Any wealthy person that doesn't fit their ideal is someone they believe cheated to get there.
A wealthy person doing what a lefty thinks he/she should is considered of the highest moral standard.
In other words, they base their opinion not on proof of actions but on ideology.
We all would foot the bill. And I don't need to show you my taxes.
Consider this: About 155.76 million Americans are employed. If each were required to contribute $1/yr towards a public fund devoted to helping the poor, that would be $155.76 million per year. If you increase that to $10/yr, this fund would be worth $1.56 billion.
That money could be used to fund programs that help homeless and poor people get on their feet. It wouldn't be "endless handouts," but it would be free money to help them find a place to live, buy new clothes, pay utilities, etc. The ultimate goal of such a program would be to help elevate the disenfranchised so that they can become productive members of society.
Is $10/yr too much to ask? I don't think so.
If you make that kind of claim you do. Just another left winger using the BISSO defense.
We, as a country, have done that to the tune of over $22 trillion dollars since 1965. The percentage in poverty in 1965 prior to wasting that money was 14%. 50 years later in 2015, very little had changed.
I see your mistake. It's not about the amount, it's about the principle. When someone like you claims to care then expects others to pay anything, you prove to me your caring is only words not deeds. You don't get to think on my behalf, son.
Because I said so. That's the source you're using if you make a claim then refuse to back it up with verifiable proof.
You don't have to check my claims. You can look at a source.
pr.jpg
An individual could get fabulously rich by controlling lots of other people's money, perhaps buying lots of smaller businesses, put them all into one larger company, reduce the number of managers, stop giving raises, cut benefits, replace higher paid older workers with lower paid younger ones, that sort of thing.
Or an individual could get fabulously rich by being really creative and entertaining, possibly coming up with a popular new style of singing and performing, not ripping off anybody, simply being entertaining enough to get a lot of people interested in the performance.
If each of the described methods for getting rich earned the same amount of money, the cold-hearted company would pay far less tax than the individual who earned it as personal income.
Doesn't seem right, does it?
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
So approximately 14% doesn't equal approximately 14%? Is that your claim.
Interesting how you say it doesn't but can't provide any explanation. Am I supposed to accept it because you said it. Sorry, boy, I don't take the word of bleeding heart liberals that claim to care for people then expect others to fund what he supports.
Bookmarks