Countries that have the highest income inequality: Namibia, Lesotho, Botswana, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Bolivia.

Countries that have the lowest income inequality: Sweden, Slovenia, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Austria.

PS. In 1944 the top marginal income tax bracket in the US was 94% (during a time of war, like we are in now).

These days, I'm less concerned about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts than I am the staggering deficit - Krugman, et. al. were crucifying Bush for a ~$500B deficit back in the mid-2000s, now a 3X deficit to them seems no problem. You could tax the top 400 households at 100% and still have well over a trillion dollar deficit.

In your lust to see the Bush tax cuts go away, just remember that, barring changes, taxes will go up for everyone - and there are a helluva lot more people in the 15% and 28% brackets than the 39.6% bracket. I assume you're down with that: the more people paying their 'fair share', the better, right?

"These days, I'm less concerned about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts than I am the staggering deficit"

Yeah, because you really don't want to address the subject at hand.

The news story that seems to fit here is that Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (full disclosure, Kari does his site) is joining with ultra right winger Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to lower the corporate tax rate to 24%.

A progressive income tax is essential to a Democracy. The Wyden approach is essential to the continued destruction of the United States. Witness recent Supreme Court ruling.

Senator Dodd is prepared to destroy efforts to restore part of Glass Steagall. All of those who say that getting a health care bill in whatever form will be fine. We'll just fix it later. Like NAFTA.

Wake up Progressives. Tell Ron that shifting the burden to the wage earners does not work. Enough with the supply side, Ron.

You make two common errors: 1. Wealth is not the same as income. When you start to talk about the wealthiest Americans, and then quote income statistics from 2007, you are comparing a flow rate with the amount of water in the bucket. 2. You confuse household income with per capita income. If you are going to quote statistics of household income, you cannot say that is "per person".

So, what you're saying is that during the years of Shrubbery, that people that voted for hand-outs for an elite group of plutocrats got exactly what they voted for, but when folks voted to give Dems major victories in '06 and '08, they haven't got what they voted for?

Personally, I give more integrity points for a murderer with a body count than a saint that only talks about good works.

Yeah, obviously this sucks. How about continuing the piece with all the opportunities that Dems have pissed away in the last 2, and what it will take for them to implement what folks voted them into office for? How about how taxing gross receipts is more "screw the middle class", while giving a greater competitive advantage to big bidness?

Of course, we are all trolls for commenting. One is to sit at the teacher's feet and listen, not expect a conversation, as one would have with mortals. "Besides, the comments don't change the point". Could we have a little check box in each contributor bio that indicates which posters sign on to that? Hard to separate buzyness from principle on that one.

More attack, attacks attacks that what this site is about.

It a fact the freer the society from government intervention the better off the the POOR is, The Hospitalization, The lesser amount of racism, why are you hurting the people you claim to help.

What a range this species possesses!

Alcatross: These days, I'm less concerned about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts than I am the staggering deficit - Krugman, et. al. were crucifying Bush for a ~$500B deficit back in the mid-2000s, now a 3X deficit to them seems no problem.

Remind me again - were we in the middle of the deepest recession since the Great Depression in the mid-2000's?

Krugman, et. al. were crucifying Bush for pissing away a surplus (which could have been used to pay down the Reagan/Bush1 debt). Krugman has been clear that deficits are a necessary evil when trying to pull the country out of a recession.

That's why pretty much every serious "Balanced Budget Amendment" proposal in the past always had an exception for times of war and recession.

Chuck,

I think these huge tax breaks have contributed, over the years, to the myopia and arrogance of our betters, whether the Wall Streeters claiming their shameful bonuses, or the big rich who can't imagine giving back a penny more in taxes no matter what happens to our state or country. They are rotten spoiled! Is there a course of action that can reintroduce them to reality, or is that as unlikely as it was with the old royal dynasties of pre-WWI Europe?

Rudy, I agree with you 100%. If "Chuck" Sheketov is really executive director - as he claims - I believe he should address your concerns.

I have seen him make mistakes like this before and jump to conclusions.

When the Bush tax cuts expire, the middle class will see a bigger percentage increase in their income taxes than will those in the upper income brackets. Contrary to the conventional misunderstanding, the Bush tax cuts made the federal income tax more progressive, not less.

"I believe he should address your concerns."

Regulars here (and the archives) will tell you that all the pumpkin you have eaten in the last calendar year has come between the last time he answered a question and today!

marv, In defense of Sen. Wyden (not that I'm completely happy with him) I heard a story on the radio that business is generally against the Wyden/Gregg bill because while it lowers the tax rate it also closes a lot of loopholes and the net effect is probably that they pay a bit more in taxes. Don't know if it's true but I'm not going to just reject the bill in a knee-jerk reaction until I learn more.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that the rich are getting even richer here...which wouldn't be so bad if the poor and middle class were not suffering and our nation were not sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

Posted by: Abby NORML | Feb 24, 2010 5:39:56 PM

"I believe he should address your concerns."

Regulars here (and the archives) will tell you that all the pumpkin you have eaten in the last calendar year has come between the last time he answered a question and today!

That's the kind of rudeness that has become the proud standard since Obama defrauded his way into office. A fish rots from the head down, and there's some pretty stinky markrel booty on the BO payroll!

<h2>The sad thing about this debate is that the vast, vast majority of taxpayers that are affected by the reversal of the Bush Tax Cuts and 66/67 are NOT the ultra rich who make 100 million in a year. Heck the people making this kind of money will probably give it away to charity at some point. As a country we should create a wealth tax where we require those with a net worth over 1 billion to give 1% of their net worth away to charity every year and we should quit acting like those making 250K a year are "not paying their fair share".</h2>