Whats "Fair share" mean?

bob

bob

a member named bob
Alright its been a while since i have been here, i finaly have a lil extra time for this. But any way.

just like the title, what dose "fair share" mean?

i mean i keep hearing the rich must pay their fair share, if that was the case wouldnt they have to payy less then they already do?
 
It means they have to keep on giving more and more and more and more until the Dems tell them it is enough. Then they have to give some more.
 
bob said:
Alright its been a while since i have been here, i finaly have a lil extra time for this. But any way.

just like the title, what dose "fair share" mean?

i mean i keep hearing the rich must pay their fair share, if that was the case wouldnt they have to payy less then they already do?
Click to expand...

Good question. On a dating/relationship site someone asked, "If two people decide to co-habit and ones income is more than the other how much should each pay towards joint expenses (rent, utilities, etc.)?" The answer was each should pay an equal percentage of income.

For example, if person "A" made $4,000/mth and person "B" made $2,000/mth and expenses were $1,500/mth person "A" should pay $1,000/mth and person "B" pay $500/mth. Each would be paying 25% of their income.
 
It is interesting. There is a sense from the Wall St. protests that the rich have just gotten to be TOO rich, and that the only way to rectify that is wealth redistribution on some level.

I'm opposed to wealth distrubtion on a basic level, but it is kind of a conundrum. If you extrapolate current trends out into the future, there will be a very small group of people holding basically all of the wealth, and not that far off. As capitalist as I am, maybe those at the higher levels - at least some of them - do make TOO much, compared to the workers under them. You can say "it's what the market will bear"...but what does the market know? We talk like there is an intelligence to the market, but there isn't. If our current system is set up so that just a few people do have all of the wealth...isn't that something to re-examine?

Not sure what the answers are. I'm still opposed to wealth redistribution as a principle, but I'm also concerned about the trends.
 
Onceler said:
It is interesting. There is a sense from the Wall St. protests that the rich have just gotten to be TOO rich, and that the only way to rectify that is wealth redistribution on some level.

I'm opposed to wealth distrubtion on a basic level, but it is kind of a conundrum. If you extrapolate current trends out into the future, there will be a very small group of people holding basically all of the wealth, and not that far off. As capitalist as I am, maybe those at the higher levels - at least some of them - do make TOO much, compared to the workers under them. You can say "it's what the market will bear"...but what does the market know? We talk like there is an intelligence to the market, but there isn't. If our current system is set up so that just a few people do have all of the wealth...isn't that something to re-examine?

Not sure what the answers are. I'm still opposed to wealth redistribution as a principle, but I'm also concerned about the trends.
Click to expand...

shat, i agree with onceler
 
apple0154 said:
Good question. On a dating/relationship site someone asked, "If two people decide to co-habit and ones income is more than the other how much should each pay towards joint expenses (rent, utilities, etc.)?" The answer was each should pay an equal percentage of income.

For example, if person "A" made $4,000/mth and person "B" made $2,000/mth and expenses were $1,500/mth person "A" should pay $1,000/mth and person "B" pay $500/mth. Each would be paying 25% of their income.
Click to expand...


Excellent....Apple...thats what makes you a pinhead....

How about buying a qt. milk.....person a pays $4.00 a qt. and person B pays $2.00 a qt.....?.....
or a new car...a would pay 20,000 dollars and b would pay 10,000 dollars.....
obviously, liberalism is a fuckin' mental illness.....

AAaahhhh liberals.....if it wasn't for liberals, Psychiatry would be a dead science.....
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
It is interesting. There is a sense from the Wall St. protests that the rich have just gotten to be TOO rich, and that the only way to rectify that is wealth redistribution on some level.

I'm opposed to wealth distrubtion on a basic level, but it is kind of a conundrum. If you extrapolate current trends out into the future, there will be a very small group of people holding basically all of the wealth, and not that far off. As capitalist as I am, maybe those at the higher levels - at least some of them - do make TOO much, compared to the workers under them. You can say "it's what the market will bear"...but what does the market know? We talk like there is an intelligence to the market, but there isn't. If our current system is set up so that just a few people do have all of the wealth...isn't that something to re-examine?

Not sure what the answers are. I'm still opposed to wealth redistribution as a principle, but I'm also concerned about the trends.
Click to expand...


It would make sense that you would also feel that people can be TOO happy or TOO healthy or TOO honest......it would make sense....

Yeah.....I have too much money, I get too much sex, and my clothes are just too clean....

Pinhead logic at its best......
 
apple0154 said:
Good question. On a dating/relationship site someone asked, "If two people decide to co-habit and ones income is more than the other how much should each pay towards joint expenses (rent, utilities, etc.)?" The answer was each should pay an equal percentage of income.

For example, if person "A" made $4,000/mth and person "B" made $2,000/mth and expenses were $1,500/mth person "A" should pay $1,000/mth and person "B" pay $500/mth. Each would be paying 25% of their income.
Click to expand...

No...... It's 50% of the expenses each.
 
bravo said:



Excellent....Apple...thats what makes you a pinhead....

How about buying a qt. milk.....person a pays $4.00 a qt. and person B pays $2.00 a qt.....?.....
or a new car...a would pay 20,000 dollars and b would pay 10,000 dollars.....
obviously, liberalism is a fuckin' mental illness.....

AAaahhhh liberals.....if it wasn't for liberals, Psychiatry would be a dead science.....
Click to expand...

I was just passing along info from a dating site. What's your idea of "fair share"?
 
apple0154 said:
Good question. On a dating/relationship site someone asked, "If two people decide to co-habit and ones income is more than the other how much should each pay towards joint expenses (rent, utilities, etc.)?" The answer was each should pay an equal percentage of income.

For example, if person "A" made $4,000/mth and person "B" made $2,000/mth and expenses were $1,500/mth person "A" should pay $1,000/mth and person "B" pay $500/mth. Each would be paying 25% of their income.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that the bottom 49% are not paying their share? I agree.

Do you realize to apply this, everybody would pay the same tax rate?
 
apple0154 said:
I was just passing along info from a dating site. What's your idea of "fair share"?
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
So, you are saying that the bottom 49% are not paying their share? I agree.

Do you realize to apply this, everybody would pay the same tax rate?
Click to expand...

Thats what liberals don't get....."EQUAL TREATMENT under the law"......

the foundation of the US Constitution....the foundation of the United States.....

If we all give 10% of our income to the gov....thats equal treatment...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top