Ah yes the "fair share" arguement. There usually is someone that wants to tell you what your fair share is - but doesn't want you to tell them what their fair share is.

What is fair about taking a big bunch of money from a few people, a stack of money from some people, and very little or no money from a lot of people?

I'm interested in a flat tax or the fair tax. It would be interesting to see a real debate on these two approaches.

Keep in mind that the "little more" is exactly what they were paying before Bush's tax cut .... and during that time everyone and especially those "poor" rich people made a killing and became much much richer and that was great for all

they sure saved what you call "big bunch of money" because of that tax cut. and it is still in effect TODAY ....

are they happy now and made more during that tax cut than what they made during the time when they were paying that "big bunch"?

isnt it strange mentality to oppose paying a little extra to get a lot more and support a tax cut that actually makes you get a lot less?

how does that get lost on people i will never know!!!!!!

which is better:

making $1000 and paying 25% taxes on it ... net ($750) OR

making $2000 and paying 33% taxes on it ... net ($1340) ?

what is soooo terrible about paying 32% more in taxes if it will increase your income by more tha 78%?

do you hate making your self richer while making a better life for everyone else possible?

would you cry over $410 more in taxes ... and forget that you made $590 more than before?

do you really think rich people made more money in the last 8 years than what they did during the previous 6 yrs?

exactly what is your problem?

if you think you can make the $2000 without increasing the taxes to 33% then you are dreaming .... it cant happen that way .... take your pick ... you cant wish the impossible. That increase in your taxes is the reason that your sales increased and your profits doubled.....

what exactly is your reason for not understanding that?

your higher taxes goes to people who cant afford your product without them ... with it, they go and buy more and you make even more than what you paid extra in taxes

what is soooo difficult in understanding that?

Wow, Frogboy must pay well. And he clearly hires from among people who read into politics, whatever that means .

Paying what's fair means that the top 5% of incomes in this country should have to pay the most to bail out our economy simply because they can take the hit and then order a big fat NY strip from a fancy steakhouse. Taxing the bulk of the American people would not yield as much revenue and would decrease their buying power.

That has been debated to death !!!

if i make $100 a week and pay 15% taxes on it ... net $85

and you make $500 a week and pay 15% taxes ... net $425

are you saying that my $ 15 less in income have the same impact as the $75 on you?

that is what you call fair?

your $75 less in income may cause you to forget about a night out dinner ... my $15 less in income will result in a no dinner night for me .... that is the same?!!!!! That is what you call fair???!!!!

btw, isnt that the same idea behind the "Sale" concept employed by every consumer-based business?

they cut the price (in effect they cut their profits) .... and you think they do that for fun?

their profits, no boubt, increase even though they decrease their margin in each item. ....

it is the same idea ... they make it possible for more people to afford their products ... and they make more money even though their margin/item decreases.  it is not how much you make on each item it is how much you make in total...

same thing ... it is not how much you pay in taxes ,,, it is how much you make in total ...

I see that some see tax cuts as good.  Glad you are on board with that, since you agree that "everyone" benefitted.

But how quickly they degenerate into old patterns.  Get it straight.  They lost less, they did not get more.  And if you want them to lose  a lot less, go ahead and penalize them.  They know how to avoid penalties as has been shown historically.

Strawman and incorrect.  How about these apples.

You get paid $100/hr.  But you have to work 40 hours a week and then get taxed 50% on those 40.  But because you make so much, you have to work an additional 8 hours a week for no pay.  That money goes to a man who does not work at all because he does not want to.

That is what you are supporting, not your flowery denial of confiscation.

And you can work, so you have to work 30 hours for yourself, and 10 hours a week for someone else.  WHy?  Because you can. that is why.

The failure of people to use their brains sometimes when spouting talking points continues to amaze me.  Not surprise as I do understand most people just dont use their brains, but is is amazing.

Check out the bolded words.  THEY have the right to make that decision.  The CUSTOMER does not.  Your analogy fails.

I love it when you use these kinds of comparisons. It just makes me crack up. If you can explain to me how anyone can live off of $100 then maybe I can take your argument seriously. But considering that this person is more likely to be living with someone who also brings in a pay check, chances are those $85 are more likely to end up in that persons pockets. Sorry but, this argument is lame. Those $75 I would lose would hurt me big time. Because Unlike the $100 person who most likely does not pay rent, water, electricity, car payments, insurance, etc, I do.

OOO you smacked him good!'

Anyways you notice that most people that support this so called raise on the riches taxes are not the ones for the most part that have to pay them???! its all about MEMEMEMEMEMEMMEMEEMMEME! WHAT FREE HANDOUTS CAN I GET THAT I DIDNT WORK FOR OMGZOR!@

Taxing people according to their ability to pay seems to have some fairness behind it to me. Are you suggesting having people on $10k income (needing say $10k to survive) get taxed $2k and then having to cut out some necessity (such as food) is fair while not taxing that person (because they need all that money just for the barest necessities) has no fairness in it whatsoever?

So what, you should give the government $100 of your profit so they can then waste a bit, then give the remainder back to people, who will spend some of it at stores, of which some of it goes to your store, meaning you give them $100, get back $1 via increased profits, and should be happy with this?

You spend 100% more effort/time (assuming a constant ratio between them and earnings) but only get a 79% increase in what you take home, so no, you might not want to do that.

To give you a quick example (based off yours):

which is better:

Working 48 hours a week and getting net $750 OR

working 96 hours a week (assuming you're one of those miraculous people whose productivity doesn't suffer from lack of sleep) and getting net $1340?

Is it sooooo hard to understand why you might just go for the first option?

Let me get this straight, your argument against diminishing returns to income is that poor people have someone rich they live with to leech off of?

It's fairly simple to understand the principle of diminishing returns/utility to income. $1 is worth a lot more to a begger than to a millionaire.

The numbers don't have to be exact for the argument to remain. Times the numbers by 10 if it makes you happy. Ironically though you saying this is actually supporting what ThinkAloud was arguing - don't tax that poor person so much, because they can't really live off what they get at the moment anyway!

Interesting comments. I find it facinating how those who actually work to make money are expected to do more while those who won't work are expected not to do anything at all. I say not expected because I don't hear anyone screaming "why don't we get them to work as well". But of course, those who are not working can only be one thing or the other, lazy or unable to.

They already do.  To the tune of over 50%.  They pay TEN times what the rest pay.  How is that unfair? (Well to them it sure is since they are not getting 10 times the benefit).

I find it fascinating that the entire country is in the shitter and the only thing you can do about it is bicker about who should foot the bill – the people who can't afford it unless they sell a child for medical experiments, throw the other in the sea and don't eat for 3 weeks, or the people who can't have their morning Starbucks for two mornings each week. People do exist who work as hard (maybe harder) than any CEO in the US and simply don't make as much money. I mean, I exist, right?