jraeyre wrote:
Stu, my apologies if I misunderstood your point.  However when you start your response very carefully parsing the tax rate criteria to imply that the so called rich pay less in taxes than you, it isn't a huge leap to what I thought you meant.
Really? Here's what I said: 
The rich pay less as a percentage of income in federal taxes than I do, or probably anyone else here.  (There is nothing vague or parsing about that. In fact it is quite clear and direct)
Why is it that everyone mentions CEO's and corporations when they talk about the rich, but never seem to mention Ely Manning getting $92million over five years???  Or the actress/actor making $20million per movie??? 
(Fine with me. Peyton and Charlie Sheen can pony up too. Maybe you hear less about these guys because they actually have to perform at some level to earn their pay. A CEO can destroy a company, drive share prices down the drain, lose market share and commit acts that would be considered a crime in most countries - and leave with goldern parachutes worth 100's of millions of dollars. Maybe they would be somewhat more sympathetic figures if they were getting the shit kicked out of the on the football field every Sunday)

By the way.....this.......

<<Right now, the rich pay a higher percentage than me (supposedly) on a portion of their income - and a much lower percentage than me on another huge portion of their income - passive income.>>

Do you really think investment income (Capital Gains) is passive?? Another questions, should capital gains be adjusted for inflation??
Yes, it is considered passive income. Do you want me to invent a new name for it?



Jra



"Stupidity has a certain charm -- ignorance does not." - Frank Zappa 


"I believe in everything - nothing is sacred; I believe in nothing - everything is sacred." - Tom Robbins