If your income is $40K, and you lose 25% of it to taxes, YOU MISS IT MORE than the person at the $300K+ losing their (at worst) 33%.

A couple of problems. Nobody who makes $40k pays anywhere near 25%, they likely don't pay 15%, and that's if they are single.

Someone making $300K plus pays at a minimum 35%, unless she or he is so wealthy that capital gains make up the majority of income.

No one likes to discuss it (probably too "socialist"), but after a certain point, your income level is so far beyond what is required to meet the basic needs of yourself and your family that it NO LONGER MAKES A DIFFERENCE whether you pony up 33% or 39% to the government.

Really, and you speak of this from first hand experience? Because my wife and I make over $300K, and it's an enormous difference between 33% and 39%.

Life isn't about having your basic needs met, and then past that people just get to take what you earn, because they want it. Normally, that's called theft.

But let's examine exactly what a 6% Federal Tax increase means on someone who nets $300K in taxable income. We'll use your figures, though they are wrong.

That 300K is 200K when 33% is taxed by the Federal income tax. Now subtract the $13,000 paid in Social Security and the $3,750 for medicare and you're at $183,250. But wait, there's State income tax. In CA that's another $27,000. Now we're at $156,250. But we still have other state taxes, such as disability. Let's be generous and say we're at $150,000.

Smart people save 10% per year for retirement, and another 5% goes to charity. That's $45,000 right there. Now, we're at $105,000 and we've just started on living expenses. Mortgage and property tax is $30,000. Car expenses for two, $15,000. Life insurance $6,000. Health insurance $6,000. Food $12,000.

None of those expenses are even unreasonable.

That's $69,000 subtracted from the $105,000, leaving $36,000 per year. That's $3,000 per month. Without vacations, without repaying student loans, or paying for private school, or saving for college, or saving money for a rainy day, improvements to your home, or other such common expenses.

Now, your little 9% tax increase would mean an additional $27,000 per year in taxes. Or a full 75% reduction in "discretionary" income. And that would require no additional education spending, something outside the norm. Otherwise the reduction is HIGHER.

Do you honestly think that a 75% reduction in your ability to spend is something people won't feel?

Exactly what spending should this person in the top 1% decrease, smaller house? Less savings or giving to charity? Perhaps lesser cars?

Most of my extra income goes to local businesses. I buy stained glass windows to restore my Victorian from the local father and son shop. I buy expensive ties, that are hand made in Carmel California using the old seven fold method. It's an artisan skill. I'd like to add copper gutters, but that's $12,000 right there, or extend the solar panels to the new garage, that's $25,000.

Could I live without the ties? Absolutely, but what happens to the person who makes the ties? That person doesn't have a job. The stained glass company goes out of business. I can't afford the gutters or solar panels.

When you cut my spending income by 75%, and that is what you are advocating, you don't just hurt me, you hurt all those people that rely on my purchases.

Then people have the gall to claim that I'm the "me-first, screw-everyone-else" person, when it is others pointing toward me and saying "Fuck you" you make over $300,000 give me more.

At some point, it's just not worth working harder anymore. We'd hire more people, but frankly, giving the government over half my income doesn't really motivate me to take the risk and expand business. Hiring people is risky, if income drops, you have to pay them. We have to set aside money to pay employees, because you don't know what the future holds.

Occasionally you will run across a very wealthy person who makes this point (New Yorker article a few months ago where they quoted an anonymous hedge fund manager saying, "Yeah, after (whatever the amount was), it's all charitable donations anyway;" Donna Dubinsky, co-founder of Palm and now-defunct Handspring; probably Warren Buffett at some point).

Exactly what do these people who makes BILLIONS of dollars have in common with someone who makes $300K? Seriously, do you really think they are somehow in the same monetary arena?

People who make billions don't have monetary worries. People who makes $300K do. While my wife and I don't have to worry about making the mortgage payment, that's because we have saved a large percentage of our income, not because of how much we earn.

The Founding Fathers who created the Constitution were NOT 'citizens of the United States at birth.' By adding this qualifier, they made themselves eligible to become presidents.

So saith Calif Mike, Constitutional Scholar Extraordaire, with tons of brains 'n' stuff to prove it.

One doesn't have to be a Constitutional Scholar to understand that the Founding Fathers were not Citizens of the United States at birth, because when they were born there wasn't a United States.

Please explain how this exceedingly simply concept failed to penetrate into your thought process.