what are they arguing about in Wisconsin??

Wow...of the ten richest members of Congress, seven are Democrats.
Who would have thought?

How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?

Oh, come on - zero sum again - that's rich.

I wonder if Father Jones knows about all this.

The ones ... uh, er, the one-in-a-thousand's who 'make' (not to say 'earn') the bulk of money only pay 7% (or 14% if 'self-employed') Soc.Sec.withholding on the first $100,000. The other $900,000 of the first million is SocialSecurity taxFREE.

So's the next millions.

Mainly why Social Security is supposedly going bankrupt (the incomer 'earners' are not contributing normal fair share) . . .

Would probably have more impact if the publication these appeared in hadn't blown its credibility during the last 10 years with an extended, acute case of BDS.

SS was, and is, supposed to be a safety net for seniors. Paid into during working years to provide a minimum level of support during one's final non-working years.
If Tensk et al think it should be just another across the board tax on all income for redistribution then why keep it separate from the income tax at all?
Of course that would result in an enormous tax increase for the wealth & job creators. How would that be a good thing? And what is to be done with those proceeds? Handed over to low and middle income earners?
Nearly half of the citizenry pays no federal income tax as it is.
So what is the magic Tensk formula?
And why is it that the left sees so much injustice in the contrast between the wage earner and those who have earned, invested and acquired more?
The scale is dramatic but the road to the many inbalances varries greatly.
There's differences in a single workplace where one employee excells and another does not. Is that also an injustice? Exaclty how, and to what extent, can "society" impose equality?

Phil Knight owns a vast network of job and earnings entities covering the full spectrum of society inequality. From the foreign factory worker to the VP in charge of operations and major stockholders.

What is the left's ultimate objective? To tax all of the upper earners within his empire a bit more in order to accomodate the government mission creep? And that through this pursuit the goverment will be able to be more things to more people? Or to just hand it over to Sam Adams, Randy Leonard & Rex Burkholder politcians because they'll spend it in better ways?

Of course that would result in an enormous tax increase for the wealth & job creators.

Wealth does NOT create jobs! Demand for goods and services creates jobs, and that demand is highest when people at the lower end of the income scale have more money to spend. The extreme concentration of wealth we are now seeing does not benefit anyone -- not even the wealthy.

Nearly half of the citizenry pays no federal income tax as it is.

The income tax was originally intended to be levied solely on the rich. The top marginal rate was 81 percent in 1955, compared to 36 percent now. The fact that fully 50 percent of the population now pays it is further evidence that those at the top income brackets are getting a better tax deal now than at any time since the income tax began.

I said the wealth and job creators. As in the creators of wealth and jobs.
Is it your contention that jobs create themselves simply because of demand?

The extreme concentraton of wealth is the result of an open ended system that promises no limits to what one can accomplish.

You seem to believe that the concentraton is soley from an unjust system that limits the lower end and rewards the high end? Or that the high end results from taking from the rest?

Investment and venture capital creates jobs. Without it no jobs are created.

Perhaps you can give ma an example of someon creating jobs without investment?