Thought I'd also add this:

If someone's living on $17000 somehow -- the $25000 can live without $21 a month. If someone's living on $12000, the $17000 can live without the extra $14 per day. Etc. When someone says "fair share", I cringe people so many pay zero. Paying zero is not fair. My complete tax burden every year is around 40%-50% (between state, local, property, and fed) of my yearly income. I become REALLY testy when it approaches and passes 50%.

I know exactly how much every dollar I have means to me -- and I've crawled up from literally nothing to what I have now (which isn't anything special).

No. You create a system that forces them to be dependent -- then you take THAT away and they'll come for your heads. When someone votes for someone who supports Federal Program "X" -- yet pays no Federal taxes, he has no incentive to question if "X" is REALLY needed and how it will get funded.

What you have here is a system where people, as you say, are on public assistance more and more. And the money to pay for it is getting less and less. Seriously, if you confiscate ALL wealth in the US, do you REALLY think that would solve the problem? You;ll buy yourself an extra few years -- and devastate the economy doing it. Remember -- the net worth of the 400 wealthiest people in the US adds up to ~$1 trillion. That would BARELY pay for one year of overspending (if we did about 200 million in cuts). Good luck next year grabbing the next 400's wealth...it'll be a small FRACTION of that.

As someone who HAD the chickenpox as an adult, I ended up in the hospital with lesions on my lungs and most of my mucosal tissue. I had them under my eyelids, on the bottoms of my feet, under my toe nails -- in fact, there was just one place I did *NOT* have them -- and for that I am eternally grateful.

Actually, while I was sick with them (106 fever), I saw on the news the NEW Chickenpox vaccine announced. I threw my shoe at the TV.

They ARE dangerous and potentially deadly.

"I'm willing to bet you've never made anywhere near as low as $25,000 in your adult life, otherwise you'd know what $250 means to them."

You would lose that bet. I've even been homeless.

"The poorer people who don't pay any income taxes are overwhelmingly residence of red states and congressional districts."

Is this REALLY an argument about Republicans vs. Democrats? I don't see it. I see it a FISCAL conservatives vs. FISCAL liberals. How do they SPEND the money? I don't really care much how a block of people vote on social issues right now -- the question SHOULD be "how will they spend our money" and "how can they best LIFT people OUT of government dependance"? Give me ANYBODY, democrat, republican, libertarian -- I don't care -- who will get EVERYONE invested in the system and spend OUR money responsibly.

I also question your statement on it's face.

"We cannot forget that one of the main reasons we have a deficit is due to the huge tax breaks provided to the very wealthy"

Really? And not the fact that SPENDING grew beyond what the government brought in year after year? You also might want to check the how much the Fed brought in each year -- and you'll find it's pretty much more than the previous year on virtually ALL accounts. Then check how much government SPENDING increased. You have some interesting "main reasons". I see that one of the "main reasons" we have a deficit is that we've spent more than we bring in at incredible rate. Am I wrong?

"evryone IS taxed."

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- this was a TFA was in regards to a federal program -- I was talking about federal income tax specifically.

I have little issue with contribution of state income taxes to state budgets -- other than in my case (California) relies far too heavily on the wealthy -- which in a down economy necessarily will dramatically lower what a State has estimated -- and/or have the wealthy move out of state completely (both of which have heavily impacted CAs budget).

"The only reason those that pay no FEDERAL INCOME tax (and that's the percentage you're citing) is because they don't make enough. They're either unemployed, or unemployable (disabled, illness, whatever)."

From my perspective, the only VALID reason to pay no FEDERAL INCOME tax is that they have no INCOME. People shouldn't get more back as a tax RETURN than they actually pay in taxes. People should also only be able to reduce their tax burden down to a mandated MINIMUM. Not ZERO or NEGATIVE (where they get money back).

Even if you make $1, you should pay 1%. One penny. If you make $25,000, you should pay 1% (right now it's zero -- and often they get more money BACK than they actually PAID). That comes to 250 per year, or about $21 a month. Get them invested in the system.

Now, lets go back to having EVERYONE participate in the system -- a system everyone already can VOTE for people who spend public money, but only about half of us actually CONTRIBUTE to the public pie. THAT is fairness incarnate!

"It is also the wealthy who benefit dramatically from the Federal Government (especially the legal and commerce systems, transportation, etc), both directly and indirectly... not to mention the police that are protecting their wealth."

That statement is SUCH a cop out. It's EVERYONE who EATS FOOD who benefit dramatically from the Federal Government (ESPECIALLY the legal and commerce systems -- and PARTICULARLY transportation). You just try to find food in Los Angeles or New York city if the legal system breaks down -- or the transport system breaks down -- or the ability to move/buy/sell goods breaks down.

WE ALL benefit dramatically from the system. We should ALL be vested in the system at SOME minimal level.

"What percentage of the total pie of income does that 46% who pay no taxes make?"

Riddle me this, Blindman:

What percentage of that 46% who pay no taxes would have voted differently had they been paying to the system even a MINIMUM of 1% of their income? And what if that 1% were tied to the highest tax bracket at a 1:5 ratio such that if you want to raise the highest tax bracket from 35% to 45%, you'd need to raise the lowest from 1% to 3%?

Think of how the masses might yowl for more responsible government spending and vote for people who enforced the spending of their money. Think of how differently this huge voting block might vote if it meant THEIR taxes would go up so they could get "more stuff".

Taxing the "rich" more fairly shouldn't cause us to ignore taxing EVERYONE at SOME rate so we're ALL invested in the system.

"In the civilian world, if you have meetings every day, it's because your boss or some other important idiot is a bottleneck in the process and they need daily reinforcement of common sense, at the expense of department productivity."

We used to have a weekly meeting that would last between 1-2 hours with the big cheese which were usually quite detailed. The remainder of the week consisted of a quick daily "stand up" meeting outside the building (or in the lunch room in bad weather) -- which we called a "huddle" which did *NOT* include the big cheese. Those rarely lasted 5 mins and consisted of signing in and quickly noting if there were any issues that needed addressing or quick updates on projects. We were expected to be at at least 2 of those a week and they were very informal.

Those "stand ups" weren't bad or unproductive. It was 10 mins out of my day (figure time to walk outside, signing and back + the meeting). I wouldn't say they were HELPFUL most of the time -- but it DID give me a better feeling of what's going on outside of my department and how the "bits and pieces" fit together. Knowing that really helps figure out what someone NEEDS/WANTS then they ask you for something -- and to target the right questions for clarification. I'd say that those 5 min meetings probably saved me a good 1-3 hours of email reading/sending a week (totally guesstimating here, but I think I'm spot on).

But the company was sold and I ended up in corporate hell (hell might be too strong a word -- maybe corporate purgatory)... Now I spend 10-15 hours a week between meetings and conf calls.

"Look, the subhuman waste called Rupert Murdoch owns the Journal."

Sorry. After that sentence I stopped reading and moved on. Just as I would if "Murdoch" was replaced with "Soros". I just don't trust the opinion/remarks of anyone who believes in evil world destroying puppet masters trying to destroy the world...