Are you kidding me?  I can't even process this; it makes no sense.  

I don't know, maybe some people are willing to go along with the sweeping generalizations you regularly salt your comments with, but I'm not one of them.  Where is your support for this latest one, that

It's the same attitude but just a different swath of people who are deemed "unworthy".

  I suppose you really are an absolutist and believe no one is "unworthy" of having the government others'  money in order to help them.

   So, you would, as a matter of principle, not oppose  policies  to reduce the highest marginal rates by  eliminating the personal exemptions subtracted from income and eliminating  the standard deduction meaning those whose itemized deductions would equal less than the standard deduction must pay more regardless of their income.  After all by doing that we could remain "revenue neutral" and those with incomes subject to the highest marginal rates are surely "worthy" of the tax break. Right?

  I'm mocking you because you represent the worst type of commenter. You don't think and in your eagerness to criticize you say foolish things because you don't get simple concepts let alone the big picture.

  You know as well as I do I didn't deem anyone "unworthy" but merely argued scarce resources should be allocated to those most in need to do the greatest good.

  You fabricated the "unworthy" BS because you are incapable of holding your own in a discussion based on facts and logic and application of principles to problems.

  If it's true the people get the government they deserve, you are doing your part to get us a bad one.

It's about voters and how certain swaths of people are unworthy of being helped.....

It is YOU and  not the left who is deciding who is worthy and who is not.

The candidate that has you for an advocate is going to be starting from 5 miles behind the pack after you insult them rather than try convincing them with the merits of your candidate.

I have found this whole conversation odd.  I find the statement quite inoffensive and hardly worthy of all this hyperventilating.

However, and I'm pretty sure you understand this, our government uses tax policy for many reasons/goals, not just for collecting a "fair slice" of one's income. And, one of those goals is to incentivize the taking of risk by those with abundant/sufficient capital.

The idea is that by reducing the tax on certain money one might be encouraged to take risks he/she would not ordinarily take. In your example of the gentleman with the inherited $1,000,000, he has many choices of what to do with that money. The safest, and most risk-free, of course, is to just plop it into some sort of savings vehicle (savings account, money market fund, etc) collecting interest, and not doing much good for society in general.

But, if, by lowering the taxes on that money he is convinced that the risk/reward ratio is sufficient enough, he might invest that money in a manner that, not only he, but society as a whole, would benefit. And, by the way, almost all commercial/industrial development comes as a result of tax policy designed to promote just such activity. He might start a business, expand an existing business, upgrade his equipment, and so on. And, that would result in creating new jobs, and, greater, future tax income.

Now, we can discuss the fairness of such a system, but that would lead to a discussion of the fairness of our capitalist vs socialist system. I don't think that's what we're doing here. Bottom line: the purpose of charging a lower tax on capital gains vs earned income is to free up money that would otherwise sit idly in a dormant, interest only, risk-free repository.

There are also a lot of people out there who like big picture and vision things more than details. Do you think those voters should be ignored to drone on about taxes?

Like a "target audience" that a (lousy) product is marketed to.

My background originated in the Pennsylvania Coal Region ... my Dad didn't finish high school because he had to quit and work in the mines (there was enough black lung disease in my forebears to see matters at the feeding, shelter, crying, laughing levels.)  So, please, hold back the condescension on your part.  My Dad educated himself; he was the smartest, warmest, and wisest man I've ever known ... even raised two daughters and scratched for jobs as we grew up.  So, can it.

 The condescending attitude that most people cannot understand important stuff because they lack our elevated smarts so we to appeal to them we should treat them like the slow kids they are.

But if I had said that -- which I didn't -- I would say that the kind of detail you pretend you want can only (for most people) be grokked when it is presented in writing --and maybe not even then. This bit of yours:

Say a sliding scale: 100% below $500K; 75% 500--1 mill; 50% 1-2 mill; 25% 2-4 mill; 0% above 4 mill.