In article om, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote:

No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that "regular wage earners" pay social
security taxes on most or all of their income, even if they pay no personal
income tax at all, while those with unearned income (i.e. dividends, capital
gains, and interest) do not. A great many wage earners pay substantially more
in social security tax than they do in personal income tax. I need look no
further than my own tax return for an example: in 2010, we paid $2500 more in
social security tax than we paid in personal income tax. They are *both* taxes
on income, but only one is actually *called* that. And only one is actually
paid by those whose income is entirely, or primarily, from dividends and
capital gains. Those who actually *work* for a living pay *both*. And that's
fundamentally unfair.

All other factors (deductions, exemptions, etc.) being equal, someone with
$100K annual income solely from dividends pays significantly less in *total*
taxes than someone with $100K annual income solely from salary. That's not
right.
---------------------------------
You do a great job of making Obama's case to increase the taxes on
that part of a $250K or greater income above $250K.

That's quite a leap of illogic you've made there.

It's actually making the case for either (a) a flat tax, where everyone pays
the same rate regardless of how much they make, or (b) abolishing income taxes
altogether in favor of some form of consumption tax.