Are we created equal?

All these are terrible ideas and the rantings of a looner except the aid and welfare cuttin parts.

 

Hmm, I didn't know that. When will the right come out of the closet?

 

But what happened to free market, to take responsibility for your own actions, that capitalism is the way to go, etc. And you hate ranting's of truth, so boil with your own stew. Stay in denial of your socialist wants and stay in Unifer's closet with him!!!

 

"moonbat" meaning:
Web definitions

Moonbat is a term used in United States politics as a pejorative political epithet referring to progressives or leftists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moonbat is a term used in United States politics as a pejorative political epithet referring to progressives or leftists.

http://www.urbandictionary.com
Moonbat (1) (n) Irrational and Mentally unstable persons of a decidedly liberal political affiliation;


Definition of a MoonBat - AI-Jane
ai-jane.org › ... › Discussion › US Politics‎
Apr 1, 2008 - 3 posts
Quote: 1. moonbat 207 up, 35 down. An extreme leftist, throwing aside logic for political convenience

i win you lose

 

Looks to me like it speeded up and then slowed. It went from 20.6% in 1980 to over 22% in 82-83.

Year - Spending:GDP
1980 20.6%
1981 21.1%
1982 22.3%
1983 22.2%
1984 21.1%
1985 21.8%
1986 21.6%
1987 20.6%
1988 20.3%
1989 20.2%
1990 21.0%
1991 21.5%
1992 21.1%
1993 20.5%
1994 20.0%
1995 19.8%
1996 19.3%
1997 18.6%
1998 18.2%
1999 17.6%
2000 17.4%
2001 17.5%
2002 18.3%
2003 18.8%
2004 18.7%
2005 18.9%
2006 19.2%
2007 18.8%
2008 20.3%
2009 24.4%
2010 23.1%
2011 23.2%
2012 21.8%
2013 20.7%

Thru the Clinton administration federal spending proportionately decreased, and remained under 20% until the GR.

To the contrary, last year spending was proportionately lower than 6 of 8 Reagan years and 9 of 12 Reagan/Bush1 years.

 

Banchie: moonbat refers to cons. end of story............

 

yeah good luck with that

 

You are taking away financial incentive in the first place. So it's acceptable to take away financial incentive for those that YOU deem it's acceptable for but not for yourself?

Since you're going to argue it takes away ALL financial incentive, then let's not say 100%, let's say we should just tax everybody at 90 or 95% of their income. What justification do you have for rejection of that?

Again, we would expect that to be the case. The reason we expect that to be the case is because the rich are actually the ones creating the wealth, not the poor or middle class. Because of that fact, they're going to receive most of the benefit from that wealth. Furthermore, the rich (for the most part) understand economics and how to make money work for them. That means they're investing their money instead of being frivolous like most of the poor and middle-class are with their money.

You could take EVERY DIME in America and put it in one big pile and distribute that money out evenly among every member of the populace and within 20 or 30 years or so you would again have a group of poor, middle class and rich. The rich would be the same basic group of people you stole money from to begin with and the poor and middle class would be the same basic people that were poor and middle class beforehand, with a few exceptions. That's because most of them are not rich because they were GIVEN what they have, they are rich because they EARNED it. The same is true for MOST of the poor and middle class. They are not poor and middle-class because they have been denied opportunity or the ability to improve, most of them are poor and middle class because they lack the same attributes that the rich have which enabled them to become rich.

Your socialism will ALWAYS fail, even if it succeeds in the short term, it WILL fail in the long-term. There is no viable long-term socialist solution.

Nobody said they got lazier, you simply ENABLED them to be lazier. You have consistently preached a doctrine that they're too stupid and incapable to provide for themselves, that it's SO unfair out there that they couldn't POSSIBLY overcome without the assistance of the socialists who need to appropriate money on the greedy rich for their behalf (oh and the socialists get to take their cut in the process of course).

In other words, the ONLY way you can win, is to buy your votes. You attempt to buy your votes in the face of all of evidence that suggests you're doing an extreme disservice to the very people that you're claiming to help. They won't recognize it in the short-term but they WILL recognize it eventually. Hopefully the conservatives can stop people like you before it ruins the entire country.

Says you. The homeless guy that feels as though it's not fair you're making $50,000 a year disagrees. He wants to only make HALF of what you earn. I mean he doesn't actually want to have to work for it or do anything for it or earn it in any way, he simply wants to appropriate it from you. You know, like you're doing with the "rich"?

I think we should tax you 70% personally. I mean it is your philosophy that's arguing that we should take from others and give to those who are less fortunate. You should have to put in a little bit more.

Finally you said something intelligent.

And? What is the point of an economic model?

For the record, that IS entitlement. They feel entitled for something they have done NOTHING to earn. Simply because they are alive, you claim they are entitled to it.

And if you believe that, capitalism provides a function which is MORE than capable of providing for those who are TRULY not capable of providing for themselves(which btw is an EXTREMELY small number comparative to the rest of the population). First of all there is charity, which we produce billions upon billions of every single year. Second of all, nobody stops liberals from giving as much of their money as they want to poor people or even simply to the government which they think can provide for those poor people.

You see the beautiful thing about capitalism is it allows for whatever the populace desires. If the market says that providing welfare for those who are needy is really important, then it will be priced into the market. In other words, if the people REALLY care about providing for others, they can spend their money at stores who are giving a larger percentage of their profits away for charitable causes. This will increase the amount of money given to the needy IF the market dictates such. If the people really do NOT care enough about the welfare of others to simply give their money to whomever gives them the best deal, then the market (or the people) has spoken. It is more important to get a good deal than it is to provide for the welfare of others.

Furthermore, if all of the people didn't have to pay for the inefficient, EXCEEDINGLY COSTLY, ineffective welfare programs (that are part of this "war on poverty" that has failed miserably) they would have FAR more money to provide for themselves or (if they so desire) give every dime of that money to those who are less fortunate.

Liberals act like they care about the welfare of others, yet it seems to be the conservatives who give more money to charitable contributions every single year, without exception. Not simply by the total amount given, but per individual, conservatives give more than liberals. So do you REALLY care about the welfare of those people? You say you do (so do all liberals) but the actions of the people who claim your ideology don't seem to coincide with the words that are coming out of your mouth. It seems to me, the only time you care about poor people is when you can buy a vote from them.

No, you can not. The rich will not simply take your taxes and your appropriation of their money.

If you tax a business owner... is he simply going to bend over, grab his ankles and take that tax? Of course not. He's going to pass that tax down to his consumers, just like ALL of the other businesses are going to do. This means the poor and middle class WILL end up paying FAR more for that tax on the rich than they would have if they simply took a tax in the first place.

You CANNOT have it both ways in the long-term. Period. It simply cannot work in a large scale economy like this. You can appropriate money from the rich for only so long until they tell you to go jump off a cliff and take their money and investments elsewhere.

You see there's a fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism does not work because someone says it should work. Capitalism does not work because someone manipulates something to make it work in their favor. Capitalism works based upon simple market forces which are dictated by the consumers.

There is a PERFECT example of why socialism and capitalism cannot coexist with one another. The liberals and socialists have been pushing this green energy dictate onto the people. But the people do not want it and it's not economically viable to switch over to green energy yet, if ever. So what happens? At first, the left tries to convince the people that while the people don't want it... actually they REALLY do want it, because the socialists have told them it's good for them. This rarely, if ever, works and the people usually tell the socialists to go **** off with their money. In other words, the people don't buy their green products. So the socialists, who of course know FAR better than the people what is actually good for the people, then take it upon themselves to appropriate money from the populace and give it to those green companies such as what Obama did in giving billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy companies.

The problem is, the people STILL do not want the trash that the left is peddling. So what happens? The market dictates that there is not enough demand to sustain the green energy sector, so those companies face one of two options. Either, they go bankrupt (which they don't care about because it wasn't really their money in the first place) or they beg for more money from the government to sustain them because the market REFUSES to do so.

This is a PERFECT example and a microcosm of why socialism is, was and always will be a complete and utter, abject failure. The reason why is because socialism is predicated on the idea that the socialists know better than the people (or the market) what is best for those people. Socialists believe you are too stupid or incapable of providing for your own healthcare, so the socialists must provide it for you because they know better than you do. You are too stupid or incapable of providing an education for your children or yourself so the socialists must appropriate money from you to provide that education for you. You are too stupid to realize that oil is bad and green energy is good, so the socialists must take your money from you and spend it where THEY see fit. Of course, like all socialist programs, they waste money, they spend it irresponsibly and they have little to no consideration for the efficacy of their programs because if they fail, it's not their money to lose in the first place.

Well, I don't think anyone should pay taxes except on the things which are explicitly outlined in the constitution that the government has the authority to regulate. Most of which has less than nothing to do with the entitlement mentality and the welfare nanny state that folks like yourself have advocated for. However, for those things which the government is required to provide, everybody should pay taxes on it. I simply do not think that you should unfairly tax one group of people because you feel as though they shouldn't have as much money as they do. I would be thrilled with a flat tax and rich people would be happy to participate in one.

So let me get this right, all of a sudden the internet just popped up in 1997 without a massive investment that included hardware, software, and literally millions of man hours of work? That's absolutely amazing. You should write a book on how to do that, every company in the world would buy it. Then you could give away 3/4 of your income to poor people... since you know you're too good to do it now.

That's correct, after the internet boom stopped making up for the ridiculously absurd policies under Clinton.

Here, let me put it like this. How come we had a slow-down at all. Why did Clinton's tax hikes not sustain the economy even in the face of the bubble, since you claim it wasn't the bubble that supported the economy during the period of tax hikes...

Did Reagan have the single greatest money making invention since the wheel come into prominence during his tenure? I must have missed that?

Oh so you just made that **** up like the rest of your argument. I got you.

Private schools are FORCED to cater to higher incomes because they can't afford to be competition against public schools who get FREE money for doing a horrendously ineffective job.

And the homeless guy feels as though it's semantics to claim that a guy who gets to keep $25,000 of his $50,000 has been punished.

Having 50% of your income taken from you IS a punishment... regardless of how much money you make.

BTW your envy is showing again. Tuck it in.

Hence why socialism is, has and always will be an abject failure.

Oh I'm sorry. Here I'll use the actual articles from the media outlets.

Public patients wait longer for surgery
- June 29, 2005 [The Sydney Morning Herald]

Painful wait for care
- Luke McIlveen, February 17, 2005 [Herald Sun (Australia)]

Private funds creating 'two-tier' health system
- David Uren, November 3, 2004 [The Australian]

Operating theatres shut to save cash as thousands wait for surgery
- Nick O'Malley, November 23, 2004 [Sydney Morning Herald]

NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists' contract
- David Rose, June 6, 2008 [The Times]

Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]

Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her
- Olinka Koster, March 26, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]

Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'
- Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]

Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report
- Andrew Sparrow, March 13, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery
- Chris Brooke, February 28, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]

One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]

Specialist stroke care 'lottery'
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News]

Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News]

Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]

We can keep going if you'd like. But I'm sure you don't want to, do you?

 

So what? Obama had a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) good recession to he inherited and you don't seem to give him slack for that.

 

Hitler built highways too, does that make Eisenhower a Nazi?

- - - Updated - - -

When I worked at the brewery, we had an expression, "Fish where the fish are".
Tax where the money is.

 

No. But it would make him a fascist economically if he did all those other things hitler did that the midnight lt calls for. Or a socialis, fascism is after all a branch of socialism.

That is probably why you don't work there. Too much fishing and not enough brewing. Same problem the government has. Unfocused towards the task at hand.

As a commerical fisherman I can tell you the tip is to fish where others don't, focus on one species at a time, and manage your costs. This works for most enterprise when you think about it.

 

No, I've actually READ progressives use the argument that everyone is created equal to justify confiscating everyone's earnings and redistribute them DUH. Maybe you should read a little more of the drivel progressives spew.

So you're going to dodge the question.

Speaking of grasping logic, what's it called when you dodge a simple question? You CLAIM I'm wrong but REFUSE to show me "the light".

SHOW me where there is no equal opportunity master! Make sure you don't mention wealth in any way shape or form! I'm eagerly looking forward to you finally answering the question.

 

Just throwing progressive arguments back in their faces. No need to get rude about it.

 

OK, So Eisenhower was a Fascist, I missed that completely, I had always thought of him as Moderate Republican....

So you're saying the government should focus on wealthy people, the ones with all the tax breaks now, that's the place to balance the budget huh?

 

Of course you have. Now I'm sure you can provide evidence of this to back up what you're saying. I want to see some kind of statement from a progressive stating that because everyone is created equal, that justifies confiscating everyone's earnings and redistributing them. You do know that when you make a claim such as this, you need to provide something to corroborate what you're saying right? You're making the claim that you have read that progressives have said that because we are all created equal, that justifies taking everyone's earnings and redistributing them. You've read this. Certainly if you've read it, you would have kept a copy of what you read, and the source you got it from to back you up for a moment just like this, when a liberal would call you out on it. That way you could produce it and you'd have something to back up your claim. So....let me see it.

Maybe you should back up what you say, because so far, what you have to say is BS. Conservatives are notorious for creating imaginary garbage, and then believing it as true. This appears to be another case of that very thing. And don't think of handing me some right wing source. That's just going back to the garbage dump for more garbage. Show me a statement from a progressive that is saying what you claim.

That's exactly what you're doing. You still haven't responded to what I posted to you. Why not? "knowing that YOU are a fallible human being, you certainly must know and ADMIT that you could be wrong about a few things. AND...if you know that, then you must admit that your very ideology could also be wrong about a few things, since it's man made, and man is fallible. EVEN Conservative Men are fallible."
Is that a true statement or not? Are you or are you not fallible? If you are, then you could be wrong about many things. And if you are fallible, then your ideology must also be fallible since you can't create an infallible idea from a fallible source. That means that conservatism could be wrong about a lot of things. I already know that I could be wrong about things. But then I know I'm fallible. Can you say as much?

You can't deal with it can you? You can't respond to what I put to you, and of course, you dodge the fact that there was no ad hominem. You can't accept your own fallibility.

Since it's obvious that you won't go near what I've put to you, you should look at Voting ID Law in Pennsylvania. Judge Bernard McGinley of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled against the state’s strict voter ID law ( A Republican idea) last week following a lengthy trial last summer. The law had been temporarily blocked since last October pending a full trial. The ruling is a big win for voting rights and a clear setback for voter ID supporters. Voting Rights ARE issues of Equal Opportunity according to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The lawsuit alleged that the state's voter photo ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving citizens of their most fundamental constitutional right - the right to vote. Judge McGinley found that the law violated the state constitution because hundreds of thousands of registered voters lacked the restrictive forms of ID required by the state, few had obtained the requisite ID since the law’s passage in March 2012, the state had not made it easy to get an ID and there was no evidence of in-person voter fraud to justify the burdens of the law.

“Hundreds of thousands of electors in Pennsylvania lack compliant ID,” McGinley wrote. “Enforcement of the voter ID Law as to these electors has the effect of disenfranchising them through no fault of their own. Inescapably, the Voter ID law infringes upon qualified electors’ right to vote.”

In 1982, Congress extended certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act such as Section 5 that were set to expire, and added protections for voters who required assistance in voting. At the same time, it examined the history of litigation under Section 2 since 1965 and concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

No mention of wealth. That should make you happy. Pennsylvania has struck down the Voter ID law for denying equal opportunity for some people to take part in the political process.

This tactic of denial of equal opportunity with regards to voting is not limited to Pennsylvania. In South Dakota for example. Every election, South Dakota voters have 46 days when they can vote early, which makes it easier for people to take part in our democracy. But the rules appear to be different for American Indian voters living on reservations in the state—at least according to recent actions by the South Dakota's Secretary of State, who is stonewalling a request for early voting sites in three American Indian communities.

Officials in Shannon County, which is home to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and has a population that is 92 percent American Indian, planned to offer only six days of early voting. For the other 40 days, voters would have to travel up to three hours for the nearest early voting location. This created a significant hurdle for voters for whom arranging and paying for transportation would be no small feat—you see, Shannon County is one of the poorest areas in the country where over half of the residents live below the poverty line.

Conservatism has a long history of denying equal opportunity to minorities. Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

Conservatives and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Law. When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work, does the Conservative support her right to fight for the equal pay she's guaranteed under the law? No. They oppose it. That's exactly what the bill that bears her name ensures -- it simply gives workers a fair shot to make their case in court. Again, an issue of Equal Opportunity.

It's not a hypothetical question. Women get paid just 77 cents for every dollar a man gets. How are conservatives standing up for equal opportunity by opposing this?

A blind man can't see light. You clearly don't know what an ad hominem is, since you use the term wrong, and simply toss the words out in hopes that it will save your butt. You've been walked through, step by step where your reasoning fails, and now your in denial. Critical thinking isn't part of your arsenal. You still use the same silly signature as if there is significant meaning to it.

I don't suspect you'll address the position I threw at you. I understand it would embarrass you and compromise your conservative cred. But the fact is that you are just another fallible human being and along with that, are the ideologies that your fallible nature produces. While you're at it, learn what an ad hominem is before you put your foot in your mouth again.

 

Yes, I keep a personal copy of all the brilliant posts progressive make....Just read the posts on this site. It was after readin one I made this thread.....

Keep reading, although you strike me as the type that'll simply ignore it or dismiss it when you see it.

Not about what I read.....

You'd have a point if they didn't expect the same thing across the board....... OMFG you have to show an ID for the most important task as a citizen???????? You're too funny.

Because they don't work the same kinds of jobs DUH. Go back and present SAME JOB data.....

You're still doing it by attempting to claim I'm just another fallible human being like it discredits any of my positions..... Looks like you better look up the definition pal.

 

The government has a vested interest to have a good economy. So let's think about your scenario.

You have 100 people on your island. One person has 10000$ and 99 people 1$. Each thing that is required for people to live, food, shelter costs, etc. each one costs 1$, totaling 3$. In order for this country to flourish and grow, those 99 people need buying power. The only person with it right now is the one guy with a grand. If he is taxed so as to return to the economy 4$ per person, it would cost him 396$, leaving him with 9604$ and everyone else at 5$ so that they can cover their cost of living AND have something to spend in the economy.

You call it robbing Peter to pay Paul. You say it's illegitimate use of taxes. Tell me, sir, where do you spend your money when it hasn't circulated back to you? You can't earn it via jobs because no one's buying things which means there's no demand which means there's job for that good or service. You pump money into the economy, taken via taxes from the upper half of the income bracket, to keep your economy afloat. Currently the message echoing through media is that taxing a billionaire to fund welfare and unemployment insurance and supply for subsidies to start ups etc. is a terrible terrible thing. The people perpetrating this message are rich people who just don't want to pay taxes while, generally, nonchalantly storing their money off shore so they're not even paying taxes anyway (which keeps it from circulating back into the economy).

Spending money is required at some level. The government's job is to spend that money when the people aren't, and to spend it smartly. It's legitimate, but it's been hijacked so that 1.) they're not getting income to spend and 2.) when they do spend it, the majority goes to people who didn't need it in the first place, like oil companies.

Again, your argument is pointless. You're looking at a micro level. It's a macro issue.

 

Spending money is what drives the economy. A very wealthy man doesn't need to spend money. He already has the things he needs, so all his needs are met. The average person must replenish those things in a more immediate sense, he needs simply to get to the next pay check. The less he has, the less he'll spend. If he isn't spending money at a store, the store isn't selling its product, and if they aren't doing that, they let people go, and when they do that, it only makes the problem of unemployment worse. The consumer IS the job creator. You can have the greatest product in the world, but if nobody has a job, they can't afford to buy it. Creating new products is important, but providing an environment for that product to take hold depends on the policies that are in place to allow it to succeed. It can't succeed if nobody has the money to buy it.

 

Mr. Edge; That's was very interesting. Except what you posted didn't come from me. You grabbed a post from somebody else, and you're attributing it to me, claiming "originally posted by Adagio". That comes from post #166. I didn't write that. Don't look now, but your fallibility is on full display. Do you think there may be a few other things that you're wrong about?

It seems that you're having some posts removed for mis-quotes. That's what happens when critical thinking is missing.

 

Speaking of strawmen, could you prove your assertion that "The fact is MOST progressives believe they're entitled to other peoples earnings." I don't believe that is true at all.

Most progressives believe that the people have the right to vote for representatives to pass laws that tax people for government revenues, to fund things the Govt spends money on.

But I don't recall any progressive here saying that they are entitled to other people's earnings. Maybe you can link to a couple such quotes. It ought to be easy since according to you, MOST progressive believe this.

 

I guess Bluesguy didn't want to take the opportunity to show everyone how wrong I was to assert his claim my post was "fallacious nonsense" was bull(*)(*)(*)(*). He up and disappeared. He skipped out on the chance to prove his claim and prove me wrong.

What a shocker, eh? ; )

 

Here's the evidence that Adagio claims doesn't exist....

1. YOU have no moral authority to claim someone else's earnings for your own.

2. The federal government was NEVER put in place to redistribute income for the "greater good". It was put in place to KEEP people like you from justifying stealing other people's income/wealth.

3. The federal government has a vested interest in protecting our LIFE. LIBERTY and PROPERTY. The federal government having a vested interest in the economy is a figment of your imagination. YOU use it to justify your claim to other people's earnings. "It's for the greater good!" Ya? What's also for the greater good is for third world countries to confiscate all our wealth and redistribute it......

4. The federal government's job is NOT to spend money to jump start the economy. See point 3. ESPECIALLY when they are directly responsible for the economy "crashing" to begin with.

5. Rich people(the top 1%) pay roughly 40% of the ENTIRE federal income tax burden at the highest effective rate of roughly 23%. The bottom quintile of earner pays a MINUS 9% meaning not only do they pay ZERO federal income taxes, they get handed another 9% confiscated from another earner.

 

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about and don't realize that if you give purchasing power to lower income, they START PAYING TAXES, you beefhead. The rich are 'burdened' (by the way, what happens to a rich guy when you tax him? Nothing. He's still rich.) by taxes (as you paint this picture) because they're not going to people to help them become tax payers. Also, you keep talking about MORALITY. Who's morality? And as well, a country DOES have a vested interest in a properly working economy because if you have a bunch of poor people, you got a bunch of angry people. If your country is poor, it has no military (and we're the biggest spenders in military to protect that wealth, that property).

You're arguing what seems logical when you twist morality and economics. But morality is not a factor, economics is purely the only the arguing standpoint and sponging up money from the economy and out of circulation = economy goes to (*)(*)(*)(*). Tax the money and provide social services to provide more consumers, and wouldn't you know it, the rich are still rich and the poor actually get a couple of cents to rub together in the process.

Again, stop saying *I* have nor moral authority. It's not one person's decision, by the way. The overwhelming majority wants to raise taxes on the rich and even increase minimum wage so that people that are working are not sucking up tax dollars to artificially subsidize corporations paying jack (*)(*)(*)(*) because those working people have to be on food stamps and welfare.

Also, the rich paying 40% and all that...so what? The level of taxes paid by lower income is higher in terms of affect on each person. A comedian once put it like this...If you found a 20$ bill on the street as a regular guy, your plans change. That's a pretty good find. For someone like Bill Gates to equate that experience, he'd have to find a palette of 800,000 twenty dollar bills in the street.

So when someone who's overjoyed to find a 20$ bill goes to spend it, that 7% sales tax is pretty hefty. If BIll Gates spends a 20$ bill, 7% sales tax is laughable. He's got plenty more 20's where that came from. And that's the point. The rich pay less percentage wise than the middle and lower classes and when they do, it's much more painful. No one's pushing for the rich to just give up everything they own. No one has a problem with people being rich. Being worth 100 million dollars is quite successful and that person will never have to work a day in their lives ever again if they chose not to and it's something to aspire to. However, there's limits within reason when your actions are literally sucking an entire economy dry.