To simplify, "Does the government have the right to raise taxes on the rich and give the benefit of the raises to the poor?"

The argument for those in favor of making the raises is, "The wealthy business owners and property owners have so many benefits that apply only to them already it is only ‘fair’ they have a higher tax than the rest of the taxpayers."

The argument for those against such increases is, "The wealthiest one percent of taxpayers already pay thirty seven percent of the overall tax bill for all Americans. Is it fair to increase their taxes, particularly when nearly fifty-one per cent of tax-payers have no tax liability at all?"

Somehow, the so-called one percent, as defined by the administration in power, thinks the one-percent category reaches all the way down to those people making a million dollars or more. I’m a little confused on that one considering what those same people are saying, the middle class tax-payers will benefit from this extended depth of reach for tax revenues. I would ask, " Isn’t broadening of the top one-percent going to put the average taxpayer into closer reach of the revenue search engine?" Meaning, the new top of the middle income bracket will now be closer to the administration’s guidelines for revenue to be taxed at a higher rate. It seems to me the middle class is now in danger of becoming too wealthy to keep paying a lower rate. So soon they themselves will find they have been targeted as doing so well they can afford to pay the government more money.

Interesting. Using that logic, "wouldn’t it make sense that some more people in the fifty- one percent bracket, not now paying taxes, should be asked to move up to fill the void being created of people ready to pay taxes but not now paying?"

There is a question here that seems to go begging for an answer because of the way the so-called doctrine of fairness is being presented. The people being asked to make a defense would seem to be, logically, the top one-percenters, whose category is being enlarged. But, the people who are future targets don’t seem to have their say as to who they are more concerned about. First, those at the bottom, whose numbers keep growing, oddly, and will likely grow again, in order to broaden the base of the people who have a stake in keeping such a benevolent government in office which wants their vote to keep taxing the wealthier taxpayers so they will be able to continue not paying a share at all. Or second, the taxpayers at the top who the administration wants the middle-class income payers to continue to dwell on since those not paying taxes are certainly not a concern because they don’t make enough to pay any taxes.

As somebody who has been at both ends and the middle of the income scale, I smell something not very palatable. Call me weird but doesn’t this sound just a little like playing both ends against the middle? Who is the real target here and what is the goal of the current administration?

Look, I’m not happy about athletes and entertainers raking in millions for one movie or one-year contracts to perform, I don’t have too much good to say about the CEO who buys a company and then sells off any usable assets and then puts the company into bankruptcy while using his golden parachute to glide to a mega-million dollar landing for himself. But, I also know that some of those people took huge risks, either with their own money or some backers who saw some potential in what they were doing, and in some cases they could have suffered a failure that might have ended their careers and their ability to earn in the future. It’s the nature of the beast.