The $600 hammer is a myth. It was an artifact of a now-abandoned accounting system that distributed the cost of a weapons system equally among all of its parts. So, if you had a million dollar gizmo and a $1 dust cover, it would show up in the books as two parts that cost $500,000.50 each. They don't do it that way anymore. See James Q. Wilson, _Bureaucracy_.

I don't know. I heard on MSNBC that Goldberg once took a puppy and beat a kitten to death with it. In front of a baby.

And add the tens of thousands of talented men and women who make sometimes extravagant sums of money as tax lawyers, accountants and IRS agents. I don't want to subsidize them either, by paying higher prices, in their leeching off an absurd tax code. Adopt a flat tax. Let the tax-absurdity profiteers do work more positive than moving bricks from one pile to another.

Looks like Obama touched a nerve. Honestly, if Obama wasn't making rich people on the right angry, he wouldn't be doing his job properly.

The problem isn't that the top 1% are paying 38% of taxes. The problem is that they are taking so much of our nation's income (the reason for the 38% figure). The only reason that this inequality is still considered acceptable (by anyone not in the 10% libertarian contingent) is because Americans don't believe it occurs. Sure, the top tenth of a percent have increased their income sixfold over the past 30 years, while the median wage has actually declined in real terms. But if you tell this to a voter (even most Republican voters), they won't believe it. They literally do not believe one of the political parties could be that bad.

That is the central problem in our politics right now. The entire Republican position is the exact opposite of the vast majority of the people's positions (and even most Republican voter's positions). But it is so off that no one actually believes any political party could be that bad. If the Republicans decide they can't help themselves, the debt ceiling may be the forcing event America needs to see clearly the differing visions between the parties. It will allow them to compare which vision they like: the one after August 2nd, or the one before?

Eric:

You're spot on. The percent of taxes paid by any income group in and of itself doesn't tell us much. We need to compare it to the percent of income earned by that group to see if they're out of whack. The only data I've found so far is from the mid-2000's, so recent but not current.

Not only do the "rich" in America pay a greater share of the taxes than they earn of the income, but the progressivity of the U.S. tax system is greater than any of the OECD members on this chart (External Link ). And this is after the Bush tax cuts. So, it seems as if the "rich" are already paying their "fair share."

BZZZT! Wrong!

The increase in the share of income tax revenue paid by "the rich" - defined any way you like - has increased MORE than their share of total income has increased. This even holds when you throw in all federal taxes including payroll. The rich in the aggregate tax picture have not been carrying less of the load, they've been carrying MORE.

There is literally no version of this tired-*ss talking point of yours that holds up to scrutiny. The "fair share" is being paid, by any standard. In continuing to harp on it, you guys are simply insisting on MORE.

There are a myriad of reasons the top earners have seen their incomes grow disproportationately to the middle class, ranging from changes in the tax code that made it preferrable for biz owners to report as individuals rather than C-corps, External Link  , to the growing portion of employee compensation that constitutes non-cash benefits like health insurance, to immigration, demographic, and economic trends that have been unfolding for decades. External Link 

But it is NOT because one political party conspired to coddle Daddy Warbucks and screw Joe Sixpack.

It's amazing how upset liberals get when confronted with the fact that there are people in the world who are more successful than they are.

There first response is to lash out and punish someone.

Do you know what would be fair ?

if Obama only spent what we sent to him ...

I'd accept a 100 billion dollar tax hike if he would only spend what the government takes in ...

How is that for fair Presentdent Obama ?

Where did I say that "successful" people mooch off government? I mean, it is indeed true, but I didn't make that argument.

The reason you assumed I did is that you assumed that it is somehow OK to consider a no-government anarchist world to be a legitimate baseline (with any deviations from that baseline to be "mooching").

When you take that baseline and chuck it in the trash, things make more sense. Sure, society accepts plenty of inequality. But the reason for this isn't to preserve "freedom" (as the 10% libertarian contingent defines the term). It is because IF the benefits of inequality "trickle down," society is better off for it, and is willing to make the trade-off.

But it is an entirely different ball game when the permitting of extreme inequality does NOT trickle down, as has been the case over the past 30 years. One (at least temporary) solution for this is a strong social safety net, but Republicans want to eliminate that too.

Republicans are going about it all wrong. They think that a strong social safety net and less inequality are threats to free markets. But in reality, the only reason we have a market economy in the first place is BECAUSE of the government adjustments made to it (like a social safety net). Republicans better hope the benefits of a market economy trickle down (with the benefit of a safety net, less inequality, etc), since that is the only hope that their favored economic system (and mine, in general terms) can be politically sustained in the first place.