Republicans like to talk about fair.

Fair is relative. If the richest have to pay 35% of their income in taxes, so should the poorest… Fair is fair…

Using all the same principals of logic that argument can be turned around on its ear…..

If the income for the top 1% grew by 275% since Reagan took the bible on the capitol steps, so should the income of the bottom quintile be raised 275%… After all, fair is fair…

The more astute of you already know that that would be impossible. Someone making $16,000 in 1979 would at a 275% raise, now be at $60,000. That would be great but probably not realistic for someone employed say as a grave digger.

A more applicable way to interpret fair is fair is to peg the amount earned by a percentage at the top, to that percentage earned at the bottom…

The growth for the 20% at the bottom was roughly 18%….

So everything at the top, over 18%, gets handed over in the form of taxes.

The way to make more money is to invest wisely, and have the lowest quintile, make more money….

Or put another way, whatever it is that the percentage of the lowest quintile has of disposable income, after meeting all mandatory and necessary expenses, that same percentage should also be what the upper income gets to keep, after paying taxes.

If someone making $16,000 has $2000 left after expenses, then that same percentage (12.5%) applies to someone who earned 160 billion, and he gets to keep after taxes take their bite, all $20 million.

After all, fair is fair…