Here is where we differ. The "wealthy" typically are the ones that played by the rules, worked hard, invested or built businesses and do not rely on unemployment benefits, disability, welfare, WIC, and all the other handouts. Its the people that didn't stay in school and get educated/trained, the drink/drug/party crowd that fail to hold down a job long enough to learn and climb the company ladder, the single moms that couldn't keep their legs together long enough to get married first (which in NJ is a huge expense for child care, adult schooling etc.), that are ruining it for the vast majority of the people that played by the rules and do not drain societies coffers.
Until people start taking the under-performing part of society to task, it will continue to be acceptable to be a drag on society, sucking at the teat of government while politicians confiscate money from the productive members of society. Sound harsh? You bet, but the vast majority of our poor are in that position because they choose to be. Personally, I'm sick of them, and I'm sick of having over half my paycheck confiscated before I even get to pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, sin taxes, etc.
Therefore they should pay more than the little guy. If Lonegan changed his plan to give a break to the poor folks instead of just the rich then I would not have a problem with his plan.
We just simply disagree. The "little guy" would be the little guy in the vast majority of situations if they played the game the right way. Let them pay the consequences - don't reward their bad behavior. Set an example for generations to come.