You can deceive some of the people, most of the time

From the Daily, "And the more one looks at the Buffett Rule, the more it looks like a solution in search of a problem.

Buffett says he pays around 17 percent tax on all his income, while his assistant for the past two decades pays more than twice as much, at 35.8 percent. That weird disparity — one that confuses even tax experts unless she makes $200,000 to $500,000 a year — would certainly strike many as unfair, not just a president trying to score political points during election season.

But their example shows how unwise it is to legislate from anecdotal evidence. The U.S. tax code overall is amazingly progressive. The rich pay much higher average effective rates than middle- or low-income folks. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2010 the top 0.1 percent paid an average tax rate — including income and payroll taxes — of 30.7 percent, right at the Buffett Rule level. By contrast, middle-income voters — defined as those in the middle fifth of income distribution — paid just 12.8 percent. The bottom 40 percent of taxpayers had an average total tax rate of even less, just about 3 percent when you take into account various tax credits.

And if you look at the tax burden by amounts paid rather than tax rates, the system looks even more lopsided. In 2009, the top 1 percent paid 36.7 percent of federal income taxes as they earned 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income. And the richest of the rich, the top 0.1 percent, paid 17.1 percent of income taxes while earning 7.8 percent of adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. The bottom 50 percent pays just 2.3 percent of income taxes.

There are certainly some rich investors, such as Buffett or Republican presidential contestant Mitt Romney, who pay far less than 30 percent because their income is taxed at the preferential capital gains tax rate of 15 percent. And it’s those folks whom Obama is targeting with this new alternative minimum tax. But to achieve some level of “shared responsibility,” he’s effectively raising the tax on investment income to 30 percent — at least for those who make more than $1 million.

But why would that be a good idea?"

You want to debate whether dividends, capital gains and carried interest tax treatment should change? By all means, let's begin. But to promote higher taxes because it's "fair" or "not fair" is bogus, and using an example that is not at all real-world applicable, is complete populist deception.