I don't accuse you of class envy, I accuse your presentation of being based on class envy.
Secondly, you use the term "deserve" in two posts to Age of Reason (#52 and 56). I use it in a context which no one can possibly mis interpret (except you). It is within the context of who "deserves" the tax cut. Haven't you been arguing that those who paid it "deserve" a proportional cut?
Deserve is an objective term the last time I looked. The analogies given to start this thread were based in objective data (ie how much was the check and how much each paid).
The introduction of the term "deserves" brings a moral subjective term into play and it goes undefined.
Who are we too determine who deserves what ? I readily admit I have no superior wisdom that would allow me to decide who deserves what in this world. Apparently you do. What basis do we decide ? One years income ? What if the only income in this persons lifetime was winning a 200k lotto does he deserve a higher tax than someone earning it over 10 years ?
To you it is self evident that someone "deserves" a higher tax because his income is high. I don't think I know that they do.
I might argue that he can afford it easier, I might argue that a graduated tax policy is preferable to a flat tax but I cannot argue that he deserves it more.
The introduction of that term in my mind is only done to appeal to emotions and the class envy that others have of people who make more than they do.
Au contraire. I'm the one arguing that the allegory (which purports to imply the "correct" way to do things) is nonsensical. You're the one who seems to think the allegory has some value.