Common Sense

Cavuto: The definition of 'fair share' keeps changing

It's time for the rich to pay their fair share.

How many times have you heard that from liberals?

That the rich have gotten a free ride, and the free ride is over.

So the president ended that free ride a couple of years ago by hiking their taxes.

Returning them to a top rate of 39.6 percent, from 35 percent.

"Now they'll be paying their fair share," the president said or something like that.

But the truth is, he wasn't done with that. Or with raising taxes on them.

After all, big healthcare laws don't come cheap so guess who he socked first to foot the bill?

Yep those greedy, rich SOB's who were forced to pay still more in Medicare taxes and related fees.

Add those up, and the top rate got closer to 45 percent.

So I'm thinking to myself, "Now, the rich are paying their fair share."

Apparently not.

Because the president's at it again proposing they now pay more in capital gains taxes and estate taxes.

And all in the name of paying "their fair share in taxes."

So what will that "fair share" be now?

50 percent? 55 percent? 60 percent?

And I'm not even including state and local taxes that easily add 10 points to that back to "this."

What "is" a fair share in taxes?

Congressman Charlie Rangel once reminded me the top rate used to be 90 percent so, quoting here, "we have a long way to go, Neil"

To go where, congressman?

Back to that rate?

Back to nine out of ten dollars earned going to Washington for god knows what?

That's fair?

Tell me who shares?

The people you say need it or those feeding at the trough who live off it, and leverage off it and bribe off it.

It's pretty clear what you think of the rich.

But I find it a bit rich you do love their money.

If only liberals were as creative saving dough as they were and are raising dough.

But they're not.

God forbid they should cool it.

When they can follow us to our graves, and now their heirs' graves to get every last dollar from us.