DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Nicihntm** · 07-26-2011, 11:43 PM

These are big improvements over the ponies. That said, neither speaks to the point of the thread, which is "pay your fair share". The gilded cage image of top marginal tax rates merely shows that the wealthiest pay a lower rate now than at most times during the past 75 years. Are you suggesting that "fair share" rates were somehow achieved in the past? If so, what are they? 35% is not enough? Was any amount ever too much?

I'm suggesting that anyone who claims that the wealithiest are being unfairly taxed are lying. I'm also suggesting that those who claim that raising income taxes on the wealthy will have no effect on revenue are lying.

[/quote]The crooks and liars slide is really just an editorial on the Bush tax cuts, but these cuts applied to everyone who pays taxes, and some who do not. If you wipe them out, you're putting a lot of people back on the tax rolls. Ok by me, however I suspect that you want to wipe only some of them out... again, you're not really discussing what "fair share" is. In fact, you seem to imply that the concept of a fair share only applies to the rich. Is there a fair share that should apply to the bottom 50% of earners?[/QUOTE]

The point was that the biggest single increase in the deficit was the Bush tax cuts. Wiping them out (and Obama was wrong in extending them) would help reduce the deficit and increase revenue. As they were disproportinately targeted to people making over $250K, they will not be "putting people back on the tax rolls" but rather increasing taxes on the wealithiest.

You brought up the "bottom 50% of earners pay no Federal income tax" canard. As that group includes all of our population who live at or below the poverty line, are you suggesting that we need to tax the poor?

07-26-2011, 11:43 PM	#34
Nicihntm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 562 Senior Member	These are big improvements over the ponies. That said, neither speaks to the point of the thread, which is "pay your fair share". The gilded cage image of top marginal tax rates merely shows that the wealthiest pay a lower rate now than at most times during the past 75 years. Are you suggesting that "fair share" rates were somehow achieved in the past? If so, what are they? 35% is not enough? Was any amount ever too much? I'm suggesting that anyone who claims that the wealithiest are being unfairly taxed are lying. I'm also suggesting that those who claim that raising income taxes on the wealthy will have no effect on revenue are lying. [/quote]The crooks and liars slide is really just an editorial on the Bush tax cuts, but these cuts applied to everyone who pays taxes, and some who do not. If you wipe them out, you're putting a lot of people back on the tax rolls. Ok by me, however I suspect that you want to wipe only some of them out... again, you're not really discussing what "fair share" is. In fact, you seem to imply that the concept of a fair share only applies to the rich. Is there a fair share that should apply to the bottom 50% of earners?[/QUOTE] The point was that the biggest single increase in the deficit was the Bush tax cuts. Wiping them out (and Obama was wrong in extending them) would help reduce the deficit and increase revenue. As they were disproportinately targeted to people making over $250K, they will not be "putting people back on the tax rolls" but rather increasing taxes on the wealithiest. You brought up the "bottom 50% of earners pay no Federal income tax" canard. As that group includes all of our population who live at or below the poverty line, are you suggesting that we need to tax the poor?
	Quote