Thoughts on the "Fair Share" meme

[docstew]

We hear all the time from 0bama and his Merry Band of Idiots and Allied Idot Tradesman that the wealthy "need to pay their fair share" or "aren't paying their fair share", with no definition of what specifically is a "fair share". The response from our side has consistently been to ask the question "How do you define 'fair share'?". I am beginning to believe that response is not working and will never work, as it requires anyone hearing the debate to think instead of parrot.

I am proposing a shift in our tactics, techniques and procedures in response to the "fair share" meme. Instead of asking for a definition, we should say "Oh, like splitting a check at a restaurant? OK. I don't consume Welfare, Medicaid, etc., so I shouldn't have to pay for those. I do consume (use) the roads, public sanitation, police protection, and national defense, so I have no problem paying for those. I'll even pay for your share of those things that I use. My treat. But I refuse to pay for something that I don't consume and didn't order. You want it, you pay for it."

[Linda]

I still have a problem seeing how the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share". The top few percent of the earners pay the majority of the taxes that are paid into the system.

HOW is that not OVER paying your fair share?

If these idiots that are yelling for the rich to pay their "fair share" actually paid their "fair share", they would have a new appreciation for the "fair share" the rich DO pay.

[thundley4]

100% of the income of the top 50% and all profits from corporations still wouldn't put a dent in the deficit.  The only solution is to cut spending and raise taxes on all individuals.

[docstew]

I still have a problem seeing how the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share". The top few percent of the earners pay the majority of the taxes that are paid into the system.

HOW is that not OVER paying your fair share?

If these idiots that are yelling for the rich to pay their "fair share" actually paid their "fair share", they would have a new appreciation for the "fair share" the rich DO pay.

We've been making that point for months, if not years. That's why I'm saying we should shift our argument. Don't let the left define "fair share", because they will always define it as "more than you pay now". Define it for them along the "splitting a check" model, and watch them sputter.

[MrsSmith]

I doubt any argument will work.  To the DUmmies, any taxes they pay are "more than their fair share," while taking 100% of everyone else's income will still be "less than their fair share." 

[docstew]

I doubt any argument will work.  To the DUmmies, any taxes they pay are "more than their fair share," while taking 100% of everyone else's income will still be "less than their fair share." 

It's honestly not about shutting up the liberals. They will always define "your fair share" as more than you're paying now. It's about framing the argument in such a way that the majority of Americans can relate to it and understand.

[MrsSmith]

It's honestly not about shutting up the liberals. They will always define "your fair share" as more than you're paying now. It's about framing the argument in such a way that the majority of Americans can relate to it and understand.

I think the majority of Americans already "get" the problem.  They just don't understand that there aren't enough "rich" to fleece for the cost of everything government costs.

[CG6468]

100% of the income of the top 50% and all profits from corporations still wouldn't put a dent in the deficit.  The only solution is to cut spending and raise taxes on all individuals.

By cutting spending, do you also include eliminating unnecessary and unneeded government agencies?

[thundley4]

By cutting spending, do you also include eliminating unnecessary and unneeded government agencies?

Many could be eliminated and most should have their regulatory powers severely curtailed.

[docstew]

Many could be eliminated and most should have their regulatory powers severely curtailed.

If I were President, I would require all Secretaries of all Depts to provide me with a justification for the continued existence of their respective offices, with language from the Constitution relevant to their argument. All programs (i.e. Welfare) would need to do the same. The deadline for these reports would be NLT February 20 of the year that I was inaugurated. Any agencies that did not submit those reports would have the directors releieved.

[thundley4]

If I were President, I would require all Secretaries of all Depts to provide me with a justification for the continued existence of their respective offices, with language from the Constitution relevant to their argument. All programs (i.e. Welfare) would need to do the same. The deadline for these reports would be NLT February 20 of the year that I was inaugurated. Any agencies that did not submit those reports would have the directors releieved.

And every Department that met those criteria would have their powers limited to what was met.

[Zeus]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.