What's a "fair share"?

I'm sitting here watching Meet the Press & Lindsay Graham brought up a good question (it has neen asked thousands of times but I don't think anyone has ever had the nerve to answer).

The set up: BO & the far left always accuse the successful of not paying their "fair share". "Fair share" has been a rally cry of the left for several years now so some thought has to have been put into it.

What exactly is someone's "fair share" as it relates to paying taxes? What percentage of one's income should be transferred to the gov't cofers?

 

The liberals want the wealthy to pay more than their "fair share" (whatever they define "fair share" to be). Super-wealthy Michael Moore, for instance, could pay more than his "fair share" simply by sending more money to the government on his next tax return. If a few wealthy liberals would do that, just think of all the homeless, starving people who could be sheltered and fed!

If only Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would each send in an extra, say... $50,000 per year that's $250,000 extra the government would have! Think of all the lower-income children in this country who could be fed! Or it could pay for another trip to Spain for Michelle Obama. Either way...

 

Great question. What's your answer?

 

Define "lower-income"... and why they are not eating while you're at it. <---dumb question, so you should be able to answer it.

 

I'm not one of the super-rich so all I can say is that they should pay at least the same percentage I pay, at least. I know it isn't the case that they are because Warren Buffet who is one of the super-rich says that he pays a far smaller percentage of his income than his secretary without any fancy accountant trickery. Asking a simple-minded question like this only makes people of little intellect think that the answer must be some low percentage because it pits individuals against government. When you say government, you should automatically think "us" as in you and I and every other U.S. citizen. The more money we take in, the more roads, police, schools, firefighters, clean water, military protection, and all the other crucial infrastructure and security we can afford. If the wealthiest of the wealthy don't wish to pay a little more so that this country can do better, then I see no point in needing them. If they end up having to pay a tiny bit more, I think of it as the price of living in the greatest country on earth. If I were in their position, I know that I wouldn't be whining about chipping in a little more after years of tax breaks and at a time of economic hardship for millions of people at every level of society. In the words of JFK, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what can you do for your country."

 

This left wing "fairness" argument has been debunked numerous times. It's not really as much "accounting" trickery as it is tax code trickery and further proof it needs a total overhaul.

So, I'll ask again, what is "fair"? A dollar amount or a a percentage? Is income taxed or is wealth taxed? If the argument is made that some don't pay their fair share it seems obvious the term "fair share" needs to be defined. If you watched the MTP piece you'll see where Dick Durbin used the term several times but refused to define it even though he was asked directly at least twice.

 

I think I need to define the word "question" for you instead.

 

I say the same percentage or even higher for the wealthiest. They have a greater impact on the commons.

 

How about "I"? You channel Clinton so well, the definition is somewhat blurred.

 

Which is what percentage?

 

You're asking me to throw a dart at a dart board. Why not take a lesson from history? How aboutt his.

Once the top marginal tax rate is reduced to ZERO, who or what will the GOP blame for any economic slowdown? If you think that question is absurd, one has to look no further than just about every single 2012 Republican candidate or “future candidate.” Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota has proposed a reduction in corporate taxes all the way down to 25%, and also followed that up with a capital gains tax of ZERO. Michele Bachmann, the tea party hopeful has proposed 9% corporate tax in her “perfect world.”

The GOP has been proposing lowering the top marginal tax rate for a generation, all on a premise that by allowing the wealthy to keep their money, they will invest it and create jobs. That theory has been discussed at length and I would hate to beat a dead horse, so let’s take the GOP and the conservatives at their word. Back in 1980s the Republicans, headed by Ronald Reagan began cutting the top marginal tax bracket. In 1982-1986 the top marginal tax rate was 50%. In 1987 the tax rate dropped to 38.5%, so for the majority (7 out of 8 years) of Reagan’s terms the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was well above the top tax rates of today. In fact the wealthy only kept HALF or less of their money under most of Reagan’s presidency, yet that was enough to stimulate the economy according to many conservatives who credit the tax rates for the economic expansion of the 1980s.

Today, under President Obama and former President Bush, the top marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans is 35%. The wealthy are actually forking over LESS under President Obama than they did under Reagan. The wealthy are keeping more of their money than during the 1980s and they have been since 2003. This leads us to the question, if lowering the tax rates under Reagan to 50% and the wealthy keeping only HALF of their money stimulated the economy, why aren’t these current tax rates stimulating the economy? The wealthy are keeping 65% of their wealth NOW than under the majority of Reagan TWO terms which was only 50%. This is mathematically backwards.

Remember how President Bush and many conservative economists credited Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the increased economy? Well, that 35% tax rate was enough to spur economic growth then according to them, but today it is not low enough and is halting economic growth. We could use these analogies over and over again because the story doesn’t change.

Perhaps it is just that the “reduction” that stimulates the economy, is somewhat psychological. Would the United States stimulate the economy if we raised the top marginal tax rate to Reagan’s 50% in 2012 and cut it down to 40% in 2013 and held it there for 10 years? That would work if it is purely psychological. A 10% tax cut might be enough to “stimulate” the economy.

Going back to the original question, if we continue reducing the top marginal tax rates until they hit ZERO that would essentially mean only the middle class is paying the country’s bills. Historically this is called an aristocracy. Is that where these Republicans want to take us? Are we to become a nation where only the “little people” pay taxes? If you read Thomas Paine’s pamphlet called “The Rights Of Man” and “Agrarian Justice” he was extremely concerned about aristocratic rule. There was a group of founding fathers that believed that the wealthy should rule and Paine spoke against those men. Today that fight continues, and the GOP is the new front group for the old aristocracy.

 

Blah, blah, blah.....everyone on the left is following BO's "fair share" rhetoric...at some point the plan needs to be laid out with specifics.

 

So a concrete answer to a question you asked isn't worth more than a blah, blah, blah? Why ask the question in the first place? You either don't comprehend or want to discuss actual answers. It kind of kills ones incentive to even read what you post don't ya think? **poof**

 

I knew I should have trade-marked that stuff......but noooooo. In the future though, it'd be nice if you sent me 25 cents per "blah" and $1.25 for each "*poof*"... thank you.

 

Moen, our words are like water to their beliefs which are like a greased monkey... throwing it's poo at you. Why we let them roam free, and not sequester them inside cages... I'll never understand. Cattle-prods might help...zzzzzzzzzzapp! "In yer cage vermin! ...And stop throwin' yer poo at me!"

Oh, and vote Obama 2012...

 

Concrete? Really?
I'll give you about an 8.5 for your dance moves but a big fat ZERO for your unwillingness to amswer the question.

pssst...just a hint to the lefties- you may see a little support come your way if you would offer real ideas instead of mere campaign trail slogans

 

Get a room!

 

Pay for it and we'll talk.

 

Yes, I have been around here long enough to have seen you ask this same question at least a half dozen time before. Your shtick is that you ask this cryptic question and then discount any answer no matter the extent of the detail the response happens to be. Yeah, it was funny the first 6 or 8 times now it just seems like the last vestiges of a one-trick pony and more sad than funny these days. Glad I could help fill your day with meaningful interpersonal human contact in the only way you can tolerate....Early Neanderthal I believe. Can't wait until next time....Is Thursday good for too?

 

If I read your post I'll see (as others will) that you have asked a question you won't respond to yourself.

So I'll ask again. What is fair? Or shall I refer to post #3 and ask what is your answer? Same thing.