causes one to question who the congress actually serves
why would someone with a professed legal education surmise that because i would expect the uber rich to be taxed progressively that such an opinion is based on either hate or envywhy do you constantly spew your envy and hate of the uber rich when your masters' want to screw over everyone in the top 2%
it simply makes common sense. only someone without out any would be unable to realize that those who have benefited the most from our nation's resources should be expected to pay the most to maintain the nation's greatness
because at that point of income, their fundamental needs are adequately provided for, leaving room for them to incur additional taxes - paid only above the $250,000 threshold - without significant detriment to their circumstanceswhy do you think someone making 250K a year or a retired person whose only income is now his investment income ought to face tax hikes.
for the same reason i advocate tax relief for the person earning minimum wage, whose income does not begin to cover essential needs
if someone possesses enough assets to realize $200,000+ in dividends annually, why would i be worried about their ability to care for themselves financially? answer that, counselIf you make 200K a year on dividends your tax is going to DOUBLE. but that is ok to you because you figures it will "help the poor"
one need not be a democrat or a socialist to recognize that hungry CHILDREN need to be fed. and by the government, if necessary, when their parents and the community's social assistance network is unable and/or unwilling to meet their fundamental needsas long as you dems and socialists think that the taxpayers have a duty to fund fund and fund some more every act of irresponsible breeding on the grounds not doing so will "hurt the children" the creeping crud of socialism will continue
but tell us why you think a great nation should allow its CHILDREN to go hungry ... explain that to us, squire