Let´s cut to it. For "progressives", the "fair share" of asset confiscation for the greedy, evil rich is 100%. Of course, this only applies to rich Republicans. So the next step is to exempt Democrats, and I´m sure the schemes to do this will be very creative.

The other question that needs to be asked, is what is a ´fair share´ for every citizen? When over 40% pay NOTHING and get something back, how is that ´fair´?

The left has thrown a slow pitch, but the Republicans keep stepping away from the plate. We can focus on the top 1-2%, but is it ´fair´ that almost half the country pays less than nothing for the benefits they receive?

There has to be a movement to require everyone to ´have skin in the game´. It shouldn´t be that hard- the left has given ample ammunition and verbiage to use against them. Now, if only there were Republicans that knew how to use it.

It makes one miss Breitbart; He was a fearless warrior for Conservatism.

The end game here will be to drain all assets from anyone who is in a position to invest in new productive enterprises. You need capital - money to build the facilities to produce the things we want and need. When government tries to do this they are wasteful and pick only loosers as Obama showed. His green investments were wasted. The efficient way to make these decisions is to have people who play with their own money. They make mistakes sometimes but much less often than government hacks who play with other peoples money. Taxing the rich is a way to cut off all future productive investments and leave everyone much poorer. There is one of the arguments that the timid republicans are afraid to make. We need leadershipl The left has its leadership in Obama stirring up envy and jealousy against any financial inequality. The "rich" don´t consume all their wealth personally, they invest most of it in ways that benefit others more than government spending. When all this capital is spent on the daily needs of the poor nothing is invested in the future and everybody is in a downward spiral to real grinding poverty. Where is the leader who will teach these truths as often as Obama plays his class envy card?

Has anyone actually asked Obama how much money ´taxing the rich´ will bring in? I´d like to hear what he would say.

When will the liberals do their fair share of work and responsibility?

When will all democrats, John Kerry, Tim Geitner, Charlie Rangle, Nancy Pelosi, the Clinton´s, those who pay no income tax, pay their fair share?

Obama´s objective has been to harm the wealthy class, which also happens to be the hiring class, and what he sows, we shall reap and reap and reap. So we reap a permanently unemployed class which we must subsidize.

Why, you might ask, do we have such persistent high unemployment rates going into Obama´s fifth year? Because what he did didn´t work, and wasn´t intended to work, but just to reinforce his own belief that what he did was justified by class warfare.

And we´ll continue to pay the bill and suffer the consequences until ???

For me the first point to address is the "carried interest" mentioned in the article. The loophole by which buffet and other hedge fund owners pay capital gains rates on the personal services rendered to their investors.

So these jerks get taxed at cap gains rates while they argue that personal services rates should go up.

They get capital gains rates and don´t have to put up any capital!! They just get a share of the increase of their investors´ capital!

Apparently teleprompter doesn´t want too much justice.

There is only one part of all this fair share crap that I agree with. Why should a working man pay higher taxes on ´earned income´ than an investor? Capital gains are currently taxed at 15%...I´d love to have that as a maximum tax for anyone...15% and ZERO deductions! But that is a pipe dream with Libs in control. So why not raise capital gains taxes to the exact same level as a working man/woman´s wage taxes?...and what about Social Security and Medicare? No it´s not about investing and returning that money to create jobs, that´s the canard...Now I´d favor the lower tax if the same money was reinvested in jobs but if the investor takes it offshore or puts in their pocket, tax the same as working folks!

ps. And there should be a minimum tax of 10% on EVERYONE...no freeloaders!

The lib mantra is "Government needs more revenue, so we have to raise tax rates." For that to be true, one would have to have the following premises: 1) raising tax rates raises revenue--which is demonstably false since revenue increased with the "Bush" tax cuts and 2) that government is functioning at a 100% efficiently. That it is using its current revenue without a bit of waste. Since I believe that government is at best 50% wasteful(and more likely 100% wasteful) I don´t agree with their mantra.

The 47% of takers seem to be doing a good job of consuming our fair share....

A flat tax of the same amount on everyone with no deductions would be a step in the right direction. The one improvement on this would be a sales tax on everything that is sold. The libs are going to propose this soon and we should let them have it as long as the marxist income tax is scrapped at the same time. Income tax opens the door for the class warfare which we now see tearing the country apart. A sales tax is a tax on consumption while an income tax is a tax on productivity. When you tax something you get less of it so we are now getting less productivity and more consumption. This can only end in civil strife! The only tax allowed in the original constitution was a sales tax applicable to everybody and not subject to political whim. The founders were much wiser than todays hack politicians. Let us implement their policies before it is too late!

Am I correct that all the media conglomerates screaming ´FAIR SHARE!, FAIR SHARE!´ in fact pay NO TAXES themselves, under the ´sacred´ idea of Freedom of the Press? (cue the choir of angels).
What about ´asking´ (that is, demanding) ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes/WaPo Inc pay ITS FAIR SHARE!

Just a thought from a redneck down South.

Answer to #9: The investor should pay lower taxes on interest income than the worker pays on earned income,because the first guy already paid tax on the money in income tax as he earned it.

I like what Peter Schiff had to say.

Peter Schiff: "First of all, I´m in the top two percent. Right now, I´m paying 45% of my total income in income taxes, both to the state of Connecticut and to the federal government, and if you take the 3% Medicare tax. After the tax hikes go into effect next year, more than half -- more than half of my total income is going to go to the government. You tell me, what´s fair about that when medieval serfs pay 25%, I´m paying half? I don´t care what the majority voted to do, they don´t have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it... You know what the wealthy are going to do? They´re going to invest more abroad, they´re not going to work as hard, they´re not going to pay as much in taxes, they´re not going to employ as many people. Their employees are going to pay all the taxes."