Who Rules America?

Hey COIdiot, why can't you argue a bit more like this. At least he is making sense and is able to outline what he wants. Originally Posted by shanm

He thinks you're worth the effort. I don't.

Why don't you go live in a country with very few government establishment or control and see how fast your ass appreciates the U.S govt. You want less govt regulations but you will be the first to bitch if you got cancer from Asbestos at work because their were o govt regulations. You are really an idiot COG- you wouldn't be alive today if govt didn't play a critical part in your life in either defense/health or education. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Ah. I see. You're also a "Government Fearing Statist"!


And thanks for admission that the U.S. Is no longer a free country, and that you're ok with that. I'm not, and I think I'll stay and work to restore the freedom my ancestors died for. But thanks for your interest.

Ah. I see. You're also a "Government Fearing Statist"!


And thanks for admission that the U.S. Is no longer a free country, and that you're ok with that. I'm not, and I think I'll stay and work to restore the freedom my ancestors died for. But thanks for your interest. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't even try to play that card. There's this myth that somehow we were once more free than we are now. It's just that; a myth. I know, you'll list all the ways you think we aren't as free now, but I don't buy it. You want something akin to a commune. You can still find those if that's what you want.

Income tax began over 100 years ago... and I'm not saying a decentralized, more local, government couldn't do it. Germany? They have one of the strongest economies in the world and are doing quite well. Originally Posted by WombRaider

My point was that taxation was not exploited until rather recently as you can see from this graph. Germany - I guess that depends on how you rate strength, but they are the most solid yes. But, I think it is safe to argue that the EU labors under the weight of their excessive social programs ... a mistake we seem to be running to make as well. And you can see as the US becomes more centralized we spend larger and larger sums of money and our budget is fully 1/4 of our total GDP ... one quarter out of every dollar we earn - every person and business goes to the federal government ... that doesn't count the states. And, what we currently collect in taxes doesn't cover what we are now spending to the tune of 1.4 trillion per year ... which to put it in perspective is $4,361 per year in debt for every man woman and child in the US. In addition to the taxes we already pay. And nobody can stop it or appears to be trying ... neither party!



Quote:
Originally Posted by 5T3V3
The US has only become a centralized Government in the last 50 years ... it started with the income tax that gave the Government the ability to tax the earnings of Americans which coupled with a fiat currency gave them the power to print as much money as they needed so long as they could service the debt on it. We are now at a breaking point on the debt, so we see the BIG spenders being creative ... Carbon Tax ... just a creative way of taxing business - Sugar Tax ... taxing soft drinks - National health care ... taxing the health care system on and on until it all collapses.

The fallacy in your argument is only a strong "centralized" government can provide these things. When actually the most efficient, lowest cost method is to push the taxation and spending as close to the people as possible The income tax is about as "close to the people" as a tax gets. spending close to people not taxation. Houston takes care of the cities roads, the State of Texas takes care of all those roads not cared for by a local city or county and the national US government takes care of the few roads that are in international waters or are not on a state which are almost none existent. This is an argument for decentralization. You're replacing federal government with state governments. Do you have any proof that either or is more efficient? Well you could look at the graph above and try and draw your own conclusions as to what besides centralization changed. The are several dry papers I could send you to but I am not certain you have the advanced economics and mathematical background to understand what they are says and they don't state plainly the conclusion but rather draw out the formula and leave you to draw the only conclusion you can from the facts. The central government should only tax and handle the things that only it can handle - National Security, espionage, armed forces, air traffic control, government contracts, the federal court system and federal prisons, taxation, and the other SPECIFICALLY delegated powers of the constitution and amendments.Go back and look at the federal government tax allocation. 24% of our tax dollars go to social security, they have to be slowly reduced - and we need to manage our own retirement and get it out of government hands. 18% goes to the military, needs to be less and limited, but this is the one thing that only the federal government can do. 24% goes to healthcare (This was the same before Obama took office btw; 21% in 2007 ok your definition of same is wider than mine I see a 3% increase which is $40 billion REAL dollars). We provide far to much for far to many and we have moved away from paying cash for things. Prices would drop quickly if you had to pay $240 for an office visit and then wait a month to get reimbursed rather than paying a $20 dollar copay. We are poor consumers, and we have no concept of what our health care actually costs. As a total, those three account for 66% of our total tax dollar allocation. How do you suppose that the federal government will upkeep those programs without the income tax? i explained how you just didn't understand it i guess. The "general welfare" you argue in the next sentence account for 11% of the budget, and not all of them are unnecessary payments made to free-loaders. There genuinely are people who require disability assistance. I would argue why, but honestly that wasn't even something I was proposing? Are you trying to tell me that before welfare the disabled were not cared for? What happened then was charities and churches handled the load at a local level because they knew the free loaders from the truly needy as well as people relying on family and friends and neighbors. But really, just focus on the waste and abuse and move the programs to the local government to decide who needs it and how much. oh and don't don't confuse welfare with General Welfare -- General Welfare is a clause in the legislative powers enumeration that liberals have used as have courts to assign power to congress that the constitution never intend them to have and that should be with the states, because they were never enumerated. I was not even talking about the welfare system. And that means closing the door on the "general welfare" clause to mean ... and anything else we want it to mean.

I would argue we need a strong "decentralized" government - a federalist government as the founding fathers originally intended us to be - hence the enumerated powers or else they would have enumerated the states power and not the federal governments. All the problems you want solved are lost in the never ending bureaucracy of a centralized government and not because we can't afford them. It is time to close their check book ... and repeal the income tax in favor of a graduated fixed rate system that can never be raised only lowered. Take the money away from Washington and it will move naturally to the states and cities where it should be anyway.We do have decentralized government in certain areas. They are no more efficient than the central government. Efficiency will never be the governments forte. you are incorrect. look at education costs prior to the department of education, look at any federal agency and draw your own conclusions pre and post centralization. And honestly if you think it through it is just common sense that it would be the case. Much like increased demand = higher prices as we see in the provider world.

PS- Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization (source- socialist labor party) - Auto industry, oil and gas through intense regulation, communications (TV, radio, cell, internet soon) ... on and on Yes and this is not what America is. America is run by corporations, what "the workers" want doesn't matter here in the slightest. It's Capitalism ... "the workers through a democratic government" America is not run by corporations (that is propaganda and foolishness) if it were run by corporations Obama would never have been elected - America is run by a centralized democratic government that is currently trying to grab power and influence any way it can. The only difference between Nazi Germany and the US today is that our government is doing it through control and regulation rather than out right confiscation.. maybe you don't know what socialism is? Just remember every socialist government started out as benign at first it only became totalitarian once it had assumed enough power to not be challenged ... like Germany, Russia, Italy, can you name one that didn't go bad?

Hey COIdiot, why can't you argue a bit more like this. At least he is making sense and is able to outline what he wants.

You know what else has increased dramatically as well, since that graph began? Our population. As the population grows, it only makes logical sense that we will spend more money.

You know what else has increased dramatically as well, since that graph began? Our population. As the population grows, it only makes logical sense that we will spend more money. Originally Posted by WombRaider

so tell me what are the differences do you see between the budget in 1930 and what is in the budget today? ... and tell me do you still want to makes the above agreement that it is basically just population growth? If that were true our percentage of budget relative to GDP would be the same or even a little less assuming you think our production is more efficient than it was in 1930.

A true liberal wouldn't have a problem baking a cake for two gays. That's conservatives you're thinking of. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Virtually all conservatives would bake the cakes, too. But they shouldn't be told to do so by the government. Should a black guy whose great-great-grandad was killed by the KKK have to bake them a cake?

Don't even try to play that card. There's this myth that somehow we were once more free than we are now. It's just that; a myth. I know, you'll list all the ways you think we aren't as free now, but I don't buy it. You want something akin to a commune. You can still find those if that's what you want. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Really? You mean we've always had indefinite detention with no due process? We've always had mass government spying? We've always used the taxing power of government to silence political opponents? We've always had to buy insurance with coverage we don't want or need, or face a government fine? We've always been told how many bullets we can carry in our clips? We've always been told what light bulbs we can buy? We've never been able to buy fresh milk from Amish farmers? We've never been allowed to collect rainwater for our own use? We've never been able to grow hemp for fun or profit? We've always had to support wars for oil and big business when no strategic interests are at risk? We've always had the government able to track our every move? We've always had to disclose our business and personal affairs to government in order to comply with excessive taxes? We've always made sure that every child born in the U.S. starts life over $50,000 in debt?


You're right. We've never been "freer".


Dipshit.

My point was that taxation was not exploited until rather recently as you can see from this graph. Germany - I guess that depends on how you rate strength, but they are the most solid yes. Originally Posted by 5T3V3

spending close to people not taxation.
"lowest cost method is to push the taxation and spending as close to the people as possible"
Your words not mine.

Well you could look at the graph above and try and draw your own conclusions as to what besides centralization changed.
You graph literally proves absolutely nothing. Not only does it not account for the fact that our population has grown, it also ignores the fact that our economy (and the worlds) has grown exponentially. Even ignoring those facts, it still does not answer the question of why a central government is much worse than a decentralized one. I am well versed in those differences: what you have suggested so far doesn't even come close. Nothing you have said suggests that a collection of local governments would require less taxation.


The are several dry papers I could send you to but I am not certain you have the advanced economics and mathematical background to understand what they are says and they don't state plainly the conclusion but rather draw out the formula and leave you to draw the only conclusion you can from the facts.
Don't fib around with me. If you have something conclusive, post it. That kind of shit don't fly around here.

Go back and look at the federal government tax allocation. 24% of our tax dollars go to social security, they have to be slowly reduced - and we need to manage our own retirement and get it out of government hands.

Personally, I have always maintained that social security needs to be eliminated or revamped. The fact is that it is wedged deep into our backs: people who have paid into it will be wronged if they do not get anything out. If you get the people to vote, I'm sure the majority will vote for it.


ok your definition of same is wider than mine I see a 3% increase which is $40 billion REAL dollars).

Do you understand the concept of percentages? They are all relative, a 3% increase means absolutely nothing on its own. For a real representation you would have to look at the absolute costs (which have increased) and total healthcare spending (which has also increased). These increases, however, date all the way back to the introduction of medicaid and medicare in 1965. These are the actual representation of costs increases ever since the ACA (our most "socialist" healthcare plan) took over.




We provide far to much for far to many and we have moved away from paying cash for things. Prices would drop quickly if you had to pay $240 for an office visit and then wait a month to get reimbursed rather than paying a $20 dollar copay. We are poor consumers, and we have no concept of what our health care actually costs.

Words are fickle things. That doesn't mean that you can have your way with them while saying absolutely nothing. You're suggesting that an office visit cost $240, rather than $20(through insurance), and then you decry that we are "poor customers". That makes no sense at all.

I can guess the gist of what you are saying: that if we pay cash for our healthcare rather than have insurance our prices will drop quickly. However, that is just an assumption, and a very bad one.
You have to understand the difference between healthcare and health-insurance. Our healthcare costs have been rising exponentially, and not all (not even most) of it has been due to insurance.

Firstly, our administration costs are the highest in the world, FAR higher than any other country. They form a quarter of our healthcare costs, which is about (I believe) 10% higher than the next country.

Secondly, everything costs more in America. We have a far higher standard of living than most countries, and that means that we are charged more for almost everything. Everyone, from the doctor down to the receptionist, earns more in America. Perscription drugs are also priced higher as is any medical equipment. Cross-country price discrimination is quite possibly the worst in the world in the healthcare industry.

Thirdly, Americans spend more on healthcare than does any other country. Whether it be obesity, diabetes, mental illnesses, we rank first in the world in pretty much everything.
We also have a lot of frivolous healthcare spending: as an example, a man in the U.S is much more likely to get open heart surgery after a heart attack than in any other country.

What you're suggesting is that we make healthcare spending on a cash-basis, which is ridiculous. That would be the worst idea since slavery. Over half our population would probably die from lack of healthcare. Like WR said, this isn't a country of 50 people anymore

you are incorrect. look at education costs prior to the department of education, look at any federal agency and draw your own conclusions pre and post centralization. And honestly if you think it through it is just common sense that it would be the case. Much like increased demand = higher prices as we see in the provider world.

Many would argue that our education system is still not centralized. In 2010, federal funding provided 12% of school funding, with local and state governments providing the rest (almost equally). That is a huge gulf. The common standards set by the NCLB was a bad idea (imo), but so is a bunch of Christian fucks teaching abstinence only or creationism in our schools. If you look at the costs of private education, you can understand what comes from a decentralized, locally funded school system (although quality is much higher). You can see why a country of $300 million would not want a decentralized school system.
If you decentralize it, people living in high-population areas will be able to obtain much cheaper education than those living in low-population areas.


"the workers through a democratic government" America is not run by corporations (that is propaganda and foolishness) if it were run by corporations Obama would never have been elected -
It is not propaganda. Obama getting elected means absolutely nothing: he is just a man. Although it does indicate a slight victory after the Koch brothers spent millions trying to get someone else elected.
However, its our legislators and politicians that churn out laws based on the highest bidder. Need an example? here:
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/lo...sort/27695105/

Story from less than a week ago. Georgia legislators meet at hotels with corporate lobbyists to make up bills and laws.

I have no idea who you're trying to kid. Honestly, there is not one thing that you have said that is even remotely true. Judging from your lack of imagination and equivocating rhetoric, I can easily guess you are a tea party member.

Really? You mean we've always had indefinite detention with no due process? We've always had mass government spying? We've always used the taxing power of government to silence political opponents? We've always had to buy insurance with coverage we don't want or need, or face a government fine? We've always been told how many bullets we can carry in our clips? We've always been told what light bulbs we can buy? We've never been able to buy fresh milk from Amish farmers? We've never been allowed to collect rainwater for our own use? We've never been able to grow hemp for fun or profit? We've always had to support wars for oil and big business when no strategic interests are at risk? We've always had the government able to track our every move? We've always had to disclose our business and personal affairs to government in order to comply with excessive taxes? We've always made sure that every child born in the U.S. starts life over $50,000 in debt?


You're right. We've never been "freer".


Dipshit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There is definitely truth to what old bitch-queen is saying here.

Judging from your lack of imagination and equivocating rhetoric, I can easily guess you are a tea party member. Originally Posted by shanm

Dry article ... please explain it to me once you have read it. http://www.yale.edu/leitner/resources/docs/2003-02.pdf

Lack of Imagination? Seriously my proposals are quite imaginative and unique solution to current problems. Equivocating rhetoric? What exactly do you find ambiguous? I clearly state my thoughts. It is not my problem if you don't understand the argument or as I think is more likely the case pretend you don't understand the argument because the argument is solid and YOU are the one that wants to obfuscate my point. The sad thing is that we probably agree on 90% of the issues that need to happen to FIX this mess, but we won't because you will focus on the 10% where we don't agree.

Corporations control the Government? ... No, as I said propaganda and foolishness ... you show a news report about Lobbyist abuses and graft in order to prove your point that Corporations really do control the Government, because this particular report happens to be about corporate lobbyists. When what you really proved was that "lobbyists" control our government. Yet, you conveniently forget all the non corporate lobbyists that counterbalance the corporate control. The point we both agree on is that WE THE PEOPLE no longer control the government.

a short list:
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL)

National Education Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
EMILY's List (a pro-choice group for women Democrats)
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
NAACP
National Organization for Women
Handgun Control
United Auto Workers
Sierra Club (environmental group)
National Education Association
People for the America Way
Alliance for Justice (focus is on the judiciary and blocking conservative judges)
AFL-CIO (union that endorsed Kerry)
Human Rights Campaign (working for gay equal rights
South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus
Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary
ADA Watch-National Coalition for Disability Rights
American Association of University Women
Americans for Democratic Action
California La Raza Lawyers
Community Rights Council
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Endangered Species Coalition
Feminist Majority
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund MoveOn.Org
National Abortion Federation
National Black Women's Health Project
National Council of Jewish Women
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Environmental Trust
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Resources Defense Council
National Women's Law Center
Oceana Inc.
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Society of American Law TeachersWorking Assets

a tea party member ... you hurl that at me as if it were an insult ... and to me it is a badge of honor! you would have to be an idiot not to know that as I have made no secret of that fact all over this board .. I quote the great Adam Sandler ... "you really don't know how to come at me, do you?"

we believe in 3 simple things:
smaller government
lower taxes
and more personal liberties

and that is it ... and whether you will admit it or not, so do you! or are you now going to try and argue just to disagree that you are for Bigger Government, more taxation, so the government can reduce your personal liberties and control and regulate more aspects of your life?

Dry article ... please explain it to me once you have read it. http://www.yale.edu/leitner/resources/docs/2003-02.pdf


Are you serious? You cited the paper, the burden of proof is on you. Am I supposed to be impressed that you can regurgitate the URL of an economic paper?

Let me tell you something about myself. I've been an actuary my whole life. I majored in Chemistry and minored in mathematics and economics in college ( a real well-known one, mind you). There is nothing that you can tell me that would exceed my "mathematical background", since I've made my career from it.
With that being the case, you simply citing an economic paper without even having the common decency to explain it just shows how ridiculous your assertions are. Anyone can find a paper online; I could find you dozens in favor of centralization. It doesn't prove anything.
Also, go back to when I said this. "it still does not answer the question of why a central government is much worse than a decentralized one....what you have suggested so far doesn't even come close." I was spot on. None of the reasons you suggested are mentioned anywhere in your cited paper. It's obvious that you didn't even read your link through. The argument outlined in the paper admits that there is no telling the effects of a decentralized government in political situations, which is why the article mentions this:
"Even though the “generic” agency model we have chosen has limitations to study political applications (as those listed above), it has the advantage of allowing us to link with other areas of application. For instance, our results could be of some use in the theory of the firm: for instance the coordination necessary for agency control will influence the optimal ownership structure of firms, the optimal size and configuration of the firms, and therefore might affect market structures."

In other words, the article you stupidly tried to cite has fuck all to do with the issue at hand, which is the political application of a decentralized strucutre: will you or won't you get less taxation, more liberties and smaller government from the POLITICAL application of a decentralized government.

However, if this was a game, I would have give you points. The paper is sound, and does outline the more efficient allocation of public goods through the use of a decentralized government as well as increased accountability of public officials, which I didn't believe otherwise.

I am not for increasing centralization btw, I am just telling you that your assertion that a decentralized government is "much better" than a centralized one is ridiculous, especially since we here in the U.S have both systems currently implemented with mixed results. There are many provisions that are currently provided to you by your states that are really no better than the ones provided by the federal government.

Lack of Imagination? Seriously my proposals are quite imaginative and unique solution to current problems. Equivocating rhetoric? What exactly do you find ambiguous? I clearly state my thoughts. see above It is not my problem if you don't understand the argument or as I think is more likely the case pretend you don't understand the argument because the argument is solid and YOU are the one that wants to obfuscate my point. The sad thing is that we probably agree on 90% of the issues that need to happen to FIX this mess, but we won't because you will focus on the 10% where we don't agree. You're right. We do agree on most things. We differ on how to go about them however.

Corporations control the Government? ... No, as I said propaganda and foolishness ... you show a news report about Lobbyist abuses and graft in order to prove your point that Corporations really do control the Government, because this particular report happens to be about corporate lobbyists. When what you really proved was that "lobbyists" control our government. Yet, you conveniently forget all the non corporate lobbyists that counterbalance the corporate control. Namely? The point we both agree on is that WE THE PEOPLE no longer control the government. Yes. we don't. I believe it's corporations and the rich that influence politics a lot more than the common man (even if it's just one case, that's more than there should be).
You believe it's the democratically elected government that controls.....the government..... which leads me to the question: isn't the way it is supposed to be? I fail to see your point.

a short list:
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL)

National Education Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
EMILY's List (a pro-choice group for women Democrats)
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
NAACP
National Organization for Women
Handgun Control
United Auto Workers
Sierra Club (environmental group)
National Education Association
People for the America Way
Alliance for Justice (focus is on the judiciary and blocking conservative judges)
AFL-CIO (union that endorsed Kerry)
Human Rights Campaign (working for gay equal rights
South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus
Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary
ADA Watch-National Coalition for Disability Rights
American Association of University Women
Americans for Democratic Action
California La Raza Lawyers
Community Rights Council
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Endangered Species Coalition
Feminist Majority
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund MoveOn.Org
National Abortion Federation
National Black Women's Health Project
National Council of Jewish Women
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Environmental Trust
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Resources Defense Council
National Women's Law Center
Oceana Inc.
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Society of American Law TeachersWorking Assets

.....your point?

a tea party member ... you hurl that at me as if it were an insult ... and to me it is a badge of honor! you would have to be an idiot not to know that as I have made no secret of that fact all over this board .. I quote the great Adam Sandler ... "you really don't know how to come at me, do you?"

You might wanna check up on that. I've only been here 6 months. I don't know you. I was spot on.

we believe in 3 simple things:
smaller government
lower taxes
and more personal liberties

and that is it ... and whether you will admit it or not, so do you!

I'll admit it right now, I do! I also want a pet dragon. It's not going to happen.
I choose my words carefully, unlike you. When I mentioned "rhetoric" and "lack of imagination", I was using them specifically to state that you, along with an almost overwhelming majority of tea party members, have no idea about the practicality of the ideas you churn out. Yes, your ideas sound great but in name only. The way you imagine they will work out is insane, at best. Do I want less government? Of course. Do I want less taxation? Of course. Do I want the government to stop encroaching our personal liberties? Of course.


The way to go about it is not to SHUT DOWN the federal government. Yes, we need to reel it in. But we need to do the same with Local governments as well. Taxation needs to be lessened and we do need to move towards a slightly more socialist democratic system where the people decide what they want and not the politicians up in Washington. When I talk about people, I don't mean your average joe. I mean, for example, let climate scientists decide what to do about Climate change.
Let Economists decide what to do about the economy.
Let corporations (yes, I said it) decide what to do with their own industries.

The government should limit unfair practices and handle them through the judicial system. The government should provide the basic necessities in order for its citizens to survive, which includes most public goods.


Originally Posted by 5T3V3

.

. Originally Posted by shanm

Thanks for calling me an "old bitch queen". Hope it helps you some. Maybe you should try and compose shorter posts. I don't think many will read the entire thing. Oh well, guess if it helps with your anger issues, go right ahead.

By the way, here's what an "old bitch queen" looks like today. Photo taken yesterday on my computer webcam. Want to show a pic of yourself now???

The sooner you get over the idea that its not fair that you aren't super rich, and stop worrying about how much others have, the sooner you will learn to appreciate what you do have. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Unfortunately this is more complex than you suggest. The problem isn't simply rich people, it is that a very small percentage of the population (less than 1/10th of 1 percent) have accumulated a very large portion of the U.S. total wealth.

This transfer of wealth has come from the poor and middle class.

Real wages and income have gone down over the last 10 years, and a society with increasing numbers of poor people and a shrinking middle class can cause huge social problems.

1. The rich do pay their fair share. They pay their fair share, as well as my fair share, your fair share, and the fair share of many others. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

That statement is subject to debate. While the rich do pay large amounts of money in taxes, the tax rates on the rich have significantly dropped since the 1980s.

Here is a list of the U.S. Top Marginal Tax Rates:

-- 1944: 94% (for taxable income over $200,000)

-- 1950s-1970s: top rate never dipped below 70%

-- 1980s: top rate dropped to 50%, then 28% (for three years)

-- 1990s-2012: top rate jumped to 39.6%, then down to 35% in 2001

-- Current: 39.6%, then the ACA increased this to 43.4%.


I would suggest the current top rate of 43.4% is significantly lower than the boom economy of the 1950s and 1960s.

Bottom line, I think the term "fair share" is subject to debate.