RSweeney says:

No representation without taxation.

Otherwise an untaxed majority will just take what it wants from those who actually produce the wealth.

And this would be the END of rule of law by consent of the governed.

Everyone needs skin in the game. Everyone needs to feel the pinch of government on their wallets.

bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:

#41–IdiotThomas==what “perspective” includes wasting everyone’s time by musing about a tax rate of 105% ? I must admit I don’t understand how pointing out the absurd irrelevancy of your best ideas is “resting on a cartoon.” But I will rely on the last remains of your cognitive ability to make that connection.

“If 40% is fair . . . . .” /// Ha, ha Still tripped up by that bugaboo “if” even after having it pointed out to you. While it may be needed, I don’t think baseball bats should be used to bring reality to anyone. Reality will come its own time.

Taxation is “fair” only when the revenue from all sources equals the expenses for all programs. Roughly, that is done by a democratic process until the politicians are allowed to run uncorected for multiple terms. “Nobody cares about the deficit” was a clarion call that our politicians had left the reservation==and yet we the people elected the Bush Cabal for a second term.

Both parties are a scourge to good governance. But since both parties are for excessive spending, and only the Dems are for taxing to pay for the spending, only a RETARD would vote Republican, the willingness to do so bringing us to our current situation.

Dallas says:

I support a consumption tax . That goes for using public schools as well. I’m tired of having nearly half my local taxes go to train your sheeple spawn.

bobbo, not a student of the dismal science, but I am on a budget says:

#45–Thomas==you say:

1. You completely evaded the question. /// Thats because the original questions were posed to YOU, and you are still evading them. But, at least you are being relevant now, so I will demonstrate for your edification, how to answer a question.

2. What tax rate is fair for the rich? /// There is no “fair” tax in the abstract, or with almost the same meaning, “fair” could only begin to be evaluated when a 5-10-20 budget is laid out clearly showing how a balanced budget/elimination of public debt was going to be achieved.

3. Clearly you believe that all people should not be taxed at the same rate, so what rate is fair for the highest bracket and more importantly why? /// Lets see. When I have only hinted at the general approach, how can further detail be “clear” to you unless you enjoy BS’s yourself? It makes “sense” to me that the rich would pay more as they “have” more. Not only in income, net wealth, but overall benefits. It also makes sense that “everyone” should pay taxes so that everyone gets the allusion they are in this together. Its all to do very much with “discretionary income” after base needs are covered. Does it make any sense to tax a person 15% when they are working two jobs to put food on the table? I suppose so===assuming after they pay the 15% they also get support from other programs. IE==taxing poor people makes as much sense as not taxing the rich.

4. Taxation is “fair” only when the revenue from all sources equals the expenses for all programs

Completely irrelevant. /// No, “fair” can only be evaluated in terms of what is needed, wanted, and possible. Like a fair tax before Bush started two wars would rationally be less than what the tax rate on EVERYONE would be after the two wars were started? I hope you see the point and will stop babbling like a RepubliTARD.

5. What you are discussing is overall tax revenue and budget balancing. I’m talking about individual tax rates. /// Again, what else is fair but a tax rate from all sources calculated to meet the expected expenditures?

Of course, if that were the justification for higher taxes, our taxes would be 10x worse as politicians are nothing if not good at spending other people’s money.

Both parties are a scourge to good governance

Completely agree. Case in point, it was a Democrat and a Democrat controlled Congress that signed the biggest waste of money in our country’s history at a time when we already had a record deficit. The Federal government does not have a revenue problem: it has a spending problem. /// Like it or not, the two are related.

BUT I’LL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT: The tax rate for the rich should be between zero and 90%. Zero income tax was the rule for most of our existence. The short fall to be made up in consumption taxes etc still all to be paid more by the rich than anyone else. And 90% because as the Beatles told us, at “One for you, Nineteen for Me” at that rate it seems all good patriotic people pick up and move to Switzerland.

Somebody says:

# 12 bobbo, The Don Juan of partner-less loving said,

Well, I’m not sure what he said, thanks for that completely incoherent reply.

I’ll just assume you missed my point. You usually do.

Check this out:

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3387.shtml

I guess the cartoonist didn’t have space to draw an animal that would represent the war that the Democrats got elected to end but somehow never found the time.

DaveO says:

Too many animals in this boat.
Not depicted: all of them.