Which of course won't stop Sean Hannity from going on the air and screaming terrorist! He's an economic terrorist!

Maybe this week Glenn Beck can teach us how we can boil and eat our boot leather in his war room.

And how O'Reilly... Actually O'Reilly has been getting much better lately. He actually complimented Jon Stewart on skewering Cramer. So wow. Maybe Obama is having an effect on him too.

Thank you, Matt, for a common sense article in times when inflammatory words like *socialism* and *communism* are thrown around so irresponsibly.

Today, every $1,000 in mortgage interest or charitable gifts generates $350 in tax savings for top earners; under the new plan the tax savings would be $280. If that's enough to make somone who earns $250,000 stop giving to charity, let them keep their donation and shame on them.

Under the existing tax deduction rates, the owner of a mansion was subsidized by the owner of a ranch house, because the mansion owner deducted at the 35% rate, where the modest home deducted at the 28% rate. A little fairness here is socialism?

The richest 1% of Americans about half of all the wealth in the country. Enough is enough. A decent life for the working class does not equal either communism or socialism.

I'm confused about this. We haven't been able to take "mortgage deductions" for years because of the AMT

We live in a high cost of living region (the northeast) and our family's dual income ~$200K allows for a modest middle class lifestyle (partially due to the enourmous childcare bills.)

How will this really change anything at all?

It'll take a while to roll back the massive tax rebate the rich are getting in this country. The progressive income tax policy was put in place because it was a more equitable way to share the responsibility and reward for Government benefits. The tax deduction was put in place for the rich to escape this responsibility and so they could bless their representatives with cash gifts. It's time that the progressive tax solution actually was given a chance to work in this country.

To counter the cry that taxing will discourage hard work just look at the numbers. If someone makes $50,000/year and their tax bracket is 10% they take home $45,000/year. If someone makes $500,000/yr and their tax bracket is 50%, they take home $250,000/year. Do you think the higher earner is going to stop working?

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

This user is no longer registered.

This user is no longer registered.

This user is no longer registered.

This user is no longer registered.

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

This user is no longer registered.

What a stupid interpretation. You should be happy you are only losing $70 PER THOUSAND. Who has a thousand dollar mortgage? If you have a million dollar mortgage, guess what? That is a lot of dough. You should be happy becaise lower earners only can deduct 15%? That's because they only PAY 15%! Try teling them they only get to deduct 8% and see how loudly they scream. This is never going to pass, so forget it. It is DOA. The thing I don't understand is why all these rich haters come to a website that is fixated on excess and glamour?

This user is no longer registered.

MrRepublican; point out a few--socialism's--for me, I'm curious. And tell me what you think of Ayn Rand and her brand of cultural eugenics; Glen Beck mentioned her yesterday.

Uhhh, I hate to be the only one in the room who can do Math, but a higher tax deduction percentage ensures higher home VALUES???? You work for who exactly? This is not reassurring. You do know about the Housing Price decline?

Will the President be recanting his devotion to our Local Policeman, as an example of success in saving Ohio Jobs in his Stimulus Program, in light of the ALABAMA SHOOTINGS. Perhaps, I could suggest to the President that he import Hessians for the job?

Not to be too Liberal here, but I think 'Instant Karma' just got you?

Perhaps he's found Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts? It should be there in that note left from President Bush.

This looks like socialist/communist/Marxist leaning web site from the comments. If you morons want "fair" taxes, get a flat tax. That's fair for everyone. Why who you creeps think that you can dictate what is "enough" income. It's really none of your Fxxking business. I'll decide what I do with it, who I give it to, and who gets it when I die. Piss off.

"flyoverland
What a stupid interpretation. You should be happy you are only losing $70 PER THOUSAND. Who has a thousand dollar mortgage?If you have a million dollar mortgage, guess what?"

Ummm... it's not a "stupid interpretation" because no one gets a mortgage deduction on their taxes for the TOTAL VALUE of their million dollar mortgage, flyoverland. They get a mortgage deduction on the INTEREST PAID every year, which, incidentally, is what the article said, if you'd managed to comprehend it fully, which apparently you didn't.

See, here's the relevant point:

"...top earners will be able to deduct mortgage interest only at the 28 percent rate"

Not where it says, "deduct mortgage INTEREST." Cause that's how our taxes work. Sheesh.

The very title of your piece tells us of your personal vindictiveness towards anyone "rich". That would be anyone making more money than you right? THEY should pony up to support those who choose to depend on the taxpayer for their livelyhood. Like you for instance. You have no problem having the taxpayer support your job...that taxpayer supported collection of left wing hacks, NPR. Further, while you take the money, you bite the hand that feeds you. Before you slavishly try to demonisze "the rich", you should try living in a socialist country. That would be the one where the government takes MOST of what you make all the while telling you that they know best and will tell you what is good for you. And anyway it is really their money. You just get to keep what they say you can. YOU would probably love it.

With the extra $5K dollars a year I will pay in taxes and not miss according to commrade Matt, I will no longer pay someone (I will do it myself) to cut the grass, clean up the landscaping in the spring and fall, clean my house, etc. I will also put off any home improvements and additions until the siege is over. All of you people who are currently working for me, sorry. Enjoy your $8 per week stimulus from his highness.

The only thing that matters is the effective tax rate. That's the bottom line. All the rest is obfuscation from both sides of the aisle (The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat.). Look at the historical tables from the Congressional Budget Office to understand what people in various income brackets pay:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_tables_toc.xls

as Obama likes to point out, wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the highest brackets. But, so has the tax burden. And the tax burden has concentrated at a greater rate than income.

And "fairness" has nothing to do with this debate. How is it "fair" that some pay millions for right to enjoy the benefits of this country, while others pay nothing? Why is someone who earns $50k entitled to enjoy X percent of the fruits of his labor, while one earning $100k is only entitled to enjoy Y percent?

The rich pay the bulk of taxes not because it is right, but because it is practical and expedient. And because mob rule makes it inevitable.

As an aside, what makes the mortgage deduction so galling is that it is one of the only mechanisms in the tax system that mitigates the harm done to middle class people who earn high salaries but live in high cost of living areas. Ask someone earning $150k in California who pays $4 to 5k per month for an entry level house if they are "super-rich." To their credit, Congress has realized that many people like this have been unfairly hit by Alternative Minimum Tax and are working to change this. But Obama's proposal neglects this entirely.

Kateliz clearly doesn't know the first thing about Matt Miller. Vindictiveness toward "the rich"? Oh, that's rich.

The Democrats' entire position is dishonest. They like to talk about "fairness", and how "the rich" should "pay their fair share". The fact of the matter is, people at the top of the income scale already pay a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden compared to the share of total income they earn.

As of 2005, the top 1% earned 17% of all income, and paid 34% of all income taxes. The top 5% earned 31% of all income, and paid 54% of all income taxes. The top 10% earned 42% of all income, and paid 66% of all income taxes. The top 25% earned 65% of all income, and paid 84% of all income taxes.

In other words, if we were truly interested in making the tax code more "fair", we would have to cut taxes on people at the top and raise taxes on the people at the bottom. At a minimum, Obama would be raising taxes on everyone, not just those earning over $250,000. (You can be assured that he eventually will, because there is not enough money at the top end to pay for what he's spending).

I point this out as someone who does not fall into the above categories. I just like facts and truth. Keep in mind also that most of the "evil rich" have already lost up to 50% of their savings in the stock market, and seen the value of their homes disintegrate.

Matt, don't stop there.

Implied marginal tax rates on long-term municipal bonds (tax exempt, so rich people buy them) are below the top tax rate, which means RICH people are capturing part of the subsidy that is supposed to go to the state or local issuer! So we should make the rich pay taxes on municipal bond interest.

Also, rich people in Texas are richer than rich people in the Northeast or in California (due to cost of living differences). So the Texas rich should be taxed at a higher rate.

Gosh keeping track of these pesky misplaced subsidies, where does it end?

But back to the point of your article, I agree, this is a really cool new tool--the differential rate on deductions versus income. Helps to further redistribute wealth in addition to redirecting resources in more socially desirable ways. I mean, who needs socialism or communism when you control the U.S. tax code? But, let's keep the charitable contributions to NPR 100% deductible at the top rate--it is such an important subsidy. You guys work so hard for the middle class!

Oh please just get honest people. 35% to 39%...big deal. You made off like bandits for the last eight years. You wanted your war, now pay for it.

KofTX1, what are you talking about? First, there is zero correlation between support for Bush's immoral action in Iraq and income level. I suspect if anything the opposite is disproportionately true.

Second, this article has nothing to do with 35 versus 39(.4)% tax bracket. That's a totally different issue. It's about whether people in the 35% bracket are getting "subsidized" for their mortgage versus other homeowners in the 28% bracket, which is just factually absurd. All taxpayers get to treat their mortgage interest precisely the same way: it reduces their gross taxable income. It doesn't reduce the income of higher earners any more or less than lesser earners - each can deduct their interest EXACTLY the same way. The author is trying to make a ridiculous backward point - twisting the fact that the higher income earner is actually PAYING 7% more tax into some "perk" because the result of the adjusted income reduces that part of their tax by 7% more than the lower income earner. Put in any other context, people would deride that logic as a con man's gambit.

As for the larger tax issue, its not just the Federal tax - there is State and Local as well, both of which are also "progressive." The net result is the higher earners in NYC will be paying 55% of their gross income in taxes - more than half. And this will NOT be the "richest" people - it will be the upper middle class (relative to the cost of living in the areas they are largely congregated in NY, LA, etc.). It's a point of fact that the richest people pay a substantially lower tax as a percentage (though more in absolute dollars) than those earning substantially less. That's because of all the other tax loopholes that allow these people to establish themselves as corporations and to direct their assets to more tax favorable vehicles than the typical person. Just today Obama indicated that he was favorable to lowering the 35% tax rate for corporations. In other words, he is signaling that the uber-rich will see lower taxes at the expense of the kinda-rich. If you really want a progressive tax system, why not make it truly progressive instead of making the top 10% pay proportionately more than the top 1%?

And either way, the idea that these "rich" people (the kinda, sorta, merely, super and uber combined) are not paying their "fair share" or are being given a "free ride" is laughable by any definition. This top 5% is paying over 40% of all taxes nationally and over 50% in some high cost areas like NYC. So if you want to talk about "subsidizing" the facts are that these people are already substantially subsidizing everyone else. Someone in the NYC market making $500K isn't even "upper" middle class, but is paying the taxes of over 50 average taxpayers combined.