<<Why the f--- should [Pres. Obama and his cabinet] get to decide [how much money someone else should make]?>>
If I were a U.S. citizen, the answer would be: "Because that's WTF I elected them to do."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<No, what I was really asking was, "Who the f--- are you to decide how much money someone else should make?" Having an opinion is not the issue. If I wanted to question that, I would. If you want to try to get to the essence of the question, the essence would be "who are you to decide such things for other people"?>>
Sorry. I should have been more precise. I don't want to decide how much money someone else should make before becoming subject to increased income tax. I want my government to decide that. My personal opinion is that anybody should be able to live quite nicely on a pre-tax income of $250K. I believe in the principle that the rich should pay more, LOTS more. We need to level out the gross inequalities in the distribution of our wealth. People shouldn't WANT to eat well while others go without. If they do, fuck them - - tax them anyway. The tax isn't 100% - - far from it. Those greedy little fucks will still have more than the rest of us, the crackheads, the bunglers, the dreamers. So they can still be "happy" with their wealth, it's just that they'll have less to be happy with.
<<Which, seems to me, [not selling your computer to feed the poor and assuming no personal responsibility for them] means basically ensuring that you don't actually have to do much of anything at all to help others. That is selfish.>>
No it's just very smart. I realized it's more effective if we all pitch in to help together that it requires less personal sacrifice from me. The important thing is helping those in need, not punishing me or even the rich. But if we're gonna be at our most effective in delivering the needed assistance, the effort must be collective and must be as painless as possible for all involved. It's a lot less painful for Mr. 250K to give up 20K than it is for me to give up 10. Or should be. And if it isn't, then fuck the greedy little bastard anyway. End of story.
<<Mostly [the responsibility is that of ] your fellow citizens, as I take it from your comment, "I advocated a collective responsibility, not my personal responsibility".>>
Well, yeah, if I lived in a community of two, my responsibility would be 50% and in a community of about 33 million - - well, YOU do the math. And be sure to weight it so the handful of rich pay substantially more. I don't want to hog any credit I'm not entitled to. I'm just a small (but productive) cog in a large machine, but I do want to pay my fair share and I'll even advocate higher taxes across the board, as I do now, to get the job done, but I wanna make sure that Mr. 250K pays what's fair for him.
<<I suggest you'd get farther helping by actually helping rather than waiting for someone to take from the rich guy.>>
I'm really flattered, but you have to trust me on this one: my maximum possible contribution would be less than the proverbial drop in the bucket.
<<What a crock [that government is "we the people" in action]. It still amounts to expecting someone else to do the job. >>
Guess you believe in a Swiss-style or Israeli-style military, the people in arms. Guess you'd like to go back to the good old days when food producers certified their own product, and if anyone got killed, well, the marketplace would punish the guilty. Better wake up one day and figure out what century you're living in. Life is complex, problems are created by the interaction of many factors, government being one of them, and government will have to solve many problems whether or not it's the sole or even a contributing causative factor. Think "Manhattan Project."
<<And frankly, that you expect government to forcibly take from people on your behalf does not give you the moral high ground you seem to assume you have.>>
I'm a pragmatist. Shooting the enemies of the people doesn't give me your idea of the moral high ground either, so I'm not particularly worried about taxing the rich more. I see the problem and I try to fix it. To erase the misery of the masses. THAT'S the
real moral high ground. Lifting people out of misery.
"Well, come on now, I know there's another word than greed, tell me what YOU would call that.
<<Show me someone saying that, ["Yes it's a shame to watch kids turn into crackheads but I don't want to pay to help them because then I'll have fewer toys to play with. $250K isn't enough for me to live on."]and I'll let you know. >>
You know and I know that the greedy hypocritical little bastards will never say that, that's why I say it for them. I know, and everyone else knows, that their opposition to higher taxes is not based on fairness but on greed. THAT is just plain common sense, realism, and experience of life.
<<Again, show me [Mr. 250K] isn't sacrificing any of his, as you said, before tax income to help out. He never ever gives to charity? Refuses to pay taxes? >>
Look at the need for massive social expenditures in welfare, education, housing, health-care, etc. Look at the enormous wealth of the country. Compare the one with the other. There is your answer.
Compare the lives of the 500 wealthiest with the lives of 10 million crackheads. There's your answer. If Mr. 250K IS paying lots to charity, he gets a tax break, he gets to deduct from taxable income. So the guy who is Mr. $250K MAY have paid to charity, but the net result is the rich have tons and the poor need tons. WHATEVER they bin givin to charity just ain't enough. Time for the government to step up to the plate and do the job right.
<<And how is now suddenly solely the fault of this person that some kid is turning into a crackhead? Talk about not fair.>>
It's his fault because with all his wealth, power and influence, he didn't do enough to stop the train wreck. He didn't contribute what he could, and more importantly, he didn't support candidates who would raise more (by taxation if necessary) because as great as the need was, he and his class allowed to fester and grow. And now it's gotta be fixed, and the only way to pay for that is to tax the rich more.
<<Kinda my point [that there's nothing mature about greed and selfishness] just directed differently.>>
Yeah, like in your case MIS-directed by about 180 degrees.
------------------------------------------------------------
MT:The five-year old is the selfish greedy bastard who clings to his toys rather than sacrifice some of that money to fund a crash course to prevent the further spread of human misery.
<<When you can prove to me that is the case, I'll agree. >>
Yeah, prove the effectiveness of a program before it's put into action and meantime withhold the raising of funds. Nice trick.
Old trick. That's why we want Obama. CHANGE.
<<In the mean time, the other five-year-old is the envious and no less selfish person who insists other people having "too much" is unfair . . . >>
Yes it is unfair and there's nothing childish about it. A man living like the rich live here in the face of so much want and need is unfair. Call that childish, call it five-year-old and at the end of the day it is still unfair. And it won't stand.
<<and sloughs off responsibility to help others onto everyone else.>>
Bullshit. Shoulders his responsibility along with every other law-abiding taxpayer is the phrase you want, but it probably sticks in your throat because it's too honest for you.
