|Jim -- The analysis you provided is faulty on several counts:|
1. Both hypothetical examples used an adjusted gross income that comprised salary alone, not income from dividends, capital gains, etc. This would skew the results for higher income even more, making it look like a person earning $100,000, without any other form of income would pay a lot more tax. That scenario would be an exception, rather than the rule.
2. Once again, you used data that examine only federal taxes, rather than ALL taxes. You can't make comprehensive judgments without considering ALL taxes. Is that difficult to understand?
3. Your data make no allowance for the dividend and capital gains preferences, which apply more to higher income than lower income groups. The current tax preferences for dividends and capital gains go back to the Reagan tax reforms, not to the Bush "temporary" cuts. Are you saying that after 2012 all dividends would be taxed as ordinary income?
Bottom line: Wealthier taxpayers will continue to have it easy. If you calculate their TOTAL tax burden as a percentage of TOTAL household income (including non-taxable and tax preference income), you will see that the percentage increase for higher income taxpayers is small potatoes. They will continue to invest, inasmuch as their disposable income will be close to what it is now, unless they lose their jobs because of continuing job cuts caused by a contracting economy brought about by tax and job cutters. Lower income taxpayers will continue to spend what they have on consumer items, with hardly anything left over for investing. But that's not too different from today's scenario, where investorsl have become too scared to do anything but sit on the sidelines, resulting in stocks like Qualcomm going down the tubes.
They are scared because some of the largest investors, especially banks and hedge funds, have created a climate that discourages investing by anyone other than large scale institutions.