Capital gains rates is one of just two ways being discussed in this thread that enables the very rich to pay a lower federal income tax rate than everyone else [edit:Jeez, look at that - I said it now too! That should be a lower federal income tax rate than others with high incomes]. The second is large charitable deductions. Another way that is factually wrong, that Thomas said yesterday and turbo referenced in the post Thomas was responding to (so not implied: actually claimed), is the assumption that deductions predominantly benefit the rich.I'm not sure how you implied that from what Thomas said. There are many ways the rich benefit from the present tax code, e.g., paying much lower taxes on capital gains.
I'd like to see other of the "many" ways, though.
It isn't class warfare to discuss flaws in the tax code, but it is class warfare to attack Romney or the rich simply for being rich or to use the issue for political attacks....why is it considered "class warfare" to discuss the tax code? Bringing in terms like "class warfare" just muddles the issue.
If you've got a better term, by all means share, but considering that warfare terminology is used by many who do it ("Occupy"), it seems an appropriate term to me.Plus it sounds all Fox-Newsy.
 Citation for the claim about deductions predominantly benefiting the rich/poor is Evo's link about who the 47% who pay no or negative income taxes are:
In other words, for those who pay no income tax, about half of what causes them to pay no income tax is deductions and about half is due to the progressive nature of the tax structure. And virtually all of these people are lower income people. So while Romney is in a small group of super-rich who manage to get their effective tax rate cut in half, about a quarter of the population, almost all at the bottom, get their tax rate cut by 100% or more.About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011,
roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic
exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable
because tax expenditures— special provisions of the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or
activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, result in net payments
from the government. Most important of those tax expenditures are provisions that benefit senior
citizens and low-income working families with children. While those factors particularly affect
lower-income households, different provisions eliminate taxes for other households. Itemized
deductions and credits for children and education are more important for middle-income
households, while the relatively few high-income nontaxable households benefit most from
above-the-line and itemized deductions and reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
Personally, it looks to me like the quote is misworded in that there probably aren't two halves of the 47%, but rather two reasons that are half of the effect, shared in different proportions by different people (ie, a poor person both benefits from the progressive tax structure and gets tax credits). But either way, it proves the point.