Not really. You can't make everyone happy and it's pointless to try. All you can do is what is best for the common good and leave it at that. If everyone claimed to be happy, then they're either lying to you, or have been so oppressed that they see anything above the status quo as a godsend.
I didn't mean that they should be stripped down to their skivvies and moved to a trailer park in rural Alabama. I'm saying that pooling a large amount of money around a small group of people hurts the economy.
This nations top two wealthiest people are also the top two for charitable contributions. As of a couple years ago, Bill Gates returns about 30% of his wealth back to the community, and Warren Buffet returns roughly 4%. After that, the percentage drops sharply to 1% and less. Keep in mind that the 400 wealthiest people in America are all billionaires.
There are people from all income levels who feel the need to donate.
It shouldnt be expected from the weathy,simply cuz they are wealthy.
Some people have other plans/priorities.It dopesnt matter thier income level.
The top 1% pay over 39% of the nations tax burden already.
Just what % would we have to steel from them before they have paid fair share,and then wont be taxed a penny more?
My boss averages arond 500,000 a yr.
That deosnt mean ha has more money laying around than me or you.
His house payment is more,and his utilities,property taxes,auto payments/ins.
Cost of living comfortably is more aswell.
I can get by on whataburger,he likes steak and seafood,ect.
His cost is more than mine across the board,now tax him more,and what have you done?
His monthly expenses are stil more than mine,so his likelyhood of handing out bonuses is slim,pay raises are less likey,his ability to advertise is limited,his profit goes down,and his risk is the same.people who risk more should profit more IMO.
