"The wealthiest in this country do not pay their fair share." [Bernie Sanders]

[Robert W]

You've Donated Your Whole Life to Big HeirHead

Big Government is what you mean.

 

[sparky]

Inherited Power Contradicts and Eventually Destroys Capitalism

yes we've the best Congress $$$ can buy Sage......yet another flaw.....~S~

 

[Robert W]

Who Earns the Benefits from Paying Low Wages?

Firms that are large, consult experts on benefits and wages. So, if you plan to be working for a huge corporation, they have in the book what you will accept as a wage. It is up to you to say no or take the income and be happy.

 

[Robert W]

Inherited Power Contradicts and Eventually Destroys Capitalism

Schumer and Sanders are great examples.

Tell us this. Obama has a fortune. Should his daughter get nothing? Your solution you tell us is to hand it over to big Government as were they entitled to it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

A Beltway to Hold the Fat Inside

How can it, when only the government can tell us what it means?

Why is the government telling you what it means? You can read it for yourself. It’s pretty self explanatory. The only people who should be interpreting it is the Supreme Court, and they are only supposed to do it to make sure that the laws congress passes adhere to the cotus.

The checks and balances are only applied to the oligarchy's factions and have nothing to do with our own protection from the governing class.

Americans are NPC spectators at a three-way tug-of-war. Popcorn Populism.

Unbrainwashed minds should automatically get suspicious about any post that throws in some praise of the elitist Constitution or refers to America as a "republic," which really means Representation Without Participation.

We are a republic in that we democratically elect representatives whom we give power to make laws that govern us.

 

[Nostra]

Commie Bernie used to whine and cry about evil millionaires………until he became one. Now it’s evil billionaires.

If we give him a billion, will he shut his yap and go away? A Gofundme should get it done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And, as always, there's no definition of fair share. What they usually mean when they say fair share is, "MORE, MORE, MORE". Raise the highest rate to 50% and in 5 years it's not high enough and they're not paying their fair share. Raise it again to 60% and the same thing happens.

They don't want to be pinned down because if their target is ever reached, they won't be able to credibly demand more.

There never will be an exact definition of "fair share" because different people will have different views. Also figuring out what people use is nigh on impossible.

Your "definition" is not correct.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, fair would be everyone pays the same rate, that’s the only real fair way to do it. Taxing wealthy people at a higher rate because they are wealthy is unfair to them. Besides, your beef isn’t really with wealthy people, it’s with corporations.




If you have a field with 10,000 apple trees and you have 300 apple pickers and another field with 1000 apple trees and 30 apple pickers, the apple pickers are proportional to the number of apple trees.

Why would everyone paying the same rate be "fair"?

Would it be "fair" if everyone going to a football game pays the same? One person gets to sit in a luxury box, another gets to sit right in the corner high up. But "fair" is them paying the same amount?


If you have 46,389,615 people voting.

37.02% vote for one party and that party gets 231 seats out of 299 seats.
24.64% vote for another party and that party gets 59 seats
11.46% vote for another party and that party gets 3 seats
7% vote for another party and that party gets 0 seats

Is that PROPORTIONAL?

No. With 37.02% of the vote, the first party got 77% of the seats.
The second party with 24.64% of the vote got 19.7% of the seats.
The third party with 11.46% of the vote got 1% of the seats
The fourth party got 7% of the vote and got 0% of the seats.

This is the German federal election in 2017. This was the voting with FPTP, the same system the US uses. Everyone votes in a constituency. Clearly it is NOT PROPORTIONAL.

But Germany votes PR at the same time. So we can see the difference between PR and FPTP.

The party that got 77% of the FPTP seats and 37% of the vote, got 32.93% of the vote with PR. They lost 4% of the vote just because people vote differently based on the electoral system. They got 34.69% of the seats from 32.93% of the vote.

The second party got 21.57% of the seats with 20.51% of the votes.

The third party got 12.83% of the seats with 12.64% of the vote.

The fourth party got 11.28% of the seats with 10.75% of the vote.

You can see the difference. Party one had more than double the percentage of seats, just because the system favors them. The fourth party went from zero seats to 11% of the seats, just because the system says so.

You can see that the top two parties love FPTP because it will always favor them. The rest of the parties love PR because it favors them. And the people get the representation they ask for.

The US has two parties because it is totally NOT PROPORTIONAL.

No way on Earth that a PROPORTIONAL electoral system would end up with two parties. Right the way through US politics, it's two parties. I think the Greens are the third party with no seats in Congress, the presidency, no state senate seats, no state house seats, no governor seats... they have 163 elected officials in the whole of the country.

An absolute JOKE.

 

[Nostra]

There never will be an exact definition of "fair share" because different people will have different views. Also figuring out what people use is nigh on impossible.

Your "definition" is not correct.

Give us yours then. What are the numbers?