Yannis, just wanted to comment on a number of your statements above that are demonstrably incorrect and answer a question or two that you had, where the answer is known. First "effective tax rates" are not all all "murky". They are known with great accuracy once you have defined "effective tax rate" and the cohort they apply too. Economists agree on the definition of a progressive tax. It is a tax where the greater one's taxable income the greater the effective tax rate. For a cohort consisting of the top 1% in taxable income the effective tax rate is 15%. It is not at all difficult to define a middle class cohort for which the effective tax rate is a little > 15%. Thus the tax as it relates to these respective cohorts is regressive, not progressive. It is not anything that can be argued about. Facts are facts whether we like them or not. I don't know what you mean by "regular rates" as the effective tax rate is "regular" by definition. I think what you were asking is "why is the effective rate for the top 1% lower than for a cohort with smaller income?" If that is what you wanted to know, then you have answered your own question; it's because for most in the top 1% much of their income, for some all of it, is unearned income which is taxed at a lower rate by the IRS than is earned income. Incidentally, I applaud your "reluctance to belittle those most talented, dedicated and successful among us who are making the whole economy work. " Good for you I say! Please recognize that many in the top 1% are "rent seekers" to use economist speak. There is very little productivity associated with rent seeking. You'll find those that you are properly reluctant to belittle mainly in the middle and lower income classes.
So the productivity increases of the past two years are why we have so many more people working today?
No, it's because business people are afraid to reinvest their gains from improved productivity because they don't trust the guy with the funny ears and his gang.
One family's effective tax rate is lower than expected because they bought a new house and have a ginormous mortgage or they just gave a million to charity, another family has income from overeas and they already paid taxes there, etc etc a thousand special cases making it hard to understand them as a unified group and compare. What we can compare is marginal tax rates at various levels for State, Federal and Local, and dividend tax policies - which I call regular/nominal tax rates. In addition, we can compare types and levels of deductions available to taxpayers across states and countries.
Anecdotes are not facts, and attempting to change the subject by introducing extraneous, random musings, your own brand of "murkiness," does nothing to support your position.
Romney Says Obama Has 'Abdicated Leadership' on Syria NewsMax Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney blamed President Barack Obama for a "lack of leadership" on the crisis in Syria on Thursday and accused him of abdicating the U.S. role to the United Nations. Romney turned the U.N. Security Council's failure to approve a Western-backed resolution threatening sanctions against the Syrian regime into an assault on Obama's foreign policy. Russia and China resisted U.S. pressure and vetoed the resolution. "While Russia and Iran have rushed to support (Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad and thousands have been slaughtered, President Obama has abdicated leadership and subcontracted U.S. policy to Kofi Annan and the United Nations," Romney said in a statement.
That's all true except the where are they now part, all of which is false. You are drinking your own Cool Aid Yannis.