Here’s a Gawker article on how we need to have a maximum income.
American don’t think like this.
I know a lot of liberals have trouble understanding why someone earning $40,000 would be angry about taxes being raised on someone earning $1 million. That’s because they’re bad at being Americans. Good honest people don’t spend their day worrying about how someone else has more money than them, and they certainly don’t wish bad things about someone just because he’s earned more. They want fairness for rich people as well — which usually means letting them keep what they earned. For some reason the left has trouble comprehending this, and they want to stomp all over freedom because they just can’t stand the thought of someone earning more money. Really, they’re going to have some useless politician pull a number out of his posterior for how much he thinks people should be able to earn, and they think the economy will thank us for this random act of violence against it? Or they don’t care if they hurt the economy as long as things are “fair” — fair meaning I got to hurt someone for having more than me.
In my new book coming out soon, I talk about how outlawing whining would be the single greatest thing we could do to help our economy. I think it’s pretty easy to see why. Right now, France is getting ready to tax the rich at 75% which of course is going to cause lots of rich people to leave. Don’t we want to be the non-whiny country to scoop those rich people up so they add to our economy and make jobs here, or is whining just too big a value for some to give up?
You want a better economy, deport the whiners. Worry about your own finances, not someone else’s.
I think that you were right in an earlier post: these people want their “I taxed the rich” award.
I had a teacher in high school who thought there should be a maximum wage. He didn’t like me very much, especially when I ripped that idea to shreds. The worst part is, he was an economics teacher.
-Amazon Book Description
Frank didn’t write that. Amazon did!
I know what you mean, Rayfan87. I had an economics professor in college who didn’t believe in private property. He hated my argumentative guts.
You know how the 80s was supposed to be the “Era of Greed”?
We now live in the “Era of Envy.”
“Worry about your own fiances, not someone elses.”
I think you mean finances. On second thought, fiances works too.
I love your comment in a post a couple weeks ago about how liberals always seem like these little kids complaining “that’s not fair.” I remember every time I tried that with my dad, he wouldn’t even argue whether or not it was fair. He’d just answer “you don’t want fair.”
“…why an already-wealthy person felt the need to leave the country—taking money out of the taxpayers’ pockets in a very literal sense—rather than donate, to the common good…” I think the author of the article is confused. Isn’t the government imposing a tax rate of 75% taking money out of the taxpayers’ pocket? Or if you are a top wage earner, and by default a top tax payer, you don’t count. They seem to have this fixation of referring to the bottom wage earners, and who don’t pay taxes, as “the tax payers” and attribute all road, bridge, and by extension business, construction to them and somehow these greedy rich people end up stealing all the money. I don’t get it.
I think this article was in part an exercise on how many times the author could use the terms “just” and “fair” to justify his warped idea.
I used to argue with a lot of my blind-left professors. Strangely enough, they seemed to actually enjoy it. I think it was because they finally had a student who was awake & learning & thinking in their class instead of pissing away the hour just waiting for it to be over.
I have to admit, I just HAD to jump over to the Gawker article and say something unkind.
Fortunately, there was someone there who apparently knew less about the United State’s tax system than the article’s author. So naturally I set him straight, wished bacon upon him, pushed the author through a plate glass window (metaphorically speaking, of course), and left. I’m hoping that rosy glow I see over my shoulder is from the flames, but I’m probably deluding myself.
Fiances?
Ok, ok, message received.
Frank’s horrible “fiances” typo is now fixed.
I agree with the otherwise silly and pointless people of Gawker on one point, that we do need a maximum income, and that the numerical value of the maximum income level should be infinity.