What dictionary do liberals use when defining the word "fair?"?

You got it!

The way it works in pro sports is just a smaller version of the "real world." Those who take on more responsibility and are willing to constantly learn new things should make more money than the lazy slobs who show up just on time, leave exactly at 5:00, take their full 60-minute lunch, and do the bare minimum required.

This "gimme" mentality has to be stopped. These leeches are ruining America. The American dream is not living off of their neighbors' tax dollars. The American dream is having the opportunity to be successful if you're willing to work hard.

.

@Falsi - Wow. The delusion is overwhelming.

You're really going to argue over POINT three percent and call that unfair? Their marginally higher percentage is still WAY less money. AND, the rich will never see a dime of that back. They'll have way too much income to collect any retirement funds. So, in effect the poor are still paying much less for what they're getting. They're paying 15.3% and getting back a 90% return on their investment. The rich are putting in 15% and getting ZERO. The poor still win this one.

If the poor don't have to pay income taxes, then they shouldn't get to vote on where that money is spent. If you have no dog in the fight, how can you vote for what is right? You'll always vote for a bigger piece of someone else's pie.

The reason the rich don't pay more is because a lot of their income is through investments. If you punish people for investing by taxing the income even higher, they will find somewhere else to put their money, and there will be NOTHING for the poor.

Wow.

.

Taxes aren't punishment, they are just taxes.

People are paid in sports and entertainment because they make money for the franchise or entertainment industry.

That has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with ability.

And really, lets be sensible, just as less than one percent of women are physically capable of being models, which leads to the tall, bone thin woman being a scarce commodity, the six foot seven center is also physically rare, these people are paid for physical characteristics outside the norm.

You could be lean, active and very coordinated and if you are five foot six you aren't going to be a pro center either.

Intelligent people understand this, even if its made the game more boring, and don't expect to be judged in the working world for their unusual physical attributes.

At sixty-two to sixty-seven every one who has paid into Social Security, no matter how wealthy can collect up to the maximum, if they made the maximum in their last years at work.

Maximum payments are just over two thousand, three hundred a month.

I believe fair isn't that all is equal amongst everyone. If we are talking only about those handful that have made their money on their own, with no help from congress through lobbying or other corrupt methods, those individuals, when asked, believe they don't pay enough. The cheaters and scammers that have corrupted our political discourse are unfair and unethical, because they use money to screw over the poor fellow. Just because you don't know how mining poisons the free water in Eastern Kentucky, or Apple processors cause widespread murder in villages in the DR Congo for the minerals, doesn't mean unfair practices aren't at work.

Next. Is it fair for an individual to inherit millions, then turn around and call/lobby that poor people are lazy and need to work?

Is it fair that truly and factually, 1% of our nations people own 50% of the wealth? You may be told that money is invested and creates jobs, but that is only partially true.

Bottom line: In order to gain tax revenues, money has to circulate. If 90% of the nation is fighting for 10% of the money, then that is only 10% circulating and being taxed. See why we are running short on taxable revenues? Increasing taxes on the rich helps to alleviate this problem.

Furthermore, if you want to increase jobs, first increase the demand, which only and always causes an employer to hire more employees. To increase demand, how about a pay cap on certain CEO/non-founders of the company, and execs, and dividend payments all be reasonably capped, then redistribute that money TO THE EMPLOYEES. Magically, demand in all sectors will be increased, hiring will follow, problem solved.

Capping pay at 4 million for CEOs, 500k for Execs, etc... won't hurt industry in anyway, shape, or form.

Nobody is wants to punish the rich. How is it okay to pay less taxes on investments than income from working? Why do I throw the interest off of my annuity into my income pot to be taxed at the same rate as all other income when the wealthy only pay 15% of capital gains? Close the loop holes and tax all income as income. Don't protect investments just to please stock holders . Most of us do not have that opportunity. Level the playing field. Stop giving subsidies to farmers that make 750k a year. The tax laws are favoring the wealthy and the very poor. We all know it. The very poor cannot pay the bills of this country.

Here is the material from one of the dictionaries I use:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fair

fair (comparative fairer, superlative fairest)

(literary or archaic) Beautiful, of a pleasing appearance, with a pure and fresh quality.

Monday's child is fair of face.

Unblemished and innocent; clean and pure.

one's fair name

Light in color, pale, particularly as regards skin tone but also refers to blond hair.

She had fair hair and blue eyes.

Just, equitable.

He must be given a fair trial.

Adequate, reasonable, or decent.

The patient was in a fair condition after some treatment.

(nautical) Favorable to a ship's course.

(baseball) Between the baselines.

... so, yeah, there you go, I use the dictionary that doesn't associate 'fair' with 'opportunity', 'success' or social Darwinism. That's right, the dictionary I use is THE DICTIONARY! What 'dictionary' are you using, Mein Kampf?

they have their own dictionary. Fair is only define by their own selfish desires.

for example, paying one's fair share would mean that they would pay for the resources they use. That would mean that the poor has to pay alot more taxes and the rich less. of course I don't believe we should change our tax code to reflect this. We do have an obligation to help the less fortunate, but to repeat fair share, is annoying like the rich ISN'T paying far more then they use. Of course reading into the mind of the liberals, they think fair share means to tax the people better off then them until they all get Ipad is ridiculous.

When we advocate raising taxes on the top 2%, they complain about the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes. Sigh. They pay lots of taxes: Social Security, sales tax, property tax, etc.; they just don't pay any income tax. They often pay a higher percentage of their income in Social Security taxes than the wealthy pay in federal income taxes (15.3% vs 15%). Children and the disabled don't pay income taxes. Retirees are not taxed on their Social Security benefits.

The top 20% control 84% of the wealth.

The bottom 40% control 0.3% of the wealth...and many want them to pay income taxes on what little money they earn.

Liberals believe that people who make lots of money should be taxed at a rate that is AT LEAST equal to the tax rate payed by the working class.

Amen! I have been working since I was 10 years old and had my first paper route. Since then I have ALWAYS had a savings account for emergencies. I do without luxuries so that I can maintain that account and have my own safety net. I would NEVER think that some stranger who has more money than I do should have to pay my debts. It's just insane.

If people would learn to live within their means, we wouldn't have these problems. I've never met a "poor" person who did not have cable TV, video games, and other luxuries unless they were from a WORKING family.

.

The liberal definition of fair: To take from the hard working and give to the lazy to buy their votes.