Fair share; not 43.6%.

wbottom forgot about the regimes anti-bullying campaign. The leader and his beloved wife did a dog and pony show about bullying at the regime's palace. Don't forget wbottom---goose step with the regime.

whoa--julia--are you sure checking out was a good idea??

"Have people here read Atlas Shrugged?"

I especially like the rape scenes.

The reason why we have progressive taxation is because of the marginal utility of income. As you yourself tacitly acknowledge, that $10K is a lot more meaningful to some people than the $100K is to someone a lot richer. So, is something "fair" because the number is the same, or is it "fair" because it has an equivalent impact on people's lives. Most people who don't think that Atlas Shrugged is a really amazing book acknowledge that the latter approach aligns much more closely with notions of fairness. Most people who take the former approach are just annoyed that they're paying "too much" in taxes. This comes from a delusion that bankers are somehow vastly more valuable to society than doctors or teachers or software engineers because they happen to make more money. Surprisingly enough, it's mostly bankers who think this way.

come on, jordyn. how am i supposed to survive without an extra 100k to spend on vacations, private school, housekeepers, and designer clothing? it should be a lot easier for poor and middle class folks to forgo, i don't know, food and shelter.

Wtushy!

Really, which middle class person is foregoing shelter and food?

No middle class people are foregoing food and shelter. Sorry.

you're right: they aren't. that's in part because we have a system of progressive taxation.

So you were just whining for no reason?

by the way happyrenter, you can feel free to make an additional contribution to the U.S. Government. They do accept donations from people like you who feel guilty about their circumstances.

By the way, how's your second home?

huh. hunter, are you purposefully obtuse. my point, obviously, was that the tax burden has to be borne and, in fact, the government needs more revenue. either people like me can bear a greater burden, and possibly forgo luxuries. or poor and middle class people can bear it, and forgo necessities. as far as i am concerned, that's the end of the conversation.

>hunter, are you purposefully obtuse

No, accidentally obtuse. It's a gift.

What necessities are the middle class foregoing?

be aware that you are dealing with hfscomm1---with over 200 different posting names. good luck.

Thanks for the warning.

Found this interesting naive statement from columbiacounty:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/20078
columbiacounty
about 12 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse
so...here's how we get started.
a politician stands up and says: there are no easy answers anymore. for a viable future, we need to have shared sacrifice. rather than try to figure out how and which programs to cut, lets start with a lengthy dialogue aimed at creating a process that is fair.
i naively thought that obama was that guy; i think he may have thought he was as well.

you probably should have left it at thanks.

Thanks

"jordyn
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse "Have people here read Atlas Shrugged?"

I especially like the rape scenes."

My favorite part of the book...Very erotic.

hfscomm1---you fucked up with the julia identity.

>My favorite part of the book...Very erotic.

Not appropriate.

happyrenter, enjoy your entitlements, you've earned them!

Government doesn't need more money, it needs to spend less money. American principles call for limited government that intrudes in people's lives only where necessary.

"only where necessary" ... yes, LICcomm, that's basically what we have.

You're referring, I suppose, to laws against the termination of fetuses, LICcomm, and against recreational and performance-enhancing drugs, and there, LICcomm, you're right ... we need smaller government, LICcomm.

> termination of fetuses

?

And don't forget more wars... that is a great way to shrink the size of govt., no?

In Idaho, Republicans just passed an abortion bill that even takes away the right to abortions if a woman is raped. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. In Nebraska, they increased the waiting period for abortions to 3 days. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. In Arizona, the police can stop you and ask for your citizenship papers. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. In Florida, they are going to require govt. workers to take drug tests. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. In Massachusetts, Romeny required everyone to buy health insurance. SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

And in virtually every Republican state, gays can't get married. is this an example of necessary government intrusion LICC?

In the muslim countries they execute gays... But the left loves the islamic world.

>In Arizona, the police can stop you and ask for your citizenship papers.

But Socialist, you hate immigrants, right?

>In Florida, they are going to require govt. workers to take drug tests.

Oh my goodness.

And guess who owns a large drug testing company in Florida. Rick Scott, the GOVERNOR of Florida.

>In Nebraska, they increased the waiting period for abortions to 3 days.

In New York you have 3 days to get out of your gym membership after signing up. We can't encourage a 3 day wait for someone who wants to kill her child?

>But the left loves the islamic world.

ACLU is defending a NJ Transit worker who burned the Koran in protest in public. Socialist wants this guy responsible for on time, safe trains.

And in Michigan, the GOP governor recently enacted a Financial Marital Law bill that allows him to appoint an emergency financial manager who can take over a town, void all their contracts, and dismiss all of that town's politicians.

Like Newark and Nassau County?

Is this an example of limited government????

Reports are surfacing that Scott Walker is now preparing his next assault on the democratic political process in the State of Wisconsin.

Following the lead of Michigan GOP Governor Rick Snyder, Walker is said to be preparing a plan that would allow him to force local governments to submit to a financial stress test with an eye towards permitting the governor to take over municipalities that fail to meet with Walker’s approval.

According to the reports, should a locality’s financial position come up short, the Walker legislation would empower the governor to insert a financial manager of his choosing into local government with the ability to cancel union contracts, push aside duly elected local government officials and school board members and take control of Wisconsin cities and towns whenever he sees fit to do so.

Such a law would additionally give Walker unchallenged power to end municipal services of which he disapproves, including safety net assistance to those in need.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/04/16/gov-scott-walker-reportedly-planning-financial-martial-law-in-wisconsin/

Socialist says that government workers shouldn't be subject to drug testing.

Subject govt. workers to drug tests when politicans have to take them too. And the executives of any company that gets govt. contracts or govt. bailout money should be subjected to drug tests too.

What does one have to do with the other?

But ok, drug tests for politicians, sounds good.

"Like Newark and Nassau County?"

No, not like there. No politicans in Newark or Nassau was dismissed by a financial manager.

Sounds identical.

No, it's not identical. The Michigan bill is much more severe.

So merely a matter of degree,ok.