Charles Momsen wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:
Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?
Hmmm, sounds like you're comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans. How
about if we look at McCain's plan? In the Bush cuts, the top 1% (over
roughly $200K) got a 3.4% while the middle class was "bought off" with
about 1.5%. Now McCain wanted to repeat this with a 0.5% cut for the
middle class, but a 1.6% cut for the rich. If we look at the super-rich
(top 0.1%, over about $500K) the Bush cut was 5%, and the proposed McCain
cut was 2.1%.

Thus the net of the two cuts is 2% (of total income) for the middle class,
5% for the rich, and 7.1% for the super-rich. Why is this not the rich
being selfish? Why is this not socialism in reverse? What would that be
called- Feudalism?

Before the Rush Limbaugh crowd starts ranting about how the top X% pays
99% of the taxes, let me remind you that the top 60-70% actually pays
about the same percentage of their income after you include the state and
local taxes. The rest of the population is in school, the military, or
jail.


Nope, I'm asking a straight forward question.

No, you asked a rather abstract question. Until you add specifics, the
question of "ownership" is vague. For instance, if you don't pay your
taxes do you deserve to own anything?


You done of very poor job of trying to address the first half while
completely ignoring the second half.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your tv, sells it and uses the
money to feed the poor did he commit a crime?

Is that what you're really talking about? If so can you give an example
of of a case where someone claimed it was not a crime?


Are you being selfish for wanting your tv back?

Are you being selfish in demanding the burglar be prosecuted?

Ah! So you're advocating for prosecuting BushCo.


Is it not a crime if you can easily afford a new tv?


So, do you have a real point?