 5% applied on income above this threshold).

If my thinking is correct, this implies the exact opposite of what you said. Making the rich richer by X only makes the state richer by 0.05*X, a small amount compared to an increase in middle-income salaries (0.3*X or something like that).

This is not how it works in the US to my knowledge.  I may be wrong but i beleive it takes it out of your entire paycheck.  Which is why you can make money by donating to charity in the US.  Because it takes you down to a lower tax bracket by the amount you donate to charity.  Thereby saving you the extra money.

regardless i think your thinking is skewed somewhere.  Since while that extra 5% is applied on the income.  So is the original 30%.

Exapmle, someone making 100 and someone making 50.  tax rat 10% at below 80.  20% at above 80.

Someone making 50 pays 10%.  Someone making 100 pays 10% on the 80.  Then 20% on the remaining 20 so they pay 8+4= 12 +5

Total tax revenue: 17.

Now say the middle class guy makes 60.  while the rich guy makes 90. 

So thats 6 from the middle class guy.  8 from the rich guy + 2 for his over 80 percents.

Total Tax revenue hee: 16.

The closer we get to being even... the less tax revenue the government receives.  Therefore the government has two options when it needs more money.

1. Raise taxes... piss off constitutiants and risk their jobs.

2. Pass legislation that makes it easier for the rich to get richer.

If you can take money away from the poor even better!  They don't even pay taxes below the poverty line, it moves up the "company margin" even more.

You missed (or I didn't explain well) the part where I said that the tax percentages get lower as you go up the brackets.

So instead you'd have to use an example where (for example) the tax rate is 20% until 80 and 10% above 80.

Situation 1

Guy 1: salary = 100, tax = 16 + 2 = 18

Guy 2: salary = 50, tax = 10

Total tax = 28

Situation 2

Guy 1: salary = 90, tax = 16 + 1 = 17

Guy 2: salary = 60, tax = 12

Total tax = 29

That's how it works in Denmark and Sweden, and I suspect other countries too. I had never thought about the problem we're discussing, but in retrospect it's a nice property of this system.

PS: Yes, it's quite ridiculous to have a system in which you actually make more money by having a smaller salary. That doesn't happen with the tax system here.

Isn't that a regressive tax then?  That definitly isn't how it works in the US.

Wait, I'm getting confused now... Let me check one thing.