General Discussion

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)

15. Sadly, we can have nothing but

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 02:51 PM

Apr 2016

There is a vanishingly small amount of the US electorate who have the patience to consider even my brief precis above. If it's not Aaron Rodgers' completion percentage or Kylie Jenner's favorite nail enamel too few people care beyond "have more, pay more" vs "everybody should pay the same for the same benefit". It's even simpler than that really. "Society is important" vs "I'm important". Of the maybe 110M who will vote in Nov, 100M won't think beyond or even to that.

I'm curious though since we are at least trying to be among the 10M left over, what of my answer was either implausible or immoral?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's The Moral Basis For Progressive Taxation [View all] eniwetok Apr 2016 OP

Exactly Abouttime Apr 2016 #1

50% at $100k???? eniwetok Apr 2016 #3

Defining "fair share" as an allocation of the costs of government 1939 Apr 2016 #4

OP wasn't about corporate taxation eniwetok Apr 2016 #6

Good thought, but rogerashton Apr 2016 #2

missing the point eniwetok Apr 2016 #5

But I didn't miss your fallacy. rogerashton Apr 2016 #7

sorry... no fallacy eniwetok Apr 2016 #8

I have no problems with some inequality eniwetok Apr 2016 #9

Well, it already IS pretty well "fleshed out" whatthehey Apr 2016 #10

missing the point... eniwetok Apr 2016 #12

I suspect he, and I know I, assume it is axiomatic whatthehey Apr 2016 #13

We can't have a bumper sticker debate eniwetok Apr 2016 #14

Sadly, we can have nothing but whatthehey Apr 2016 #15

I was responding to eniwetok Apr 2016 #16

It's gotta be the shoes. Fla_Democrat Apr 2016 #11