You say:
First, I don't succumb to any network's view
But then you say:
Our current structure allows the richest to pay rates approaching zero, while everyone else picks up the tab.
This is so outwardly false. You are clearly listening to someone with an agenda.
FACT: The top 10% of income earners pay over 71% of federal taxes.
The top 1% pay 40%
If your assertion that a person in those categories is "paying rates approaching zero" how do their tax reciepts total such a large share?
The bottom 50% of income earners not only pay ZERO, but have a net INCOME from the government.
The problem is that eventually, even when stocks and mutual funds are purchased from the "job-creator's" offshore account, much of it just remains in cash accounts at the corporation if the the corporation is too afraid to increase production. Or worse, then used for stock and dividend payments to those very same people, and for stock buybacks to pump up their other shares. Sort of a vicious cycle, a self-driving pyramid scheme for the rich.
You touch on a few interesting (unrelated) points here.
The first assertion that they are too afraid to increase production and spend their capital. This is absolutely ACCURATE! Do you know why they are too afraid? They have no idea what brainchild this current administration is going to spawn next! That's why. Discussion of new health care mandates, capital gains tax rate changes, corporate tax rate changes, as well as an administrative state so incredibly drunk with power under this administration (check out the EPA!!) business leaders are terrified of becoming illuminated by the spotlight of political mantra. If you cannot accurately estimate your expenses and obligations in the future because of irrational, ever changing governmental policy then it's impossible to commit to growth.
Your second point discusses "or worse" paying stock dividends. This is so perverse. Lets discuss.
Why does a company issue stock? They issue stock to raise capital. They raise capital to reinvest in assets or people to continue to grow their company.
Why does an individual (or a group) purchase stock? To enjoy a return on their investment.
One cannot exist without the other. A return can be a speculative return (i.e. a stock price going up), or an income return (i.e. a dividend payment). People owning stocks rely on one or the other, and in many cases both to make their investment worthwhile. Without a satisfactory return on their investment, people are likely to invest elsewhere. Without investors, a company has no capital to produce or grow (i.e. HIRE people).
Lets discuss the "Buffet Rule" and how that will somehow allow for justice to be served to greedy "Wall street fatcats".
The vast majority of people taxed at the capital gains rate we currently enjoy are not "Wall Street Fatcats", but they are average retail investors, retirees, and large investment groups with wealthy shareholders.
Heres the problem - The money these people "earn" is done so under a completely different set of assumptions than that of a W2 income, and our tax code to some extent reflects that. Capital CANNOT form without someone willing to lend their money to someone else (known as an investment), and people will not invest without a potential for a rate of return.
And there's another problem - its only a POTENTIAL for a return. You may be rewarded with double digit ROI, or you may lose the entire sum.
These two factors dictate that if you want capital to form, you cannot kneecap it from the start with a high tax burden.
The Buffet rule has been proven to net the federal government less than $80b in annual revenue (Barely HALF the budget defecit in MAY alone), but would stifle capital investment and growth into the Trillions.
We have a tremendous spending problem in Washington, and all the talk and demagoguery about "Millionaires and Billionaires" is driving a very real and dangerous wedge in our civil society.
This division is intended to foster short term political gain, but our country may never recover from the damage that has been done.