If asking someone making a quarter-million dollars a year to pay an additional

[predfan]

$3.69 on the next hundred dollars of income makes me a socialist, then I'll fess up.

He or she may not want to pay an additional $3.60 on that next hundred, but it won't keep them from putting shoes on their kids feet.

[OrwellwasRight]

1. Sign me up too!

It's not socialism, but if it is, sign me up.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. They only pay an additional 3%--that's it.

Not 3.69% or 3.6%, just 3%.

[pnwmom]

7. Just so you know, an increase from 36% - 39% is not a 3% increase.

A simpler example: If you go from 10 to 15, that's a fifty percent increase -- not a 5 percent increase. (The difference, 5, is fifty percent of 10).

I think the increase is well justified, but it's not the 3% that everyone keeps repeating.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Okay, 8.33% n/t

[Kazak]

3. There's a tear in my beer...

:cry:

[rucky]

4. If I knew it would go to healthcare & education, etc...

I'd be honored to pay it.

If I ever made that much.

[didigger]

5. But what about

that plumbing business I want to buy? One day I might be able to afford it. And one day it might actually net me more than $250,000. And one day I might be the next Toby Keith.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Copper is at about a dollar a pound.... it was clipping three dollars

a pound for quite awhile.... there is the break the liquid plumber so desperately needs. The price of copper fittings and pipe should reflect this reduction in copper prices... all will be well in plumberland.

[DBoon]

6. If you offered me a $250,000/year salary

and I had to pay these extra taxes, I wouldn't even blink

[Eric J in MN]

10. And you wouldn't even pay more. It would have to be over $250,000 for you to pay more.

Exactly $250,000, and you'd pay the same.

[Eric J in MN]

9. They would pay $3 more on that hundred.

Now: 33% on income somewhat over $250,000: $33 out of a hundred
Under Obama proposal to return to Bill Clinton rates for income somewhat over $250,000, 36%: $36 out of a hundred

Difference: $3

[Cresent City Kid]

12. While we're at it

What about a new top bracket for the top 1%? That would match the distribution of wealth more accurately. I mean distribution by its real definition, not the way it's been twisted in the campaign.

Thoughts?