Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

[daveman]

The only situation I'm complaining about is your stupid argument. You on the other hand are complaining about a solution in search of a problem.

Guess you didn't read the thread, huh?

Sure I did. You opened with the old x% pays y% and indicated that you think that's unfair. I dismantled that argument mathematically and even showed that New York City and State both have tax structures that are, for the sake of this argument, flat.

You've been flailing ever since, and that brings us up to right now.

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that? The productive are always going to have to support the less- or non-productive. That's a fact of life. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

 

[Chris]

Reagan and Bush cut taxes for the rich and transferred trillions in wealth to the rich which now must be paid back by the middle class taxpayer.

 

[Dragon]

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that?

It's implied in the thread title.

 

[Chris]

Guess you didn't read the thread, huh?

Sure I did. You opened with the old x% pays y% and indicated that you think that's unfair. I dismantled that argument mathematically and even showed that New York City and State both have tax structures that are, for the sake of this argument, flat.

You've been flailing ever since, and that brings us up to right now.

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that? The productive are always going to have to support the less- or non-productive. That's a fact of life. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

 

[daveman]

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that?

It's implied in the thread title.

Oh, you mean the thread title I copied from the article title. The article title I didn't write.

Nevertheless, it's apparent the whole thing went over the heads of you class warriors. In case you haven't noticed, it's you who spend a great deal of time whining about fairness. The OP author was wondering if you applied your standards equally across the board.

You don't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Right. The argument the class envy people on the left always rely on.
Here's the rub...Government does NOT have a revenue problem. Clearly it is a SPENDING problem.
Those on the left, the "tax more" crowd, never want to answer the question "why should inefficiency be rewarded".
How is it that those on the political left have designs on the privately "share of the nation's wealth" while saying nothing in opposition to the federal government's "share of the nation's wealth"....

 

[The T]

Sure I did. You opened with the old x% pays y% and indicated that you think that's unfair. I dismantled that argument mathematically and even showed that New York City and State both have tax structures that are, for the sake of this argument, flat.

You've been flailing ever since, and that brings us up to right now.

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that? The productive are always going to have to support the less- or non-productive. That's a fact of life. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

He didn't refer to them ya dink...You love erecting straw dogs though.

 

[daveman]

Sure I did. You opened with the old x% pays y% and indicated that you think that's unfair. I dismantled that argument mathematically and even showed that New York City and State both have tax structures that are, for the sake of this argument, flat.

You've been flailing ever since, and that brings us up to right now.

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that? The productive are always going to have to support the less- or non-productive. That's a fact of life. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

You don't think at all.

And retired military have contributed more to this nation than the OWS crowd. True story.

 

[Chris]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Right. The argument the class envy people on the left always rely on.
Here's the rub...Government does NOT have a revenue problem. Clearly it is a SPENDING problem.
Those on the left, the "tax more" crowd, never want to answer the question "why should inefficiency be rewarded".
How is it that those on the political left have designs on the privately "share of the nation's wealth" while saying nothing in opposition to the federal government's "share of the nation's wealth"....

Wrong.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes for the rich which created 90% of the National Debt.

It also resulted in 80% of the increase in after tax income going to the rich over the last 30 years.

As a result income inequity is at its highest level since 1929.

 

[Chris]

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that? The productive are always going to have to support the less- or non-productive. That's a fact of life. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

You don't think at all.

And retired military have contributed more to this nation than the OWS crowd. True story.

And now military benefits will have to be cut because Reagan and Bush cut taxes for the rich so much.

 

[Article 15]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

 

[EriktheRed]

Dave, I hear Crickets. What's up with that? LOL

So how does the OP like those "crickets" so far?

 

[elvis]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

I'm surprised at the spike during the clinton years.

 

[Article 15]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

I'm surprised at the spike during the clinton years.

Right?

 

[Chris]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

Then you won't mind having your taxes raised to pay for the trillions that went to the wealthy.

Right?

 

[Chris]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

I'm surprised at the spike during the clinton years.

Right?

Actually it went down below 45% because Clinton raised taxes on the rich.

I guess some people can't read a graph.

 

[Article 15]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

Then you won't mind having your taxes raised to pay for the trillions that went to the wealthy.

Right?

Actually, I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start.

 

[Article 15]

I'm surprised at the spike during the clinton years.

Right?

Actually it went down below 45% because Clinton raised taxes on the rich.

I guess some people can't read a graph.

Yet it started at 42% when he took office....

And check out the slope of the line up until the dip....

 

[Chris]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

Then you won't mind having your taxes raised to pay for the trillions that went to the wealthy.

Right?

Actually, I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start.

Obama has already said he won't renew the Bush tax cuts when they expire in Dec of 2012.

And the automatic spending cuts kick in in Jan. of 2013.

So deficit reduction is on the way.

Also the economy will grow at a faster rate next year.

 

[elvis]

I'm surprised at the spike during the clinton years.

Right?

Actually it went down below 45% because Clinton raised taxes on the rich.

I guess some people can't read a graph.

There's a spike during the Clinton years and it was higher when he left than when he took office. Get your boyfriend's pubic hair out of your eye and look again.