Except that “fair share” almost always means much much more than anyone else. And if you look into the rhetoric from democrats along the lines of “the friends of the rich Republicans” you may notice a slightly different message besides they should pay their fair share. 
I’m not sure how your quote disproves or changes my point. The argument that we should not elect someone because he is rich is simplistic no matter which party uses it.
BTW, can you post where you got that story?
My bad, it seems it was from here. The game looks like a simplistic joke saying basically that Kerry is rich. It seems to give quite a few details, each square contains more information about the blurb on that square. But it is basically a simplistic multimedia “Kerry is rich” poster.
Yes, people with much more money pay much more taxes. What an illogical and obviously rich-hating concept. :smack:
Except that this is not what you mean. You don’t mean that the rich earn 10% of the income so they should pay 10% of the taxes. You mean that they earn 10% of the income so they should pay 30% of the tax or some such thing.
But you didn’t say that “the argument that we should not elect someone because he is rich is simplistic”; you stated that “the argument is not that rich people are bad. The argument is that liberals think rich people are bad and yet many of them are rich. The argument is simplistic…But it seems odd that it is misunderstood so universally.”
Yet here is the Republican party clearly saying that “Kerry’s lifestyle is out of reach and out of synch with most Americans”. Sure, it’s a silly joke, but what they’re saying is pretty crystal, no? Or am I misunderstanding it? (The fact that they discount their own super-rich is just the usual hypocritical icing, if you will.)
No who was it again who are “always harping on…”?
(The article’s from here, btw)
I said exactly what I meant. I don’t think there was anything ambiguous in it.
If you have more money, are you not able to afford losing a larger portion of it to taxes? No? Please tell me why.
Right. I.E. rich. This is the way that Republicans use the hate rich meme against thier opponents. The Democrats use it by saying that rich people are getting rich on the backs of the poor.
<Did you mean “now”?> Either way, I ws only making a snide remark about the illogic of the argument. I appologize if the snideness offended.
Thanks. I googled for it after I posted the question.
Well, no, you said “fair share”.
By which you meant:
I am quite aware that a good case can be made that the rich can afford much more than their proportional share of the economy. This does not, to me, qualify as fair share, however.
Actually, *pervert, you said fair share. I didn’t.
My appologies. It was Blaron who said it first. I was responding to him, and I seem to have confused you two. I am sincerely sorry for that.
Allow me to reply properly to your post.
Except that this is not what you mean. You mean that people with much more money should pay much much much more taxes. In fact, you mean that people with much more money should pay enough so that there are fewer people with much more money.
If you simply mean that the rich should pay a proportionally larger share of thier income than that income is a share of the economy as a whole, why do you simply say that “people with much more money should pay much more taxes”? Are you sure that this construction does not imply that there is some proportional parity?
No problem.
I think you’re reading a little too much into it, but I see where you’re coming from. Although I think at this point we both know what I meant, so there wasn’t any deception at work. Your definition of “fair share” just isn’t the same as mine.
If you divided the total amount of money spent by the government by the number of taxpayers, that sum would be the “fair share” that everyone pays. But our tax system doesn’t work that way.
No, it doesn’t. For very good reason. I really don’t think that some sort of $10 from each taxpayer would be anyone’s definitin of “fair share”. Is that really what you meant when you used the term?
Considering that both candidates are very rich, which position takes more moral courage:
-
The candidate that advocates that people like himself should have to pay more in taxes.
-
The candidate that wants to cut taxes for people like himself.
Maybe you’re just being contrary, but how is that position morally courageous as opposed to, say, potentially self-serving?
That was a bit flippant. I could not resist.
Moral courage can be defined as integrity. Specifically the integrity to live the morallity one talks about. If one says that success is good, then encouraging success could be considered morally courageous. If one says that being rich is bad, then being rich would be morally cowardly.
I realize that you would rather define moral courage as self sacrifice. But that is not entirely accurate. Perhaps you meant some other phrase besides morally courageous?
That post was in response to Blalron. But I suppose it could apply to Marley23. I don’t want to repeat the confusion.
No. The point I was making was that people who are able to pay more should pay more. A tax rate that would cripple a worker on minimum wage wouldn’t even make a dent on the lifestyle of someone making a 7 figure salary. Sure, on paper a flat tax looks fair. But percentages on paper don’t reflect the reality of how much each person sacrifices of themselves to contribute to society.