samhill wrote:Mike you can`t seem to get past that top 2% pay 50% of all tax thing, I don`t know where that comes from but I won`t dispute it (getting tired of being called immoral & getting nowhere. But heres a factiod for you the U.S. is second only to the Swiss in the top 10% owning most of the countries wealth. You explain to me what any person does to not only deserve a salary in the high millions & then get millions in bonus.
Dann, if I made you miss any of Beck then my job here is done.
Sam, YOU as an individual are NOT immoral. We are making the point that the policies of the left are immoral. Forgive me if I ever called you immoral. I don't think I did, but if I did in the heat of the moment, I apologize.
There are two sets of morals at odds here: Absolute morality (the law of Nature) and secular humanism. Adherence to either doesn't necessarily follow party lines. Certainly you have made your opposing viewpoint known, that is, that you view the policies of the right as immoral and you have stated your case.
All I want to debate at this point was your threshold for wealth immorality. At what point is a rich man immorally rich? At what point does he pay enough in tax to be moral in your eyes or the eyes of the left?
My figures on the tax thing are a little off because I pulled them from memory but this page will convey the same message accurately. It is a government document describing who pays the income tax in America. It isn't the poor. There are damn few rich people who have zero or negative liability while there are multitudes of poor who file with zero or negative tax liability. The case that the rich don't pay their fair share just doesn't wash.