If we reversed the favor – and let workers pay lower tax rates than investors – then working families would have greater opportunity to accumulate wealth.

If you had looked at the cite provided, you'd see that's already true. yes, even if you include SS. Capital is taxed at 15% the bottom three quintiles have an effective federal tax rate of 14% or less.

Historians point out that more people moved up into the middle class during the 1950s and 1960s – and American wealth was much less concentrated – when the top income tax rate was 91%, impacting salaries and capital gains equally

Not true. Cap gains was 25% from 1954 to 1968.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

And in 1963 (last year applicable) the rate from $200k to $300k was 91%. So if you made that extra $100k, you'd get $9k. That's great if you want to punish people, but not if you want revenue. Nobody in their right mind is going to take extra compensation in salary, they'll take it in tax-free benefits.

Three other caveats, $300k in 1963 is $2mil today, and context is everything. Business is usually good when one is the only remaining industrial nation intact after a world war. That's actually one of the reasons we should let the world fight it out amongst themselves, it's good for our business.

And lastly, the blue collar middle class you long for, was possible back then, because it doesn't require education to run a brake press. You might as well be longing for the return of King Arthur and the round table.

"Investors pay lower income taxes than workers."

Let's try this again for the less swift in the audience. Investors pay the SAME taxes on INCOME as workers. Or rather higher taxes than workers because of their bracket. Any financial asset held less than a year is income upon sale, rent is income, interest from savings is income. All taxed at the same rates as workers.

Apparently you are having trouble distinguishing a "nest egg" (capital)from a stream of revenue (income)and why that distinction is important. So let's try it this way....

Let's assume you have $1,000 in the bank earning 5%/yr. That's capital. Are you going to tax people's savings account balances? How dumb is that? But apparently if someone has $1,000,000 it's a good thing? That's the sort of thing taxing wealth involves.

Let's assume you have a house you bought for $100,000 and sell it for $200,000, after 10 years or so. Should government get as much or more of the value increase than you do? Say $50,000? What if you can only sell it for $75,000, does government guarantee your loss? No, unless you're a GSE.

It's the chance that you will lose money on the deal, on something difficult to sell, that earns you the deal on taxes for capital. Otherwise there's much less reason to get into a deal that can ruin you without warning.

So what happens if people don't want to take the risk with their capital? A credit crunch. What we're in now. If it's bad now, consider what it could be like if you tax capital at income tax rates like the house example above.

Lastly, you folks are going to have to exorcise the idea that making money is easy and risk-free. If that were the case you'd be rich today. It's a talent to build a business and provide jobs. The ability to amass capital leads to being trusted with more. Hinder that process and the economy suffers.

But I'd note that, though loopholes and such, the filthy (and idle) rich in many cases manage a lower effective tax rate than upper-middle class....

Oh really? And what would those be? I'd sure like to pay less tax next year. The link below demonstrates how out of touch you are.

. How is that fair? Obama wants to raise the tax-rate on the rich (which is defines as $250k and above) to at least 39%, possibly more and doesn't want to put a cap on the payroll tax....

Yes? And?

And should all that come to pass, at some point government gets more of your income than you do. Especially if you're self-employed. Some people think that's excessive.

Why not cut to the chase and own up. The top quintile of taxpayers already cover 86% of the income tax. Go ahead and lobby for them to cover 100% of it. You know, indentured servitude with no payoff. C'mon, you know you want to. Put the entire rest of the country on welfare. Heh.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml

Or not. The dollar has rallied hard lately and is back up to $1.40/eu. That's an exceptional bump up from $1.60.

And, you know, the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence.

An electric fence? While I'm glad that this isn't what it sounded like, it still isn't good.

As for the bad jokes, I tell one similar to the ape joke involving a nun in an airport. I'm sure that would be OK, and I thought the Reno one pretty funny. But then again, I'm not a sensitive new age metrosexual with a Harvard law degree.

I'm sure Obama didn't really mean the pig reference for Palin, but the audience sure did.

Wooten has admitted to tasering the 10 year old. How much sympathy are you expecting for him? This is desperation writ large. Keep up the good work.

Say what you like, but "still a pig" got the only standing ovation in the clip. What a display of personal animus and sexism. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

The left is unmasked for all to see.

One can try to argue that the "lipstick" comment was innocuous, right up until you see the crowd going wild in the backround. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.