[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"]And it is also not fair for the government to completely neglect certain neighbourhoods, and force poor people to work second jobs miles away from where they live. The least they can do is charge them lower taxes than those who can easily afford it.Bourbons3
Nobody's proposing that, but invoking a form of class wars just because "they can afford it" is immoral. The economy should be fixed without having to take assloads of money from "people who can afford it" and giving it away to people who can't.
To most people, Joe the Plumber earns assloads of money. $250k is a hell of a lot of money to most people, especially those struggling to hold down two jobs and raise two kids. His taxes will not directly subsidise poorer families. But it will go in to the government's funding for public spending, amongst other things. And that will help a lot more people, rather than sit in his bank account and earn him interest he doesn't need.You're not understanding me; unless he bought his business and it's already making a ton of money, Joe the Plumber DOES NOT make 250k a year. He only made 40k in 2006! Joe the Plumber is in the bracket that would supposedly benefit from Obama's plan!
Not a huge amount of people struggle to hold two jobs and raise two kids, and again, why is it moral to play Robin Hood and give them money? Because it may help them?
Take this scenario: if I ask my rich friend, "You want to donate some money to that soup kitchen?" And he says "No," then is it morally permissible of me to take some money (say, fifty dollars) from his wallet and give it to the soup kitchen without his consent? After all, he doesn't need the money.:|
Log in to comment