The Republicans, especially Mitt Romney, have said people like myself are envious of their wealth because many feel those that are super rich don't pay 'their fair share' in taxes. People like to put things in little catch phrases so when the word 'fair share' is used, even when it has been defined it can be argued what it really means. With the SOTU address, 'fair share' is being changed to “The Buffett Rule.' The rule proposes money over a million dollars gets taxed at 30%, which is the highest percentage rate on the tax scale, and is the rate Americans pay that make about $250000 on the scale. As many economist and tax experts have pointed out, with the tax code the way it is, a person with the means can use every code in the tax law to lower their taxes to less than that number. So a person, like Warren Buffett, who makes billions of dollars can pay under 15% in taxes while his secretary, who makes around $60000 a year pays 30% in taxes.

Mitt Romney has been the poster boy of the fair share argument. After much protesting, he released his tax records for 2010 and the estimate for 2011. From interest he made from money in various accounts, he made approximately $21 million a year. That translates into $57000 a day. That is more money than a lot of people make in a year. He will pay about 13% in taxes. This is where the argument gets tricky. What he did to earn the money isn't illegal. The tax deductions he took weren't illegal. From what people can understand from his tax returns everything he did was above board and correct with the law. The question people wonder has to do with is are the laws bad? Is is fair, for someone with means, to pay less percentage in taxes than someone who makes far less money and doesn't have the money to get the tax advantages?

Let's take Romney out of the picture for a moment, because using him as an example would be too easy to paint the picture of the rich as evil, considering some of the answers he has given to this question. Let's look at how average people think about taxes. This is the time of year when tax companies like H&R Black have ads touting how they can get you more money back from taxes. There is a commercial running where people are at some seminar where they previous taxes are reviewed and they are happy to realize they will get anywhere from a thousand to eight thousand back because of advantages not taken in their filings. We have to remember this isn't money they didn't earn. It is money they get withdrawn from every paycheck and are getting back because they should have filed form after form rather than use the EZ one or the standard 1040 form. A lot of people play a psychological game with taxes. Every year they look to get a refund, thinking of it kind of as free money, when in fact this is money they overpaid to the government. So the refund isn't so much a refund as it is getting back money that belongs to you because you put it into the system. When people get the money, what to they do with it? They spend it. A lot of us spend it because to save it wouldn't give us much of a return to save the money. Yes we may put it aside for a rainy day but we will spend it at some point because we will need it for something.

Newt Gingrich released his tax returns and he earned a little over $3 million. He paid just under $1 million in taxes, meaning he paid at the highest tax bracket at 30%. That sounds like a lot in taxes but think about it; he still has $2 million to live off of. Now, if I were being honest, I could see where someone making that kind of money would argue their taxes should be lowed. Yes, they have $2 million left which is more than a lot of people will make in years, but if I wanted to start a business or just have fun money (which would be a lot of fun) if I were living a high end lifestyle $2 million isn't a lot relatively.

If you look at the notorious Kim Kardashian, she made $35 million dollars a year. Unlike Mitt Romney, who makes his income of the investments he has made over the years, Kardashian has to work to earn her money. We may argue about the work, but her money isn't made off interest. She has been able to live what many would say is an extravagant life, with purchases of million dollar homes, trips and other trappings of luxury. I'm sure she has accountants that are able to lower her tax rate, but lets imagine she pays 30% just like Newt. It would mean she paid $10.5 million in taxes at the highest tax rate. Of course, she probably paid less but using our supposed figure it is a lot of money paid out but $21 million left over is a HUGE chunk of money and it would be tough to say she is hurting with that amount left.

When people make the argument against The Buffett Rule, they know most people are going to think Newt type of money. Like I said, I could agree someone making $3 million, even $5 million that a 30% rate might deter them from spending money. If someone is in the Kardashian realm, and believe me, as a reality star her income isn't close to the super rich realm, they could pay the higher rate without making a big impact on their lifestyle. In perspective, Mitt Romney made $21 million in INTEREST income (remember by his own account he's worth anywhere from $100 to $250 million, so I'm guessing closer to $250 million) and paid $3.1 million in taxes.

I just don't see where asking someone who makes an incredible amount of money, using the same resources we all do, paying a little extra is going to hurt them. Asking regular folks to pay more in taxes seems wrong compared to the figures.