Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
There is great irony here because for every person who comes from wealth and earns their keep, there are those who did not actually earn anything, are irresponsible, and have a sense of entitlement. But it's okay because they are wealthy so they can't really harm society through immorality or anything else, right?  There have always been government breaks for the wealthy (also known as Wealthfare) but when it comes to creating equilibrium in the form of social welfare programs, people are suddenly critical of "lazy people" and want the government not to intervene.
Coming from money is only as cool as the people who don't abuse it. |
A) I don't see much irony in what I said.
B) People have the right to be lazy and/or make lots of money and/or not act charitably.
C) Please describe your opinion of these breaks the wealthy get. Are you referring to specific provisions (in the IRC for example) or the general advantages the wealthy have in a capitalist society? Also, what is the basis for these breaks? Are we giving them the same starting point as impoverished people, or are we talking about "breaks" based on a starting point of where society/gov't has determined their liability to society should be?
Threaded Mode
