>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

Except that those were due to retire (cease to exist) after 2010. Which did happen for those earning over $400K/$450K. Obama locked in the evil Republican tax cuts for everybody else. He also set higher contributions to Medicare for those earning over $400/$450K.

Seems to me that those earning over $400/$450K currently pay more than they did before the Bush tax cuts. Am I wrong?

>>It's competely just that those rotten aides who took care of my late wife, lovingly, who had to go to another job into order to earn enough money to pay their rent, should pay more for a gallon of gas because the state wouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy, as they should have, to maintain the roads that allow the Walmart and Johnson and Johnson heirs to collect billions as goods are moved from slave wages countries over US roads funded my aides to their minimum wage outlets.

Just? Maybe it would be just to calculate the amount boomers underpaid towards roads as well as everything else, and send them a bill. Meanwhile I suggest you look at average sizes of cars in Europe vs US. In Europe, people affected by the taxes drive smaller cars that use less fuel. When I see popularity of SUVs and trucks start to diminish in the US, I'll know that tax is hurting.

And yes, Walmart and J&J heirs should pay those fuel surcharges too. Of course. And trucks should pay higher road taxes than Smart cars. I thought they did.

Sheesh, I'm as critical of the 1% as anybody. But you have to come up with solutions that don't self-defeat- like higher road taxes for Walmart trucks that get passed onto customers. They're going to protect their margins, so you need to come up with something else.

>>Every time some one like you rants about deficits caused by the poor schlubs on Medicare, you condone the low rates on people who make billions.

Nice try. First, justify "lower rates on those who make billions." Are you comparing to rates paid in other countries, or pre-Bush, or ??? If pre-Bush, then you ought to look at your own rates through a period when fair contributions towards Medicare and Social Security, competently underwritten, would have yielded gigantic pots of wealth that would leave the US sitting pretty. Instead boomers resented paying their own fair share, preferring to accumulate private assets. And now they want to tax somebody else to keep it going long enough to guarantee their own benefits while protecting their own hoards.

Every day more statistics are confirmed: we already knew that somebody retiring in 2012 will have pulled more than $100K out of the public pot than they put in while somebody born that same year can expect to put in $450K more than they should expect to see back. Now it's worse, with stats this month confirming that millenials are far worse off than boomers at the same stage in life despite being better educated, even before they have to cover the boomer deficits. Over-burdened by the boomer grasshoppers, millennial ants toil away wondering why they can't get ahead, buoyed only by the thought of bequeathed wealth in due course. If you want to feel sorry for anybody, feel sorry for those with no grandparents sitting on hoards. They're screwed.

As always, the boomer solution is to "tax somebody else" preferably the rich. But this is the tactic that caused the mess in the first place. "Taxes that affect me are regressive. Taxes that affect somebody else are virtuous." Maybe try "I didn't pay my fair share, so what should I do now?" for a change.