So the average 1st rounder career in the NFL is 9 years. Assume he is a low-end 1st rounder, he would be in line for a total contract of somewhere between $10M-$11M with $5M-$6M guaranteed.

He signs a couple more deals after his rookie contract to have that 9 year career as a backup: Chase Daniel is making $5M/year,…

The problem with baseball is that success seems less predictable. I’m sure he’ll be able to field just fine, and he has a rifle for an arm. But he won’t know if he can figure out major league pitching until he faces it regularly. (See Maas, Kevin). And if he can’t, he’s out. He hit .296 in limited playing in college.…

Wait, are you suggesting that if a man did this, that he would not be asked to stop?  Because like... yeah the fuck he would. 

You are commenting to David Tracy, have you seen his house lately?

Come on. Can we decide that something is annoying, without it becoming a prejudiced comment about someone’s gender? Man or woman, that screech is downright annoying, and she’s doing it for half of the entire game.

I may have geeked out just a little when I saw the opportunity.

The top 1% pay 40% of income tax. Isn’t 40% their fair share? https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

How much of the money I earn is your fair share? Seriously, fuck right off.

OK, Commie. I get where you are coming from. You don’t have to go all the way to Russia. You can live that wonderful life you espouse, where what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine, just south of Key West, FL.

a “no brainer” because it’s not money YOU earned. Is someone with $10M using more services?  Are they buying more stuff?  What if they are employing hundreds or thousands of people?  Isn’t that their contribution?  Yet, why should they bother if the more they make the more they are taxed?  Why should they invest in…

There’s a reason some of the greatest middle class growth in US history coincided with some of the highest marginal tax rates.

Considering the top 10% earners pay over 70% of all income taxes, I would say they are already paying their fair share. How much more would you expect them to pay before things become ‘fair’?

“Honestly this policy is a no-brainer.”

Yeah, you have to have no brain to support it.

I wouldn’t call it “paying your fair share”. I’m pretty sure since you are being taxed all the way up from the start, you’ve already contributed more then most. The top 1% already paying most of the taxes anyway.

Why do you speak like the economy is a zero sum game?

So it's ok to hurt, sorry impact, someone if they're in the minority? Does your rule apply to only financial minority, or does it extend to other classes of minorites?

Your definition of “fair share” is odd. That’s not “fair” by a thinker’s definition. If you want “fair share” go with a consumption tax! 

Let’s start by giving YOUR money away.

but let’s be honest here. Functionally, Steve Scalise is not exactly wrong. By the time you are taxing someone making $10,000,000 using marginal tax rates you are taxing the VAAAAAAAAAAST majority of his or her income at the 70% rate.

Absolutely.... I work in IT, i know what can be done to a pc once joined to the domain.... you never want to have your personal computer be your work computer... once its joined to the domain, there is nothing on that machine that i cannot access, copy, or change. I dont even have to be anywhere near it to make…