Now the Republicans, you know when I, I talked about this earlier in the week. They said 'well, this is class warfare.' You know what? If asking a billionaire to pay their fair of taxes. To pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I'm, I'm a warrior for the middle class. I'm happy to fight for the middle class.

Have you guys even looked at the Warren Buffet rule? It's a tax on wealth: the President literally wants the wealthy to pay taxes on money they've already been taxed through the ringer on and saved.

For those of you who have only heard the media snippets, the Buffett rule includes, as income, uncapitalized investment games. They're calling it the Buffett rule to make people feel good about it, but guess what will be hammered by this new tax the most?

Out of curiosity, why should the government tax capital gains and savings at lower rates than wages and consumption? Isn't favoring one kind of economic activity over another paternalistic and distortionary?

(a) Sure, but the holders could just cash out. Otherwise, you are, again, distorting economic activity by favoring long-term holdings over short-term holdings.

(b) That just begs the question. The issue is whether (and why) the government should be in the business of encouraging/discouraging a particular type of economic activity. Why are savings and investment good? Why is it ok for the government to favor those who do it over those who don't?

Commodities are fungible, RangerDave; last I checked, human beings truly aren't, even if we treat them that way in payroll.

*ETA: To be clear, I know savings and investment lead to greater economic growth over the long-term, and I, as a self-identified moderate liberal, think it's ok for the government to try to manage and improve the economy to some extent. It just seems inconsistent with the more laissez-faire view folks on the right generally take, so I'm curious why you make an exception for government interference that favor savings and investment.

I think my edit crossed with your post, Rynar. I do believe the government should do those things, but I'm a moderate liberal, so I think government interference in the economy is ok. I find it interesting, though, that so many libertarians abhor government interference in the economy generally, but make an exception for policies that favor savings and investment. It makes me think at least some "libertarian" critiques of government are rooted in moral views of work and thrift rather than truly individualistic, anti-interventionist beliefs.

Have you guys even looked at the Warren Buffet rule? It's a tax on wealth: the President literally wants the wealthy to pay taxes on money they've already been taxed through the ringer on and saved.

I find it interesting, though, that so many libertarians abhor government interference in the economy generally, but make an exception for policies that favor savings and investment. It makes me think at least some "libertarian" critiques of government are rooted in moral views of work and thrift rather than truly individualistic, anti-interventionist beliefs.

By not taxing savings and investment, it is not the government taking a position to modify the natural economy in some way. It is the government taking the position to not modify the economy. But not modifying the economy, they are fostering growth.

If the government imposes a 30% tax on X, but only a 15% tax on Y, how is that not modifying the economy? All else being equal, more of Y and less of X will get produced than if they were treated equally.

If the government imposes a 30% tax on X, but only a 15% tax on Y, how is that not modifying the economy? All else being equal, more of Y and less of X will get produced than if they were treated equally.

If the government imposes a 30% tax on X, but only a 15% tax on Y, how is that not modifying the economy? All else being equal, more of Y and less of X will get produced than if they were treated equally.