So if he's feeling so charitable why doesn't he give 10% of that income to someone else? Hell, 25K would probably pay for prescription medicine for a few people. Problem solved. Did he ever consider that the other guy making a quarter mil may be supporting or helping to support other, aged, younger, or disabled FAMILY MEMBERS already? Why should he have to contribute another 10 if he's already helping to keep his own blood from clogging up the system? Again, liberals showed how myopic they are about everything. Their situation must be everybody's situation. If everyone makes 250K,well hell, he must bank 150 of it every year and we can't have anyone saving for their own futures or that of their OWN families now can we.
What I can't understand LIBERAL is why someone should have to labor in school or his own innovation, blood, sweat, tears, and resources...delayed gratification...why should that person have to support someone who didn't put forth the same effort? Why should he now have to bailout that person? Why should he essentially have to take his A grade and give 10 points of it to the person who got a D? Why, when arguably his A was not a matter of 'good fortune' but hard work? I'd love to know from a liberal why because someone is rewarded more for their profession of choice should they be punished for either choosing wisely or working harder? Why punish those who have been able to emass a bit of wealth? I've never ever understood this beyond common jealousies since every person is capable of being charitable if he or she wishes--why is that not enough?