>>>>I make money the old fashioned way: I work long hours and I care about quality of my product and support. Others can do the same and not wait for Obama to distribute what I earn.
>>>>
>>>>I couldn't agree with you more. Socialism aspires to the highest common factor, but results in the lowest common denominator. If you take from each according to his (or her) ability and give to each according to his (or her) need, all you do is create a society of needy people.
>>>
>>>You are all acting like this is a new concept. Our income tax system has been progressive from the beginning.
>>>
>>>BTW, that quotation is from Karl Marx, so wouldn't it be a description of communism, not socialism?
>>
>>Firstly, our income tax system has not been 'progressive' from the beginning, at least not in the way it is progressive now, It got more and more progressive each year, getting to grotesque situation when more people get 'tax refunds' without paying any taxes. Would you claim that this is was the initial design?
>>Secondly, Marx & Co. supplied two definitions: one for communism, another for socialism. Ironically, your side clung to the communist definition that was correctly shown in Marcia message.
>
>You are completely wrong about progressive income taxes. There have always been higher tax rates on the top incomes, and it used to be a much bigger gap than it is now. The chart in this Wikipedia chart clearly shows this. See the chart in the section titled "History of progressivity in federal income tax."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

This chart shows formal rates with no regard how many people were subjected to these rates.
I kindly advise you to learn what was called top-income one hundred years ago and what is called now. You may find out, e.g., that the same 250K was somehow called top-rate in both times. Now, make an effort and try to figure out if any difference exists between modern dollars and those from 100 years ago, and then you will see, if you are still there, that 250K earners would never been called top-income makers in 'ancient time' if you convert dollars back. Hopefully, you have a clue now: your progressive system requires more and more people get called "rich" to be subjected to higher taxes to provide means for your darling government. To get correct assessment, how "progressive" your system is, you should not look at statutory top rate. You should look at how many people getting the same share of total income in all times pay in taxes. This group must be sizable, 10-20% at least. Truly progressive system, that you love, means the same (in income terms) group of people pay higher share of taxes, i.e. in plain English they pay more while they make the same.