What is a "fair" share for the wealthy?

[The Seer]

90% for anybody with a net worth of 100 million. The 90% goes to an accredited charity of THEIR choice.

[Mikey]

This post is way longer than I intended

RACK

[Dr_Phibes]

If you had 50 states, each doing its own thing, in a few years you could sort out the winners and the losers. The states with bad programs could copy the states with good programs. And if I thought my state's programs sucked, I could pile into the jalopy and head for greener pastures.

Then it would be inevitable, as states fall by the wayside and copy their betters, they'd all slowly adapt the system of the 'winner' and you're back to square one.

It sounds good, it's something you repeatedly bring up as a solution, but efficiency is streamlining, there's no way around it, a country can't exist in a bubble forever. You touched on it with higher income accumulating more wealth; with concentration comes power. In government as well as private enterprise. Break up one for the sake of fifty and you're blunted.

[poptart]

1) I'm not sure you can base wealth on a person's income level. People might have assets, investments, or future inheritances which could realitically make them wealthy, absent a high income. Like porn, I can't necessarily define wealthy, but I know it when I see it.


We were deep dicked the day that the gov set about confiscating our income before we receive it.
Still chuckle when I think about how perverse this is.
Owned.

I'm not in favor of an income tax.

2) If there is an income tax, I see a flat tax as fair. 15% across the board, for example.

3) Why is that fair? We all receive the same services, and while there are some obstacles some people face and some advantages other people have, we generally all have (theoretically) an opportunity to make what we will of our lives in America. Everyone should pay the same rate, imo.

[smackaholic]

If you had 50 states, each doing its own thing, in a few years you could sort out the winners and the losers. The states with bad programs could copy the states with good programs. And if I thought my state's programs sucked, I could pile into the jalopy and head for greener pastures.

Then it would be inevitable, as states fall by the wayside and copy their betters, they'd all slowly adapt the system of the 'winner' and you're back to square one.

It sounds good, it's something you repeatedly bring up as a solution, but efficiency is streamlining, there's no way around it, a country can't exist in a bubble forever. You touched on it with higher income accumulating more wealth; with concentration comes power. In government as well as private enterprise. Break up one for the sake of fifty and you're blunted.

This argument, used by socialists, seems like a good one. Trouble is, it leaves out one very basic factor.

Humans are self centered P'sOS.

Given this fact, how do you deal with it?

You deal with it by limiting one man's control over another, as much as possible. Also, you handle services at the lowest level possible, for the very simple reason that accountability is directly related to the level at which that service is provided.

Making people do things for themselves is ultimate accountabilty. Having that service provided on a national level means virtually no accountability. And that accountability becomes expensive, because you need to pay someone else to watch him....and someone to watch the guy watching the first guy.

I remember a few years back I was talking to my father in law about an example of this. There was a proposal in local government to make a service, forget what it was, animal control, garbage removal, something like that, a shared service, between three or four towns. I said, sounds like a good idea to me. I sited the economy of scale argument. His reply was "bullshit". He said that bumping that service up to a regional level meant a loss of accountability. And a few pennies potentially saved was not worth that loss of accountability.

He was a pretty smart old dude. Unfortunately, he's no longer with us.

Regarding your claim that government darwinism leads to a single policy, well, perhaps it does, but, it gets there through a much better process and, so long as you still have 50 separate systems, as some inevitably stray off track and fail, the process works all over again. One monolithic organization does not enjoy this benefit.

[Smackie Chan]

If you had 50 states, each doing its own thing, in a few years you could sort out the winners and the losers. The states with bad programs could copy the states with good programs. And if I thought my state's programs sucked, I could pile into the jalopy and head for greener pastures.

Then it would be inevitable, as states fall by the wayside and copy their betters, they'd all slowly adapt the system of the 'winner' and you're back to square one.

If I follow your logic correctly, you're equating 50 decentralized entities doing essentially the same thing with one monolithic centralized entity mandating a common system across separate entities, which is not a valid equation.

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic, the issue is accountability along with span of control. Taking 88's recommendation a step further, if not only each of the 50 states, but each county and city within each state were to implement an "ideal" system of governance that was the same as each neighboring city's, county's, and state's, that would not be the same as having a centralized government implementing the same system across the board. Let's say, for example, that as a result of trial and error by the many local and state governments, it was conclusively determined that the best and fairest way of collecting revenue to run those governments was a flat 30% sales tax, of which 5% went to the city, 10% went to the county, and 15% went to the Feds (who were only responsible for funding the military, interstate infrastructure, national parks, a MUCH smaller workforce of Federal gov't employees, etc.), the accountability for how those funds would be spent to provide social services at the local levels would would be much greater, and the span of control much smaller. There would be many small bureaucracies, each fairly easy to manage, rather than a few highly unmanageable, unwieldy, and unaccountable bureaucracies at the centralized Federal level. Of course, in reality, each local government would do things a bit differently, but they would be accountable only to those voters and citizens whose regional core values were fairly similar to each other's. There would be fewer management tiers needed, which should reduce costs, and local governments would be free to enter into partnerships with each other (with direct or indirect voter concurrence) to realize economies of scale.

This is not a return to square one.

[M2]

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic,

Really ?


Could you be any more dramatic ???


Look hippie... if you didn't smoke pot all day long... you wouldn't have ended up with a deadhead job in DC


Ya feel me ?

[smackaholic]

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic,

:cry:

dude, I thought we was interweb radio bros?

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Smackie Chan]

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic,

Really ?

Yeah, but I healed pretty quickly.

Could you be any more dramatic ???

I'm sure I could, like if I were to pretend I was slaying a dragon or somethin' at the local Renfaire. But I saw no need for it here.

Look hippie... if you didn't smoke pot all day long... you wouldn't have ended up with a deadhead job in DC

If you didn't smoke pole all day long, you wouldn't be so far out of touch with reality or the TRUTH.

Ya feel me ?

Uh, never.

[Smackie Chan]

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic,

:cry:

dude, I thought we was interweb radio bros?

:cry: :cry: :cry:

There, there li'l buddy. I'm still here for ya. I welcome any and all into the brotherhood of interwebs chat radio, including knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, forklift jockeys, and yes, even toolio. I'd even play some Tonio K for the chimey one.

[smackaholic]

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic,

Really ?


Could you be any more dramatic ???


Look hippie... if you didn't smoke pot all day long... you wouldn't have ended up with a deadhead job in DC


Ya feel me ?

Smackie may be a pot smoking, gubmint trough feeding, parasite, but, his morning piss has more IQ points than you'll ever have, chime boy.

And how's about you just ask one of your carny buds for a feel?

[smackaholic]

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic,

:cry:

dude, I thought we was interweb radio bros?

:cry: :cry: :cry:

There, there li'l buddy. I'm still here for ya. I welcome any and all into the brotherhood of interwebs chat radio, including knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, forklift jockeys, and yes, even toolio. I'd even play some Tonio K for the chimey one.

How 'bout bradhusker?

You gotta have some semblance of standards, ya know.

[Smackie Chan]

How 'bout bradhusker?

You gotta have some semblance of standards, ya know.

brad would be a hoot to have in chat. Hell, so would AP, Jerkovich, & LTS TRD2.

Standards schmandards

[bradhusker]

90% for anybody with a net worth of 100 million. The 90% goes to an accredited charity of THEIR choice.

This answer proves that the seer should be put down for sheer stupidity.

Imagine? Taking 90 percent of a persons wealth and or income? Over 200 years ago, some very wise men set forth to end that kind of tyranny.

Seer would like to REGRESS backward to that. SEER is a fuckin sick motherfucker. Just like the democrats wanting a 50 percent "death tax".

THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!! The answer to the current problems CANNOT be solved by taking 90 percent of anybodys anything.

JOBS.

And, if the seer doesnt understand that simple answer? Just kill yourself.

Basic human psychology explains that if human beings dont work, they are dysfunctional and will either resort to crime, OR, ask their congressman or woman to take from others, in return for their votes.

Our founders were indeed wise men. They said, and I quote, "As soon as the people realize that they can vote themselves "free money". it will herald the end of our great republic", end quote.

If you are a millionaire, 35 percent is indeed a fair rate to tax. And then for the second bite of the apple? 15 percent on your investments.

THEN, make sure that millions of americans are put back to work. As for bad choices? Thats a part of life. You make bad choices? You fuck like a roach and bring 5 babies into the world? You smoke crack? Too bad for you. You take my money? God help you.

[Moving Sale]

fair ...fairness...fair...fair?

I'll tell you what I tell my clients, "'Fair' is something that gets you on a bus." [In this forum "'Fair' is a place you sell wind chimes" might be more appropriate.]

Now STFU and keep making $ for next year's IRS bill you lazy bitchy cunt.

[LTS TRN 2]

SS, your argument is absurdly too long and basically is entirely undermined by your initial breezy acceptance of the current national model of military spending. Of course you're right that it's excessive...but...that's it? You're willing to go along with it because..."polls show that Americans are willing" as well? Are you fucking kidding? You would actually tap out that entire (very loosely structured) essay after caving in completely to a weak canard about "polls" indicating that the majority is cool with something, so you're in too?

Look, if the average American knew even a tenth of the sheer waste and callous misuse of the military and its profiteering organizers, they would march on Washington DC in the millions.

Instead, you're just shamelessly pumping up the inflatable doll of right wing radio and having a shag with your windows open.

What's the proper tax policy to rectify the most rampant hording of wealth in America's history? How to address the most drastic assault on the middle class since Herbert Hoover? How to stop the Koch brothers and their insatiable drive to return this nation's labor policies to that of the 19th century?

Well, obviously we need to raise the capital gains tax to reflect the tax rate for regular jobs, etc. As it is the wealthy folks who make MOST of their money from investments pay a much lower rate than someone building a bridge or making cars. Where's your argument on capital gains tax? Oh, that's right, it's sacrosanct in right wing hackdom, and you can't even conceive of dealing with this mega loophole.

Another blind spot in your totally fake "libertarian" mouthings is the simple fact that the last time we allowed an unregulated Wall St to ruin the economy and render the nation in dire straights, the policy which actually worked and actually jump started the economy was the establishment of the WPA in 1939. That's right, the government hiring millions of Americans to fix roads, clean ups, teaching, medical research, everything. It worked before and it can work again, this time better. Of course you've got no actual argument against this--or any ideas that actually would work.

You're just a right wing robot who is greasing up to face the fact that you're about to vote for a robot from the planet Kolob. Perhaps the boxing metaphor of "greasing up" is inappropriate here due to your basic passivity in digesting the right wing spoor-talk. No, you're "strapping yourself to the roof of a car" in panting anticipation of Mitt patting your head. "Good boy, here's your tax treat."

Sure, I'm a little confused...but I'm not a neo-nazi...am I?

[LTS TRN 2]

You're speaking of SS, right Willie? Because he's the one rambling, not me. Or what? Put up or shut up, moron.

[smackaholic]

There was a WPA that helped pull us out of the depression, but, not the one you speak of. Roosevelt started doing what you refer to much earlier and it didn't help. The War Powers Act helped ramp up production for the war and THAT is what got things rolling.

As for your point that there is shameful waste in military spending, you are correct. Hell, I've taken part in my share of that waste, with two trips to pearl harbor as a reservist.

But, that spending isn't wasteful because it's military spending. It is wasteful because it is people spending other people's money. And no matter what that spending is, it inevitably becomes wasteful.

Given this universal truth, does it not make sense to limit it as much as possible? Military spending is at least, constitutionally authorized. Much of the spending you want to do is not.

Move this spending to the lowest level of government possible and I promise you, the level of waste will diminish.

[LTS TRN 2]

Bullshit , smackie. While WWII certainly lurched the whole world out of its depression, at a catastrophic cost in human lives, property, and money, the Work Progress Administration, established in 1935, was a splendid success despite the auto-smear attacks waged by the same corporatist hacks we hear today attacking health care reform, etc. You offer nothing but a trite dismissal. In fact over 3.5 million Americans were put to work and tremendous projects were completed. It was win/win across the board--except for those union-hating right wing morons who to this day listen to Limpdick and Hannity and then just regurgitate the sour gas automatically.

As for your Alice In Wonderland semantics of "it's not wasteful because it's military, but because people are spending other people's money," are you brain dead?

The "other people's money" is OUR national tax fund, okay? And the government is OUR representatives who are duly appointed to properly spend our tax fund to maintain and improve our nation. You are fundamentally unhinged from the basic design of representative democracy.

Our military waste is the biggest waste of money in the history of the planet. The U.S. military industry is the biggest corporate consortium in the history of the planet. It is the biggest employer in the world. It is in control of our government and our tax fund. It is determined to maintain and expand its influence and scope.

This is the main problem of our economy, and you are in pathetic denial. Your wading pool Libertarianism is noxious at best, and a real waste of time.

WAKEY WAKE

[LTS TRN 2]

Willie, you're a "troll," remember? That means you're not even real, you just post gibberish to try to incite or distract or...well what? Why on earth would you actually post such a gassy belch, and then prop yourself? Are you bed ridden and crawling through the days? You certainly haven't been reading or exercising your noodle, that's clear. Whatever, the mandate stands--put up or shut up.

[LTS TRN 2]

Take some more meds, whatever. You haven't even engaged in the nominal topic. You apparently have no takes on the capital gains tax or military waste, let alone any actual plans to help the economy--or any insight as to how it has been delivered to its present dire state. Why are you attempting to draw me or anyone into some personal pissing contest? You're like husker, a blathering old crank about as sharp as a ping pong ball. Put up or shut up.

[bradhusker]

Take some more meds, whatever. You haven't even engaged in the nominal topic. You apparently have no takes on the capital gains tax or military waste, let alone any actual plans to help the economy--or any insight as to how it has been delivered to its present dire state. Why are you attempting to draw me or anyone into some personal pissing contest? You're like husker, a blathering old crank about as sharp as a ping pong ball. Put up or shut up.

Willie, I am gonna side with you on this one. LTS is a lunatic fringe lefty weirdo. LTS just called the military the biggest waste of money ever??? WTF!!!

Does LTS even begin to understand how many trillions the US government wastes on stupid shit every single day?
FOR EXAMPLE, GAY MEN and their emotional distress as related to the size of their penis'.
OUR federal government spends over a million dollars on this SHIT! Can you fuckin believe this shit???

Thats just one example of the many many trillions spent by left wing government buerocrats. THE FED has NO BUSINESS spending our tax dollars on trillions in useless bullshit/

LTS is the dumbest troll ive ever seen in here. He wont admit the trillions in wasted tax dollars on left wing bullshit.

[Dr_Phibes]

If I follow your logic correctly, you're equating 50 decentralized entities doing essentially the same thing with one monolithic centralized entity mandating a common system across separate entities, which is not a valid equation.

Though it hurts me to agree with 'holic, the issue is accountability along with span of control. Taking 88's recommendation a step further, if not only each of the 50 states, but each county and city within each state were to implement an "ideal" system of governance that was the same as each neighboring city's, county's, and state's, that would not be the same as having a centralized government implementing the same system across the board. Let's say, for example, that as a result of trial and error by the many local and state governments, it was conclusively determined that the best and fairest way of collecting revenue to run those governments was a flat 30% sales tax, of which 5% went to the city, 10% went to the county, and 15% went to the Feds (who were only responsible for funding the military, interstate infrastructure, national parks, a MUCH smaller workforce of Federal gov't employees, etc.), the accountability for how those funds would be spent to provide social services at the local levels would would be much greater, and the span of control much smaller. There would be many small bureaucracies, each fairly easy to manage, rather than a few highly unmanageable, unwieldy, and unaccountable bureaucracies at the centralized Federal level. Of course, in reality, each local government would do things a bit differently, but they would be accountable only to those voters and citizens whose regional core values were fairly similar to each other's. There would be fewer management tiers needed, which should reduce costs, and local governments would be free to enter into partnerships with each other (with direct or indirect voter concurrence) to realize economies of scale.

This is not a return to square one.

Incompetence is a separate issue, it's more duplication of tasks being non-productive. Download every national programme for fifty satellites? That's insane, it's anarchy and it would bankrupt the programmes (to the delight of people like 88).

You just qualified yourself with 'entering into partnerships'. Fracture Walmart into thousands of mom'n'pop shops, in twenty years - they'll be gone and you'll have.. Walmart.
Start out with fifty relatively autonomous states and soon you have monolithic entity. Think over decades, not short term, look at existing models.

Look at your health care 'system', every existing model shows that you could extend coverage, provide more service for the entire population and equal or better performance at two thirds the cost by eliminating thousands of little bureaucracies.
It's inevitable, fifty states don't exist in a vacuum, you're competing internationally. 88's scenario might have sounded rosy when capital and workers could flee from state to state, now it has no international borders. You can't just move a national population (though some may try), you have to perform.

[BSmack]

Incompetence is a separate issue, it's more duplication of tasks being non-productive. Download every national programme for fifty satellites? That's insane, it's anarchy and it would bankrupt the programmes (to the delight of people like 88).

Back in the 80s we called it "New Federalisim." It was a joke back then. Trouble is, nobody laughed.

[Screw_Michigan]

You need to beg your family to kill you.

Why don't you just sit on him? I hear you're pretty good at that.

[smackaholic]

Incompetence is a separate issue, it's more duplication of tasks being non-productive. Download every national programme for fifty satellites? That's insane, it's anarchy and it would bankrupt the programmes (to the delight of people like 88).

You just don't fukking get it, do you phibes.

Incompetence and more importantly, straight up corruption which inevitably comes along with putting people in charge of shit IS the fukking issue.

Capitalism realizes this and addresses it with freedom. Freedom gives you a weapon to combat incompetence, corruption and most other things, in that YOU are the one making the decisions. The fact that we don't use a capitalist model any more regarding health insurance is why it's a mess. Give me the ability to pick and chose my insurance company and I guaran-damn-tee you I will receive better service. I will receive better service because I will have the ability to fire their fukking ass. This is what Mitt was talking about a few months ago when the liberal press jumped all over him.

It's so fukking simple a concept that anyone should be able to understand it.

[LTS TRN 2]

Smackie, your simplistic embrace of "capitalism" is just a blank check for rapacious profiteering. And this does not--or certainly should not--apply in the field of health care. We see the obvious reasons for this in health insurers declining coverage for folks with preexisting conditions or even a history of a condition. In Japan, where health care is entirely privatized, everyone is covered at low cost because the basic social ethos of health care is decidedly not capitalist at all. And they're pretty good at capitalism--propping up our palsied consumer-based economy by buying our junk T-bills--as you know from their cars and electronics, etc. So...don't try and dismiss the Japanese model of highly functional health care as a fluke--or with any cheap smears as to its quality. Ours is the dysfunctional health care system--far below the standards of most developed nations--and the main reason is the "capitalist" imperative whose fake banner you so obliviously wave.

[Truman]

Incompetence is a separate issue, it's more duplication of tasks being non-productive. Download every national programme for fifty satellites? That's insane, it's anarchy and it would bankrupt the programmes (to the delight of people like 88).

Back in the 80s we called it "New Federalisim." It was a joke back then. Trouble is, nobody laughed.

Joke to whom? Liberals that insist the Constitution is a living, breathing document? People who believe the function of our government is to take care of them?

The joke is when progressives attempt to pass sweeping entitlement legislation under the guise of the Commerce Clause in a futile attempt to circumlocute the Xth Amendment.

Either you people can’t read, or you people don’t care. You want centralized government, B? Canada is 90 miles up the road. Surely you have talents worthy of Canadian citizenship.

Healthcare’s gonna be a historical footnote, B. If you have ever read the Constitution, you’d understand why….

Let me make this plain: An all-knowing, all-caring, omnipresent Central Government was never the intention of the Founders – Nor of half the populace that still retains a working knowledge and basic understanding of how this place is supposed to be run.

The Fed is charged to finance our military, approve treaties, and build postal roads. Period. The rest, per the Xth Amendment, is left to the states.

Oh, and the Fed acknowledges that you have the freedom to succeed… And fail… At your own capabilities.

You wanna change things? Convene a Constitutional Convention. Or move. Or shut your pie-hole. I don’t care. We ain’t Europe, and nobody here owes you nothin’. You cradle-to-gravers suck out loud.

[bradhusker]

Smackie, your simplistic embrace of "capitalism" is just a blank check for rapacious profiteering. And this does not--or certainly should not--apply in the field of health care. We see the obvious reasons for this in health insurers declining coverage for folks with preexisting conditions or even a history of a condition. In Japan, where health care is entirely privatized, everyone is covered at low cost because the basic social ethos of health care is decidedly not capitalist at all. And they're pretty good at capitalism--propping up our palsied consumer-based economy by buying our junk T-bills--as you know from their cars and electronics, etc. So...don't try and dismiss the Japanese model of highly functional health care as a fluke--or with any cheap smears as to its quality. Ours is the dysfunctional health care system--far below the standards of most developed nations--and the main reason is the "capitalist" imperative whose fake banner you so obliviously wave.

LTS just doesnt fuckin get it. Keep talkin your stupid garbage about capitalism. WE WILL TALK LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.

LIBERALS call themselves "Progressive", HOWEVER, this is the ultimate oxymoron. They are actually "Regressive" or "backward". Their policies take us all in the direction of less liberty and freedom. And ultimately, this takes us back to the "dark ages", before the constitution.

The bigger the federal government gets, we will see more corruption, more debt, and less freedom and liberty for the individual.

YOU CANT SPIN THAT.

[BSmack]

Their policies take us all in the direction of less liberty and freedom. And ultimately, this takes us back to the "dark ages", before the constitution.

You are not even a shit troll. A shit troll would be an upgrade for you. You are a retard troll.

[bradhusker]

Their policies take us all in the direction of less liberty and freedom. And ultimately, this takes us back to the "dark ages", before the constitution.

You are not even a shit troll. A shit troll would be an upgrade for you. You are a retard troll.

BSmack, you are not even smart enough to grasp basic simple fact. You cant understand liberal political lies. You cant understand the current manufactured "war on women". IN SHORT, you are one dumb fuck.

The fact remains, to be progressive, ultimately means that you are "regressing" back to a time before our constitution. Liberal policies will indeed take us backward, and erode our liberty and freedom.

Not my opinion, but hard fact.

[Truman]

To be progressive means you're regressing?

I'm pretty sure B got it right in his previous post...

[bradhusker]

To be progressive means you're regressing?

I'm pretty sure B got it right in his previous post...

Truman? Can you think? Can your brain function normally? Liberals like to call themselves progressive correct? YET, their policies are "regressive", WHAT DONT YOU FOLLOW HERE?

For example, Liberal democrats want big federal government control in many many areas of our lives. The federal government grows larger by the minute. Do you realize the end results of government expansion?? Do you even understand the loss of liberty and freedom here? When I said "regressive", I knew exactly what I was talking about. Regress means to go backward. Backward to before our constitution, Backward to when we fled tyranny in England.

SO, again, what is it that you fail to understand here? Are you too stupid to realize that Liberal policies are "regressing" us as a nation? As a people? Are you too stupid to understand that liberals can call themselves "progressive", yet thru their policies, be "regressive"?

Truman, if you cant understand this, you really are a fuckin retard.

[Goober McTuber]

RACK Mr. King for a well thought out essay on the subject. Breathlessly awaiting Sirfindafold's totally retarded response.

[Bizzarofelice]

I was reading that but his ideas for taxing only those with eye twitches creeped me out

[Felix]

if you think the wealthy are not paying their fair share, please answer the following questions:

1. What is your definition of wealthy?

2. What is the fair share that such wealthy people should pay?

3. Why is that fair?

what is wealthy? there is no de minimis line, wealthy is a relative concept....to homeless people, I probably seem incredibly wealthy...but I probably couldn't pay for a month of maintenance fees on one of Bill Gates summer homes....you can't define an abstract term in absolutes...given that you can't define the term, you can't define what is considered a "fair share"

I know there are some people here that probably make a lot more money than I do.... so would their opinion of what constitutes being wealthy be the same as mine?

probably not

[poptart]

The questions I posed are very simple, but no one has dared try to answer any of them.

No one?

I did.

[Dr_Phibes]

Probably because everything your talking about is notionary, assigning a monetary value to someone's role in society is abstract, there is no right answer. You got up in the morning and worked hard, big fucking deal. You and everybody else.

[Dr_Phibes]

what is wealthy? there is no de minimis line, wealthy is a relative concept....to homeless people, I probably seem incredibly wealthy...but I probably couldn't pay for a month of maintenance fees on one of Bill Gates summer homes....you can't define an abstract term in absolutes...given that you can't define the term, you can't define what is considered a "fair share"

That's crap, you're using emotive terms to describe something which is actually material and definite. Using your logic, you could claim that a homeless beggar has achieved 'equality' with an aristocrat in a castle, so long as the aristocrat has an unhappy marriage and the beggar is happy with his bottle of meths.

[mvscal]

RACK Mr. King for a well thought out essay on the subject.

Well thought out? I laughed.

So...what's stopping him from scratching a check? He never did answer. I'm not talking about charity and neither was Christie. If he feels he isn't paying his fair share, he should go ahead and pay more. It's allowed. Nobody is going to stop him. In fact, he's a fucking hypocritical scumbag for not paying "his fair share."

And you? Well, you're just a dumbfuck.