"Dear Wealthy Fucks: Fuck you. Yours in Christ, the Black Guy"

[Martinus]

Yes, but I would not want to live in Hong Kong. 

[dps]

Yeah but you live in Poland.

You live in Alaska. 

Yeah, he does, but that's better than Poland because it's been longer since it was ruled by Russians.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah but you live in Poland.

You live in Alaska. 

You're Polish enough to actually think that's an insult.

[viper37]

Why is this a positive?

cuts in capital gains taxes didn't seem to have any positive effects on investments.  Lower taxes on dividends encourage investors to seek revenu titles rather than growth titles, so it's bad for the economy in the long term if we only protect mega-corporations that seeks stability rather than innovation.

The last Bush tax cuts aimed at the very wealthy, like the inheritance tax had no positive effects on the economy.  The economy still slumbered, simply because making a very rich person even richer doesn't stimulate spending and growth.  Figure it this way: you already have enough money to buy whatever you want in life, suddenly you get even more, and what's better is you inheritors won't have much work to do to preserve their life-styles since they will inherit nearly 100% of your wealth through varous & careful financial planning on your part.

So by cutting taxes on the ultra-rich, you are essentially not encouraging spending, you are promoting lazyness and you don't help your economy.  But that's usually the Republican's economic plan, wich is why the economy often sucks during a Republican President's term and gains a boost during a Democratic President's term (Reagan only surfed on Carter's policies after all and it took Clinton's policies to turn the tide and end the recession, then Bush 2nd came he fucked it all and Obama just never could deliver on his promises because he was a weak President vis-à-vis his Congress, always seeking consensus rather than going forward).

So long as you remember that tax rates & govt fiscal income aren't a straight line up, there's no problem in re-adjusting (a little) the tax rates of the very wealthy.  It's not like the US has a shortage of ultra-rich people either, unlike some other areas.  Even if 4-5 of them would create their own small island (or floating platform) paradise, you'd still have tons of hard working entrepreneurs contributing their fair share to the burdens of the country.  It's not like you'd see a massive exodus toward Canada or Mexico of these people, anyway.

[Martinus]

Meanwhile:

The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population combined, Oxfam, a charity dedicated to fighting global poverty, said today. In fact, wealth is already so unevenly distributed, that you need just $3,650 to count yourself among the richest half of the world's population. A mere $77,000 brings you among the wealthiest 10%. And just $798,000 puts you into the ranks of the 1%—within the reach of many white-collar urban professionals in the West

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-8?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/purseoftheonepercent

[Grey Fox]

That's only because of India's strict cast system.

[crazy canuck]

Why is this a positive?

Because extreme income inequality and dropping rates of social mobility are not worthy goals of taxation policy (or any policy).

[The Brain]

Poor people is the problem. Not rich people.

[crazy canuck]

Poor people is the problem. Not rich people.

Neither rich nor poor people are the problem.  Tax policies which allow Warren Buffet to pay less tax than his secretary are.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah but you live in Poland.

You live in Alaska. 

You're Polish enough to actually think that's an insult.

It's merely a misfortune.

[KRonn]

Obama can propose all he wants, but he needs Congress to implement it, no? And Congress needs him to sign whatever they pass, right?

So this is staking out a starting position for bargaining, much further away from the Republican one back when he tried being the "responsible adult" and they shut down the government.

Or did I miss something?

I think it's more accurate to characterize it as running it up the flagpole to see who salutes and/or red meat for the partisan base as opposed to an opening bargaining position.  He does this all the time--tosses out an idea in the context of nothing.

Agreed pretty much, this is more likely the starting point of a proposal. But didn't he proposed this when he had a democratic Congress and it didn't pass then either? So I don't expect it to pass now. 

[Admiral Yi]

This will be front and center in tonight's SotU.  Increase in cap gains for fat cats and transaction tax for 100 largest financial institutions.  Proceeds to finance free juco tuition for hard working middle class students who can maintain a C+ average ().  Also to fund unspecified tax credits and tax breaks for the hard working American middle class.

Tag line: "middle class economics vs. trickle down economics."

[Jacob]

I'm guessing you're not a fan.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not.

[Jacob]

I'm not.

Yeah, I figured.

Well, I suppose you can comfort in knowing the proposals are highly unlikely to come to pass.