Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheth
His view is of upper class is $90,000 a year income it may be even higher but I know that it is definitely not anything less then $60,000 a year those are the people that are viewed as the fortunate in Obama's view. Its not just if you pay taxes your considered rich.
Edit:
Found this
link |
Thanks for the clarification. Although, I must say that you kind of hit the nail on the head as to why Obama rubs me the wrong way. I get the impression that in Obama's view, those who make a good living (be that defined at a $60k+ threshold, $90k+, $250k+ or wherever) do so simply because they are "fortunate" or "lucky." It has nothing to do with working hard, being smart, and/or making better choices in life than others. In other words, it has nothing to do with merit -- it's just luck of the draw. Hence the justification for his 'share the wealth' philosophy. After all, those of us who make good livings didn't do anything to actually deserve it; we just lucked out, thus we should redistribute our income to those who aren't as lucky. Never mind that some (not all) low-income people are lazy, dumb, and/or make really bad choices in life.
In this article from Fox News, he talks about how people making more than $250k a year can afford to pay more taxes. Well, let's just say for the sake of argument that this is true. To me, that misses the point. Regardless of whether or not I can afford to carry a larger tax burden than others,
why should I? If I make more than $250k a year (which I do not, btw), I would argue that I do so because of my hard work and wise choices, not simply because I 'got lucky'. In short, I've earned it! As a matter of principle, if I earn an above average income only for someone to come snatch it away -- the key word here being "earn," then that's theft of something that's rightfully mine! Being able to afford getting robbed doesn't make it okay to rob me.
Just my
