Paying a "fair share"

As the graph above depicts, the top 1% were getting about 10% of the nation's income before the Reagan trickle down revolution and its about 20% now.

It's been largely taken from the middle classes. The share of the nation's income of the bottom 90% has fallen from about 65% in 1980 to about 50% today.



That equates to about $2.2 trillion less every year that is *not* going to the bottom 90%, and about $1.5 trillion more every year going to the richest 1%.

 

So you don't want to answer. Atta lib!

 

Sticky-fingers would imply that Romney was doing something illegal. Evidence of this?

So 11% is not fair, but 18.8% id fair?

 

just a man +1

Right you are!!!! Its pretty close to 100% of the people that use the phrase "fair share", really mean that it is the other guy that needs to pony up. In reality most of them are the drones in society that contribute NOTHING!!!!!!!

 

I'm sorry, If forget I was dealing with a conservative. I put the link their where I had already addressed the question. You have to click on the link. Here it is again.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...post1064921440

I would have thought that all was self evident, but I frequently overestimate our conservative friends.

- - - Updated - - -

How in your view would it be fair for a guy getting 5x more "income" to be paying a much lower tax rate?

 

I don't care how much the rich make in income. However, you said that they were taking other people's income. So please tell us whose income they are "taking" and how they are taking it.

 

That makes you different from every other 1% apologist how?

 

So it's not the nation that owns the income, as if it were a corporation and the individuals stockholders. Therefore, there is no "share" of the "nation's income." Yes, you use that bit of sophistry to create false assumptions to derive moral conclusions about ownership of assets and the income of different individuals.

 

Dodge noted.

You said that they were taking other people's income. So please tell us whose income they are "taking" and how they are taking it.

 

The nation produces the income. The share is the portion going to any given segment.

If we look at the segment defined by the richest 1% of Americans, we find that the share of the nation's income going to them has doubled since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, from about 10% to about 20%.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll pass on playing your little semantic games, thanks. I'll trust our other members can figure out what I'm saying. If the word "taking" has your panties in such a knot, you can substitute the word "getting"

 

Yes, this is precisely the collectivist equivocation that I am pointing out. Constantly using the phrase "taking a share of the nation's income" is intellectually dishonest.

 

Nothing intellectually dishonest about it at all. It shows the fact that since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the richest 1% are getting double the share of the nation's income, from about 10% to 20%.

What is intellectually dishonest is 1% apologists pretending that fact is "intellectually dishonest" because they don't like the fact that they are getting an ever larger share of the nation's income exposed.

 

Accurate use of language isn't a semantic game. You said "taking". If you want to retract that, fine with me.

So why do you oppose people being given income? And why do you feel you know better then the person doing the giving whom he should give to. If people want to give to the top 1%, that's their business. Why do other people's choices with which you disagree get your panties in such a knot?

 

No, because the President is never truly "on vacation". The White House is where ever the President happens to be at the time.

 

Why should I care if the nation (which is to say the individuals in the nation) choose to give more money to rich people? If that's their choice, then that's their choice. I don't pretend to know better than they do. Why does their decision upset you so?

 

I looked at Romneys tax return http://images.politico.com/global/2012/09/mitt_and_ann_romney_2011_1040.html

Romney's effective tax rate was about 14.6% on $13 million. Considering Romneys income is almost all capital gains, that looks about right. All of the super rich no matter what political affiliation should be right around 15% unless they have bought a politician and have a loophole.

And notice obama has off-shore investments - he made around $47,000 income on those investments. All that rhetoric about how evil off-shore investing was and obama is loaded with them. More of the double standard from "progressives".

 

And why didn't the Democrats correct this "problem" during the time they had control of the Senate, Congress and the Executive?
The Democrats(and Republicans) who complain about how things work, but then do nothing when they get the chance should just shut up about it.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=405100&page=6&p=1064921621#post1064921621

 

I don't think you can expect someone to correct a problem that was the better part of three decades in the making in the 60 some odd days the Dems had the votes to pass it. Plus they had to deal with a little leftover called the Great Recession at the time.

 

The already have a massive loophole with the special privileged 15% (recently changed to 20%) max tax rate. And they don't have to pay FICA taxes on it.

It's great to be rich in this country.

 

I see that you're pointing back to post #60, in which you said the following:

I'll pass on playing your little semantic games, thanks. I'll trust our other members can figure out what I'm saying. If the word "taking" has your panties in such a knot, you can substitute the word "getting"


So we've established that the rich aren't taking from others but are being given income by the nation (which is to say given income by other individuals in the nation). You seem to have a problem with the choice of these people to give their money to the rich. I'm trying to understand why you think they should do what you want rather than what they want.

 

I have no idea why you should care. Most 1% apologists are just fine with the top 1% getting 20% of the nation's income, double since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. And many want them to to have more.

Because for some, or many, more is never enough.

But for those who care about Americans as a whole and the economy, they would care that the middle classes have not shared in the nation's growth and prosperity, and they would also care that because the middle class has been decimated, they don't have the same relative purchasing power to drive a robust economy like they did in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

All we've established is that I'll pass on playing your little semantic games, thanks. I'll trust our other members can figure out what I'm saying. If the word "taking" has your panties in such a knot, you can substitute the word "getting".

 

I'm still trying to understand what you see as the problem. The nation (i.e. the individuals in the nation) have been giving more of their money to the rich and less of their money to the less rich. You seem to oppose their decision to do so, but haven't explained why you know better than they to whom they ought to give their money.

 

Thats your reply?

So you dont have any arguments no surprise.

Btw you never mentioned the system you want to put in place. Let me guess: you dont have any?

 

its like saying Federer and Nadal take a larger share of the prize money on the ATP tour. Using leftwing logic they ought to pay higher entry fees

and using leftwing logic, the valedictorian at a public HS ought to be taxed more than the kids who smoke dope and screw around