What is a fair share?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    1/18/2012 - Question has come up recently in other threads, so reasonable to revisit this thread for any additional discussion.

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. I am absolutely convinced that if the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to. What is labeled "fair" is anything but, and the continual use of it by the incumbent, as many as three times in a single sentence, will bite him, because what the left really wants goes against the spirit of the country which does not ultimately use one class as the whipping boy of another.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Just a further comment, I think this hits close to home, so the left will either ignore this or claim it is nothing but horse shit from Faux News. They can try and deflect the argument that if the tax rate today is X, then it should really be X + Y. They would claim that if it were already X + Y that would be fair and they would not argue it should be raised again to X + Y + Z. But I don't believe it. I assert if it were X + Y, they would be making the same argument that it should be X + Y + Z. So my challenge is this:

    Justify very specifically that your argument going from X to X + Y would be completely invalid going from X + Y to X + Y + Z. In other words, provide a logically sound argument to argue against yourself in that situation. I doubt the left would be able or willing to construct such a counter-argument and that fundamentally there is no fair definition of what fair really is. It is a politically-motivated, fundamentally dishonest tactic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 5:44 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI offered a discussion in the topic "Occupy Movement Targets DNC Convention - Charlotte Moves To Ban" http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2017127 . The discussion had wandered leading up to the point I made. While I generally don't like to cross-post, I think because a topic that might get larger participation being buried in an unrelated topic is justification.

    In response to the question raised "And who decides what that magic number is?????" I offered this response:

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. I am absolutely convinced that if the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to. What is labeled "fair" is anything but, and the continual use of it by the incumbent, as many as three times in a single sentence, will bite him, because what the left really wants goes against the spirit of the country which does not ultimately use one class as the whipping boy of another.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Just a further comment, I think this hits close to home, so the left will either ignore this or claim it is nothing but horse shit from Faux News. They can try and deflect the argument that if the tax rate today is X, then it should really be X + Y. They would claim that if it were already X + Y that would be fair and they would not argue it should be raised again to X + Y + Z. But I don't believe it. I assert if it were X + Y, they would be making the same argument that it should be X + Y + Z. So my challenge is this:

    Justify very specifically that your argument going from X to X + Y would be completely invalid going from X + Y to X + Y + Z. In other words, provide a logically sound argument to argue against yourself in that situation. I doubt the left would be able or willing to construct such a counter-argument and that fundamentally there is no fair definition of what fair really is. It is a politically-motivated, fundamentally dishonest tactic.


    Fair share is when corporations are just breaking even after taxes, giving all their profits to the government to redistribute to the lower income folks. Fair share is when the rich have to give the majority of their earnings to the government and they begin driving broken down rusty toyotas from the 1990's.



  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Dec 10, 2011 5:47 PM GMT
    I think the whole "Fair Share" debate is a real tricky area. Obviously, the more income people make, the more tax they pay -- and that is fair. Is it fair that someone making $24,000 a year pays little if any tax, while someone who makes $100,000 a year pays 20% in taxes? I think that is up for debate whether the fact that you make more money means you should pay a higher percentage of that income in taxes. WHO is that fair too? It seems to me that the only real truly "Fair" way to tax is that everyone have the exact same tax rate, and the more you make the more tax you pay. Where I think we get into a really unfair area is when we start adding in (or more accurate subtracting in) "Itemized Deductions". I'll be the first to admit that, like most Americans, I take any and all deductions I possibly can. However, the more someone makes, the more they spend, and thus the more they will try to claim as a deduction. I think a flat tax with NO DEDUCTIONS is the only truly fair way to go. A mortgage deduction, while I love taking it, isn't really fair to people who make the same income but for whatever reason cannot afford to own property -- thereby they don't qualify for that very substantial deduction. There are a zillion other deductions that higher income people claim that is really abused. So where the unfairness really lies is in the "deductions" people are allowed to take. For instance, a tax deduction for a child --- how is it "fair" for a couple making the same income who has no children to pay more income tax than a couple with 4 kids? My point is that when you get into the argument of paying a "Fair Share" it gets very murky because WHO defines what is "fair".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 5:47 PM GMT
    Socal -

    Your entire premise here is flawed. You start with an assumption that no amount would ever be enough, so no matter what justification is given for an amount or percentage, you will dismiss that (as you did mine on the other thread) by saying that anyone who proposes an amount is, in essence, a liar who will move the goal post once the justification is accepted. icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 5:53 PM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidFair share is when corporations are just breaking even after taxes, giving all their profits to the government to redistribute to the lower income folks. Fair share is when the rich have to give the majority of their earnings to the government and they begin driving broken down rusty toyotas from the 1990's.

    Agree, in the mind of Obama. Good opinion piece in Forbes, "Obama Channels Hugo Chavez, Shows Why He Can't Lead On The Economy",
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/12/08/obama-channels-hugo-chavez-shows-why-he-cant-lead-on-the-economy/, which shows again why the "socialist" label is accurate and will stick to him. But let's not let a discussion of the demagoguery of Obama take the focus away from a challenge to the left to justify what a "fair share" really is. I don't think they can do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 5:56 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidSocal -

    Your entire premise here is flawed. You start with an assumption that no amount would ever be enough, so no matter what justification is given for an amount or percentage, you will dismiss that (as you did mine on the other thread) by saying that anyone who proposes an amount is, in essence, a liar who will move the goal post once the justification is accepted. icon_rolleyes.gif

    No that was not my premise at all. I never stated the left would never agree to any limit, but that you could not argue that the same point could and would not be made were the wealthy already paying what the left today demands they pay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidSocal -

    Your entire premise here is flawed. You start with an assumption that no amount would ever be enough, so no matter what justification is given for an amount or percentage, you will dismiss that (as you did mine on the other thread) by saying that anyone who proposes an amount is, in essence, a liar who will move the goal post once the justification is accepted. icon_rolleyes.gif

    No that was not my premise at all. I never stated the left would never agree to any limit, but that you could not argue that the same point could and would not be made were the wealthy already paying what the left today demands they pay.


    From your OP:

    I am absolutely convinced that if the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes


    Similarly, when I pointed to the Laffer Curve, which without regard to political ideology, suggests a top tax rate of 76% for high income earners, you dismissed that as well.

    To me the fair argument would be one in which ideology is removed and we allow science to determine the optimal amount, which is 76%.

    It's up to you now to argue why we should relent from a statistically sound option and - solely due to the your own ideology - offer a lower rate for top earners. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 6:04 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidSocal -

    Your entire premise here is flawed. You start with an assumption that no amount would ever be enough, so no matter what justification is given for an amount or percentage, you will dismiss that (as you did mine on the other thread) by saying that anyone who proposes an amount is, in essence, a liar who will move the goal post once the justification is accepted. icon_rolleyes.gif

    No that was not my premise at all. I never stated the left would never agree to any limit, but that you could not argue that the same point could and would not be made were the wealthy already paying what the left today demands they pay.


    From your OP:

    I am absolutely convinced that if the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes


    Let's not play games. I am talking about the range of levels today. Specifically, 35% to 40% to 45%, and so on. Your point about the Laffer curve in the other thread was that you did not agree that 76% was appropriate, that it should be lower. I responded that if you were not going by that curve, but set some lower goal, then the curve was not relevant to the discussion. So now you've changed your story that you do support 76% tax rate for the wealthy. So you have in my opinion taken yourself far afield from what most Democrats would argue, and few would admit to supporting such a rate. You have effectively taken yourself out of the discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 6:09 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidSocal -

    Your entire premise here is flawed. You start with an assumption that no amount would ever be enough, so no matter what justification is given for an amount or percentage, you will dismiss that (as you did mine on the other thread) by saying that anyone who proposes an amount is, in essence, a liar who will move the goal post once the justification is accepted. icon_rolleyes.gif

    No that was not my premise at all. I never stated the left would never agree to any limit, but that you could not argue that the same point could and would not be made were the wealthy already paying what the left today demands they pay.


    From your OP:

    I am absolutely convinced that if the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes


    Let's not play games. I am talking about the range of levels today. Specifically, 35% to 40% to 45%, and so on.


    No game playing here. My argument is that we base our taxation of high income earners on the Laffer Curve, which will maximize revenue to the government without harming economic growth or pushing high income earners out of the country.

    So top income tax rates for federal income should be 76%. To argue otherwise is to invoke your own ideology as a reason why.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 6:10 PM GMT
    I updated my response based upon you updating your previous response. The point remains that if the wealthy were paying today what the Democrats demand they pay, they would still demand more. Fundamentally dishonest.

    To the degree others agree with the 76% limit, it further proves my basic assertion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 6:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidSocal -

    Your entire premise here is flawed. You start with an assumption that no amount would ever be enough, so no matter what justification is given for an amount or percentage, you will dismiss that (as you did mine on the other thread) by saying that anyone who proposes an amount is, in essence, a liar who will move the goal post once the justification is accepted. icon_rolleyes.gif

    No that was not my premise at all. I never stated the left would never agree to any limit, but that you could not argue that the same point could and would not be made were the wealthy already paying what the left today demands they pay.



    socalfitness said I am absolutely convinced that if the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher.


    Many numbers have been proposed, and nobody can really know for sure if that is "enough" without trying it. Well, you can. You are absolutely convinced that the left would still want it higher.

    There will always be some extremists who want to take everything from the rich, but that does not make up "the left" whatever you mean by that.

    Right now, *lots* of people are clamoring for higher taxes. By some polls, a majority. Let's look at history. How many people were demanding higher taxes during the reign on Saint Reagan, who proved that deficits don't matter? How many people were demanding higher taxes while Eisenhower was building the interstate highway system and warning us about the military-industrial complex?

    The more important issue is not "how high of taxation is high enough?" but "how rich is too rich?". Actually, it's not that either. It's the wealth gap - the difference between rich and poor that is the real problem. And right now it is worse than any time since 1929. Nobody except a few deluded utopians want to the wealth gap to be zero. The trick is to find a happy medium by which the rich can stay rich enough to foster investment, growth and employment, but not too rich that they suck up all the money and the poor are literally dying of starvation in the streets (see, France, 1789). Right now the rich are plenty rich enough to foster investment, growth and employment, they just don't want to. In the 1960s, tax rates above 50% did not deter hard working industrialist from trying to get rich. In fact, they paid their employees a larger fraction of what they themselves took home, and there was a large strong middle class. The middle class now is weak and shrinking. How do you think tax cuts for the rich and corporations will grow the middle class now, it hasn't had that effect for 30 years, it's time to give up on the failure of reaganomics
  • lawguypany

    Posts: 6

    Dec 11, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    The term fair is subjective. As such, it should have no place in any sort of policy. Equal protection of the laws, if we are going with the modern rule, that it applies in all arenas, is the proper standard, I would argue. As such, that takes away the permission for a progressive income tax, and requires that all tax rates are the same on all incomes.

    Quite honestly, that sort of rule has worked well in the Baltic economies, and would be useful here, I think.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Dec 11, 2011 12:39 AM GMT
    everyone wants more than what they have, and even more when they see what someone else has
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 11, 2011 12:48 AM GMT
    lawguypany saidThe term fair is subjective. As such, it should have no place in any sort of policy. Equal protection of the laws, if we are going with the modern rule, that it applies in all arenas, is the proper standard, I would argue. As such, that takes away the permission for a progressive income tax, and requires that all tax rates are the same on all incomes.

    Quite honestly, that sort of rule has worked well in the Baltic economies, and would be useful here, I think.


    I personally agree and think that principal needs to be tested in the courts.

    But then my view is skewed being a member of The Upper One Committee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 12:54 AM GMT
    lawguypany saidThe term fair is subjective. As such, it should have no place in any sort of policy. Equal protection of the laws, if we are going with the modern rule, that it applies in all arenas, is the proper standard, I would argue. As such, that takes away the permission for a progressive income tax, and requires that all tax rates are the same on all incomes.

    Quite honestly, that sort of rule has worked well in the Baltic economies, and would be useful here, I think.

    I haven't been against a progressive tax, though there are some who make a forceful argument for a flat tax. But as you suggest, the problem with the progressive tax is the difficulty in determining the degree that is appropriate, or, if you will, fair. I completely agree specifically with what I bolded in quoting you. It is obviously subjective, as the OP in the thread suggested, and furthermore, its use is quite arbitrary. That's why it strikes me as odious and extremely dishonest to see the notion of fairness used by the US incumbent as apparently the basis for his re-election campaigning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    lawguypany saidThe term fair is subjective. As such, it should have no place in any sort of policy. Equal protection of the laws, if we are going with the modern rule, that it applies in all arenas, is the proper standard, I would argue. As such, that takes away the permission for a progressive income tax, and requires that all tax rates are the same on all incomes.

    Quite honestly, that sort of rule has worked well in the Baltic economies, and would be useful here, I think.

    I haven't been against a progressive tax, though there are some who make a forceful argument for a flat tax. But as you suggest, the problem with the progressive tax is the difficulty in determining the degree that is appropriate, or, if you will, fair. I completely agree specifically with what I bolded in quoting you. It is obviously subjective, as the OP in the thread suggested, and furthermore, its use is quite arbitrary. That's why it strikes me as odious and extremely dishonest to see the notion of fairness used by the US incumbent as apparently the basis for his re-election campaigning.


    Yet, you both forget that fairness is an American ideal. Not in terms of equality of outcomes but in equality of opportunity. We've had 30 years of policy that favors the very wealthy and corporations over individuals and now the pendulum is swinging the other way.

    Further, a progressive income tax is fair because those who earn more benefit more from the common infrastructure, defense, etc. than those who earn little. For example, if I own a car that costs $25,000 and the police force is protecting my neighborhood by virtue of my having more to lose from being robbed, I benefit more than my neighborhood who has a ten speed. On a larger scale, if I'm the CEO of a company and I have headquarters in the US but factories in six other countries, I benefit far more from the US military and diplomatic apparatus than if I work in a nail salon. The woman who does nails is not reliant on the US military and State Department to look out for her assets in foreign lands.

    That is the basis for the entire American social contract and it has worked very well and led to enormous economic expansion when allowed to (e.g. 1940s to 1960s). When the wealthy and corporations get greedy and don't want to pay their fair share, things go downhill as we have seen over the past 10-12 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 1:39 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    ... Further, a progressive income tax is fair...

    ...When the wealthy and corporations get greedy and don't want to pay their fair share, things go downhill as we have seen over the past 10-12 years.

    I haven't argued against a progressive tax, but your use of the term "fair share" is, like Obama's continual use, quite subjective and arbitrary.

    Furthermore, there has not been any refuting my basic assertion in the OP that if the wealthy were already paying what the left is now demanding they pay, the left would use exactly the same logic to say they should be paying more. Not to restate the OP, but I think that position is fundamentally dishonest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 2:13 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    ... Further, a progressive income tax is fair...

    ...When the wealthy and corporations get greedy and don't want to pay their fair share, things go downhill as we have seen over the past 10-12 years.

    I haven't argued against a progressive tax, but your use of the term "fair share" is, like Obama's continual use, quite subjective and arbitrary.

    Furthermore, there has not been any refuting my basic assertion in the OP that if the wealthy were already paying what the left is now demanding they pay, the left would use exactly the same logic to say they should be paying more. Not to restate the OP, but I think that position is fundamentally dishonest.


    How can anyone refute a hypothetical assertion based on what some group of people who share a political ideology might do if they got one of their demands? It's a ridiculous premise because no one can argue it, and when you were shown logic in the form of the Laffer Curve, you dismissed it as not the point.

    Perhaps you goal was to create a hypothetical argument that no one can win but that's an intellectually bankrupt pursuit. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 2:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    ... Further, a progressive income tax is fair...

    ...When the wealthy and corporations get greedy and don't want to pay their fair share, things go downhill as we have seen over the past 10-12 years.

    I haven't argued against a progressive tax, but your use of the term "fair share" is, like Obama's continual use, quite subjective and arbitrary.

    Furthermore, there has not been any refuting my basic assertion in the OP that if the wealthy were already paying what the left is now demanding they pay, the left would use exactly the same logic to say they should be paying more. Not to restate the OP, but I think that position is fundamentally dishonest.


    How can anyone refute a hypothetical assertion based on what some group of people who share a political ideology might do if they got one of their demands? It's a ridiculous premise because no one can argue it, and when you were shown logic in the form of the Laffer Curve, you dismissed it as not the point.

    Perhaps you goal was to create a hypothetical argument that no one can win but that's an intellectually bankrupt pursuit. icon_rolleyes.gif

    We are repeating old ground. You have argued about the Laffer curve from two positions, and you lose with both positions. When you first stated that 76% was too high, then the entire Laffer curve became irrelevant to the argument. When you next stated that the curve was appropriate and you supported the 76% rate, then clearly you would support every incremental raising of the rate on the wealthy until reaching that point. So you are basically unable to disprove or even raise serious doubts regarding my basic premise, namely if the wealthy were already paying what the Democrats now demand they pay, then the Democrats would be demanding they pay even more.
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 11, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    It needs to be a flat rate with no deductions. EVERYBODY has a stake in the game.

    I dont know what that flat rate would be, but EVERYONE needs to pay....Not some.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 4:26 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    ... Further, a progressive income tax is fair...

    ...When the wealthy and corporations get greedy and don't want to pay their fair share, things go downhill as we have seen over the past 10-12 years.

    I haven't argued against a progressive tax, but your use of the term "fair share" is, like Obama's continual use, quite subjective and arbitrary.

    Furthermore, there has not been any refuting my basic assertion in the OP that if the wealthy were already paying what the left is now demanding they pay, the left would use exactly the same logic to say they should be paying more. Not to restate the OP, but I think that position is fundamentally dishonest.


    How can anyone refute a hypothetical assertion based on what some group of people who share a political ideology might do if they got one of their demands? It's a ridiculous premise because no one can argue it, and when you were shown logic in the form of the Laffer Curve, you dismissed it as not the point.

    Perhaps you goal was to create a hypothetical argument that no one can win but that's an intellectually bankrupt pursuit. icon_rolleyes.gif

    We are repeating old ground. You have argued about the Laffer curve from two positions, and you lose with both positions. When you first stated that 76% was too high, then the entire Laffer curve became irrelevant to the argument. When you next stated that the curve was appropriate and you supported the 76% rate, then clearly you would support every incremental raising of the rate on the wealthy until reaching that point. So you are basically unable to disprove or even raise serious doubts regarding my basic premise, namely if the wealthy were already paying what the Democrats now demand they pay, then the Democrats would be demanding they pay even more.


    You're quickly surpassing riddler as King of circular reasoning. I did state on the other thread that 76% seemed too high, but maintain that putting aside ideology and focusing only on maximizing revenue to the government - a key issue considering our debt, deficit and sagging economy - that it may be worthwhile.

    Your basic premise is a hypothetical argument that can not be proven nor disproved because built into it - as you just stated - is yourassumption that no matter what the rate was "Democrats' would demand a higher one. Of course, that flies in the face of history and any platform put forth by the Party since it's inception. But continue to rave on as your quickly making mince meat out of your own argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 4:35 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidYou're quickly surpassing riddler as King of circular reasoning. I did state on the other thread that 76% seemed too high, but maintain that putting aside ideology and focusing only on maximizing revenue to the government - a key issue considering our debt, deficit and sagging economy - that it may be worthwhile.

    Your basic premise is a hypothetical argument that can not be proven nor disproved because built into it - as you just stated - is yourassumption that no matter what the rate was "Democrats' would demand a higher one. Of course, that flies in the face of history and any platform put forth by the Party since it's inception. But continue to rave on as your quickly making mince meat out of your own argument.

    You are trying to spin and deflect. I asserted the Democrats do not have a firm concept of what fair is, and would want to raise the tax rate on the wealthy even if they were already paying what the Democrats demand they should pay. Of course it is hypothetical, but all what-if scenarios are hypothetical. I asked if anyone could indicate the assertion was unlikely given some logic that basically would define an objective fixed, not floating, definition of what fair is. You couldn't do that, and the Laffer curve was a red herring, which I clearly demonstrated, as you lost regardless of how you wished to apply that curve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 5:38 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidYou're quickly surpassing riddler as King of circular reasoning. I did state on the other thread that 76% seemed too high, but maintain that putting aside ideology and focusing only on maximizing revenue to the government - a key issue considering our debt, deficit and sagging economy - that it may be worthwhile.

    Your basic premise is a hypothetical argument that can not be proven nor disproved because built into it - as you just stated - is yourassumption that no matter what the rate was "Democrats' would demand a higher one. Of course, that flies in the face of history and any platform put forth by the Party since it's inception. But continue to rave on as your quickly making mince meat out of your own argument.

    You are trying to spin and deflect. I asserted the Democrats do not have a firm concept of what fair is, and would want to raise the tax rate on the wealthy even if they were already paying what the Democrats demand they should pay. Of course it is hypothetical, but all what-if scenarios are hypothetical. I asked if anyone could indicate the assertion was unlikely given some logic that basically would define an objective fixed, not floating, definition of what fair is. You couldn't do that, and the Laffer curve was a red herring, which I clearly demonstrated, as you lost regardless of how you wished to apply that curve.


    Your losing it. You started off with the left, not the Democrats. In fact, your OP never mentions Democrats so you've already moved the goal post.

    I actually think someone like John Paulson paying 70% on his $4 billion in 2009 is fair. He did almost nothing to earn that money. In fact, his predations were damaging to certain sectors, so 70% is probably more than fair. Did Paulson's labor really equal $4 billion in value? Did it even equal 30% of that? Or $980 million.

    I actually think the shoe is on the other foot here and you ought to explain what anyone has done that is valued at $980 million. What action or series of actions did Paulson engage in that were worth $4 billion? Of course, you can't because what Paulson and other hedge fund managers are engaged in is legalized gambling and fraud. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 5:39 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIs it "fair" that 47% pay nothing at all and receive more than the 53% that do pay something?


    There is no 47% who pay nothing. This has been demonstrated to you countless times, making me wonder if you're illiterate, suffering from retrograde amnesia or just an asshat. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2011 5:47 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidYour losing it. You started off with the left, not the Democrats. In fact, your OP never mentions Democrats so you've already moved the goal post. ...

    I use the Democrats and left interchangeably, but if pointing out that inconsistency gives you some dignity in an argument you probably could not have won, than I hope it makes you feel better.