>>>>>>>>But for a family of two professionals that have a career of 25 or more years, making 250K is not out of the ordinary. And they are not rich; even though they belong to the 1-2% of higher earners. If you live in NYC you will pay more than 50% for every dollar you make (federal, state, property, fees, etc.) And not much less in my liberal state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But if you're making $260K, the new rate would apply only on that last $10K. That's what's so absurd about this whole discussion. We're talking about _marginal_ tax rates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I appreciated George Takei's take on this: http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/tax-me-please
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The issue is the principle of punishing for success. I would not put the line at $250K or $350K or $1M. People (aside from some lower income people) should pay the same % tax on every dollar they make.
>>>>>
>>>>>Governments are nothing if not pragmatic about their sources of funds. Most subscribe to the Willie Sutton school of thought.
>>>>
>>>>I don't get this allegory (I am sure it is just me).
>>>>
>>>>Update: I got it now.
>>>
>>>Willie Sutton was a bank robber.
>>>
>>>Just like the current proposed solution - "they got money - let's take it".
>>
>>The way I heard it, he was asked why he robbed banks. He replied, "Because that's where the money is".
>
>Doesn't make sense to rob an orphanage.

For the government ends justify means.