Yes it is. Why the society has to reward a hard working lawyer with 100 times bigger income than a single mom working two low paying jobs?
No, 'society' did not. Individuals have by deciding to PAY lawyers that much for their skills. Do their skills not deserve compensation? How is compensation set? By charging what the market will bear, if you are brave enough to ask for it, and someone's dumb enough to pay it. They don't have to work any cheaper. What does that "poor 2 job man" do that is WORTH more? Why doesn't he do something worth more?
You need to educate yourself on the value of work, skill and time. When I was an independent contractor, I billed by deciding what I was willing to be paid for my time and skill, and then billing for it according to time, taxes and expenses.
The high living standards that the rich people enjoy are not "theirs" by nature or some divine rights.
You're right. They bought it and can afford to pay for it. That's the natural law in which they have a right to live as they see fit.
It is a reward that the society gives them for some or other reason.
Wealth is NOT a reward bequeathed by society at large. It is earned by their effort. Society chose to pay them for what they offered, and got as good a deal as they were foolish enough to make. Caveat Emptor.
And it is the society that decides what should be rewarded and what would be the size of the reward.
Adam Smith called it "The Invisible Hand of the Market". Society is not to picking and choosing winners but vote with their pocketbook.
And this is not slavery -- if you don't like how society threats you, you are free to take your chances on an inhabited island.
Reeally? And people were free to emigrate from the USSR and North Korea, hmmmm? It is slavery the instant you tell someone they MUST give at their own expense to another without any compensation for it is their duty. Birth is not an automatic volunteer to the collective. You say they must provide, you endorse slavery for you will use force to TAKE what you desire, just like a white plantation owner in anti-bellum Dixie. Yassuh Massuh!
That how any society is whether you like it or not. The only thing that matter is HOW a society makes those reward decisions.
Again, society has it's say with it's wallet. To get my vote, give me something I need or want in a manner I enjoy at a price I can afford and am willing to pay.
Jeeze, someone used a lot of borax on your brain.
That is why we have a democracy, so we can discuss these matters and make sure they are made in the benefit of most of the people, not just a few crooks or bullies.
I know, and that is why we have the democracy.
Democracy does not have anything to do with debate. You want crooks and bullies in charge, give all power to government, and bullies and crooks will be there shortly after. Too bad that process started in 1902, so you're late to this game. We don't have a true democracy either. We have a democratic representative republic. Simple majorities are dangerous and our founding fathers knew this. This is why we have vertical and horizontal checks and balances to prevent mob rule and minority rule and slow down the pace of creeping totalitarianism that has almost swallowed us whole now.
Never forget that democracy can be like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
You are trying to paint the government as an evil on an imperfect force that is trying mess with what you see as the "natural order" of things.
And you're promoting pollyanna pie eyed bullshit that government is NOT an imperfect often evil force that must be distrusted and often rebuked by the governed. Have you ever READ the founding fathers or the history of what went on till then to CAUSE the Revolution? Smells like you were taught from the Tory side of the coin, dreaming for the return of the king.
And that is wrong -- there is NO natural order. A society can have any number of different structures -- what matters is who decide what structure is appropriate.
And American culture dictates not a caste structure as you liberals love, but one of social and economic mobility both up and down based on your choices, skill, luck and circumstances merit. If you don't like something, work to fix something. Bitching is an option, but a pretty pathetic one. Nobody owes you anything.
No, it is not. It is only evil if it is created at the expense of others.
The laws against that have been on the books for over 200 years. They're called theft and fraud, dumbass.
Yet all advanced countries use it.
Russia went to a flat tax in the early 1990's and saw an economic boom that dwarfed the previous century for them. They are still trying to come to grips with it.
You sure as **** cannot substantiate that (but I was talking about 70% top marginal rate, the average rate should be less than that).
Nor can you. So the **** what? When the top rate was up around there, under Carter, millionaires hid their money in europe and other places the government couldn't touch. When Reagan dropped it, we experienced a boom that took till 2001 to slow down and finally come to a crashing halt with the bubbles that occurred due to government interference in the market.
Also, whatever the the Laffer Curve is, I don't think that the goal is maximizing the tax revenue.
Actually, dumbass, it is
precisely what it models. Thanks for selfpwning.
The government should collect just enough taxes to provide the service that the people want it providing.
When the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the public fund, the republic is quickly replaced with tyranny.
Government should not PROVIDE for the people, that is NOT it's purpose you marxist moron. It should PROTECT the people from threats internal and external. It should regulate to make sure the rules are applied equally to all. It should find the most equitable way to make whole those who have been wronged and punish those who violate the law.
And redistribution of wealth is not the goal here either.
Bullshit. You said it yourself. Society gives you your reward, but have forgotten to mention (more like avoided passionately) what that criterion is though it is heavily implied it would be politically based.
It is beneficial only to the extent that it lifts the living standards of a median household (or some similar criteria).
So the only full citizens are the middle class, eh? The rich are second class for they must support the poor who are a special protected class. Of course, you'd exempt your sanctimonious ass due to your superior enlightenment. We know how the game works for you good partyline types. We work, you party.
Seig heil to you too, sport.
