Replies

You are an effin lunatic.

You are putting a cap on earnings as some stupid moral imperative.

You can the life of luxury on $100,000? Uhmmmm....no you can’t and eventually you will to raise the $100,000 cap as the cost for goods, services and property continues to rise.

Further, you will remove the incentive for acquisition and reduce man to somewhere between socialism and law of the jungle, since money has a finite supply and everyone is judged to have their fair share as determined by someone else.

Reducing incentive to acquire means there is little reason to create a product or service that competes with others.

Here you want to think of AT&T before 1984. One company, monopoly rates and essentially zero innovation as there’s no competitors there is no reason to innovate.

Besides, you bitch about the too 20% and how much they keep of the fruit of their reward.

Like a Gardner who plants seeds in the spring and harvests in the fall.

Who then prepare that harvest selling a portion of it, bartering a portion and even storing so much extra he couldn’t possibly eat the quantity in a year but, he dies so as a means of conserving something of value he could sell at a higher price if the market will pay or barter for a tire and still have saved extra in the event of a catastrophe.

If there is no incentive to get wealthy then feel free to resurrect the the original concept of socialism, the Mayflower Compact.

“From each according to his work, to each according to his need “

BTW, 74% of America doesn’t pay federal income tax.

So either you are arguing everyone should fed tax or you don’t know what you are talking about and have no concept of wealth distribution except you would like to redistribute it “more fairly”

This is the same kind of thinking that led Barack 0bama, in 2008 to make the remark that "A private medical plan will never be as cheap as a government plan, because the private plan will always require a profit."

This is exactly backwards, and characteristic of the way these two morons (0, and the author of this piece) both think. If it is immoral to be other than a beggar, we will all be begging. When we are all begging, the problem will solve itself; we'll all be starving, too.

The truth is, unless you're too stupid to be functioning at an adult level, or in some other way incapacitated, it is immoral to be poor, except temporarily.