"Perhaps they would also like to return to 90 percent top tax rates... or even the later 70 percent rates that also helped level the playing field in a crony capitalist America that redistributed wealth upwards."

At the same time, should rates for the lowest quintile go back to historical rates as well? When taxes were higher than 90% for the top income earners, they were better than 20% on the lowest income earners. You also seem to be forgetting that the revenues collected during this timeframe didn't go to prop up underproductive members of society, they went to defending the country against the Soviet Union. A cost perceived as being necessary at the time by all income earners.

"The last 40 years of lower top rates has again redistributed wealth upwards while rwingers still think it flows in the opposite direction."

YGBSM. Tax rates on the least productive members of society are lower than they ever have been. In addition to that, we have a federal government that will ensure that you enjoy a very high standard of living, regardless of whether you contribute to society or not.

The oddest thing about this article was that it was on the Huffington Post. The screener must not have been doing their job.

"Our problems are basically that FDR is too far in the past and his lessons are now discounted. Now we let the folks whose philosophy caused the Great Depression and later the great bursting housing bubble of 08 still have credibility, we do so at our own peril. They were full of bad word long ago and they are full of bad word today."

Many of FDR's initiatives would be ignored today. The difference between the and now is the presence of a willing workforce. They were willing because they understood it was key to their survival. If you are an American today, you can receive a reasonably high standard of living, and not do anything at all.

Consider the CCC. If you were replicate that program today, it would be an abject failure. The CCC was created to serve as an employer of last resort. It provided food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and a stipend of about $400 a month (2011 dollars). You can make waay more than that on public benefits, and do nothing at all.

"I am sure that you have a link to that gem."

Does this work for you?

"Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax. The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.)"

In fact, progressives typically throw a temper tantrum any time that it is suggested that the bottom 50% pay their fair share. Or pay anything at all, for that matter.

"No? Then its only part of what I was talking about."

Maybe it would be easier if you were to simply point out which taxes, used to fund the federal government, that poor people pay.

"Nope, that is still total BS."

Are you going to share with the class why you feel that is total BS? Or are we to take your wiord as gospel?

Or, deep down, do you know you are wrong?

""Fair share."
How much would that be?"

Everyone is goping to have their own ideas. Mine would be a flat tax, whereby every american pays the same percentahe, up to the point where doing so would drop nthem below the poverty line. So if the tax were 10%, if paying 10% dropped you below the PL, then you would pay a lower amount that wopuld leave you above it.

If you needed to, this could, and might should be augmented with a national sales tax on durable goods. TVs, cars, telephones, etc.

"That you are trying to move the goalposts now proves that you know you are wrong."

This argument has been rehashed time and time again, Perhaps you missed it the first ten rounds, but the federal tax in question that roughly half do not pay is federal income tax. Not payroll taxes, which everybody pays, or state imposed sales taxes, which everybody pays. Federal. Income. Tax.

And for that, there is no debate.

"Is the purpose of an economy to make a few individuals wealthy or to enrich society as a whole?"

The "economy" has no purpose. It is a reflection of the collective consumption habits of society. The "economy" can't make anyone rich or poor. Society does that. And when society does something that progressives dislike (like making the wrong people rich), then government steps in to remedy the problem.

"I haven't "proven" my point because I'm not your daddy and won't spoon feed you information that you should know before opening your yap in the first place. You haven't proven your point because you're a fool who is wrong."

YOU haven't proven your point because you don't have a point to prove. There may be some odd, obscure tax out there, imposed at the federal level, that everyone pays regardless of whether they are in the top 50% of income earners or bottom 50%, but nothing significant. And I don't think that exists.

"LOL! Compared to him you and the Left today are Communists! LOL!!!"

Communists expected people to work. And if you didn't work, you didn't eat. Western progressives, on the other hand, have created a system that encourages people to not work, and not only do they eat fine, but they enjoy a standard of living in excess of most Russians who do work.

"They call it the payroll tax / Social Security tax and it is only paid on earned income, not carried interest or dividends or gains. This outrageous inequity is never told by the MSM that are owned by those elites who benefit while pillaging us."

The amount you receive as benefits from social security are directly dependent on how much you paid in. So I'm not sure how your argument is relevant. If I am only making money from interest, I don't pay anything into SS. Therefore I won't ever qualify for benefits. That's not a problem to me. I don't know enough about medicare to speak smartly on it, but I suspect it's a similar situation. It should be

You are pointing out a symptom. That will get you nowhere. If this is something you care about, you solve the problem by addressing the root cause.

Over the last 30 years, globalization of the marketplace has resulted in increased competition for low/unskilled labor, which results in lower wages for those workers. At the same time, the US economy has transitioned to a service-based economy that relies on high skilled workers and entrepreneurs, driving higher wages for these individuals. In the 1970s, having a college degree might have earned you a 5%-10% premium over someone who didn't have a degree. Now a college degree will earn you about double what a high school graduate makes. Have a graduate degree and it's about three times as much.

So there you have it. The way ahead for low income earners to improve their wages is to get a skill. Of course the big problem with this method is that it requires some initiative on the part of the low income worker. Progressives will promise them higher wages while asking noting in return. Other than a vote.

The poor are already undertaxed. Are you suggesting that the least productive workers, in one form or another be subsidized through force by those that are more productive?