It's very simple--I am not joking, I can post about this with authority because I work in Cambridge, MA and have had this argument over and over and over.
People like HRC believe in the Marxist concept that if you are wealthy, it is because you took more than your share from someone else, who thus has less than they should.
HRC and her sort--known as HRCS--believe that one of the reasons we even HAVE a government is to prevent certain people from "getting" too much.
Thus, if someone goes out and creates a new product or industry, they are using this country and its system which is ALL OF OURS to "play the system" and earn MORE than someone else--thus, taking money from an imaginary "closed system" which has only so much wealth to go around.
So if someone is making more than HRCS deem necessary, and can afford luxury items (namely anything beyond essentials and MAYBE a one-week, MODEST vacation), they're not fueling the economy. No, no, NO--their expenditures somehow go nowhere and do nothing.
It is only government which has the right to spend that money, because we ALL get to vote for the executive and legislative branches. Thus, they are our proxies in deciding what should be done with the wealth that's NOT created by an individual but by THE SYSTEM we are ALL a part of.
So any punitive taxes are only about "playing fair" and "leveling the playing field" or otherwise taking back for ALL OF US what those evil rich people "took" from ALL of us.
Now, ain't that logical to you? :D
That’s it! I’m not reading any more of your posts. That last one gave me a headache!!!! LOL
Which, of course, explains why certain bureaucrats have secret accounts in the Cayman Islands.
Truly frightening! They only let you out of your cage at night, correct?
Just joking. Your statement was spot on. Thank you, as it was broken down into easily understood terms.
Sounds perfectly logical to me. (In a pigs ass!!)
Fracking commies.
Oh, yeah, I forgot: it was "government" that did all that. When the same sort of people suggest that I'm not paying my "fair share", I ask them what they think would happen if I just decided to stop working and live off the government instead. What if all of the undeserving "rich" people did the same? To even pose the question is considered to be unspeakably selfish. It is apparently some people's duty to produce for everyone's benefit, you see. For her part, Hillary Clinton seems to believe this wholeheartedly. Of course, she's never earned an honest dollar in her life - which of course, explains a lot.
“So if someone is making more than HRCS deem necessary, and can afford luxury items (namely anything beyond essentials and MAYBE a one-week, MODEST vacation), they’re not fueling the economy. No, no, NO—their expenditures somehow go nowhere and do nothing.”
Just a minor correction since there is one exception to the rule of what ‘HRCS deem necessary’. The HRCS must, of course, be exempt from any standards of ‘necessary’ since their earnings are justified by the good they do. IOW, only those who produce wealth must be penalized. Those who ‘allocate’ wealth must be exempt.
It sounds like you and I have both argued with the same idiots. My condolences.
It sure! is.....As long as “they” only take it from the “believers” in that system....let the rest of us take our own chances...
(Ive posed that argument to many a liberal.....I haven't gotten one to say he’d give up his money yet,,,,*G* Their concern is MY money!)