TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:26 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:11 am As far as taxes, "fair share" is pretty obvious. You pay a share equal to what you are receiving. If you and I go out to lunch, paying our "fair share" would mean paying for what we each ate.

Our ruling class sees it a bit differently though: You and one of the elites go to lunch, the elite has lobster, Filet Mignon and a $300 bottle of wine, you have a $1.00 hamburger and a glass of water. You pay the elite's lunch tab, your own and the tip.

Yes. I always get a kick out of the likes of Obama squealing about people not paying their "fair share". When you have 1% of the population paying 40% of all the taxes, the only rational argument is that lower income folks are the ones not paying their "fair share". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a family of four who only makes $30,000 a year should pay $24,000 in taxes. I pay much more than my family's "fair share" and I am perfectly OK with that. I just wish that people wouldn't try to make me feel bad for doing so.

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson from "A few good men", I just wish they would say 'thank you' and go on their way.

OneGun wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:00 am What is "Fair"?? What is fair in a home invasion? When it comes to taxes, we hear the phrase "Fair Share". What is the definition of "Fair Share"?

The only place I find "Fair" is in the dictionary. In life, not a darn thing is fair.

As far as taxes, "fair share" is pretty obvious. You pay a share equal to what you are receiving. If you and I go out to lunch, paying our "fair share" would mean paying for what we each ate. For sake of argument, let's assume that we all, more or less, get roughly the same benefit from government services. The government raised $1.977 Trillion dollars in individual income taxes in 2018. There are approximately 325 million people in the U.S. That means your "fair share" is $6,083 per person. For a family of four, that's right around $24,000 per year.

I am always amused at people who think that any aspect of life should be "fair". This misguided notion is behind the mentality that government should intervene to ensure "fair" results, and other truly dangerous ideas, IMHO. Not sure where this misguided notion originates, though I believe participation trophies are a likely culprit.

But for the sake of argument, if we define "fair" as both sides having an equal chance to prevail (let's say that being "not dead" at the end = "prevailing" for purposes of this example), then here is my math.

Start with: Defender knows the battlefield better than the attackers
Divided by: Attackers outnumber defender 3:1
Multiplied by: Defender is better armed
Subtract: Attackers get to choose the time and place of the battle

So if we carry the one, my math says that the answer is .......... "fair enough".