Yes, and strict limits on personal wealth. Jeff Bezos doesn't need to be that goddamn rich with so many Amazon workers struggling mightily. It's disgusting.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
spoilers: we're talking like $32k/yr
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I voted 'yes,' but the money just goes to their political flunkies, so wouldn't accomplish much.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah too 1% globally isn't that much actual income, top .1% I'd say yes though
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No. I'd much rather do away with taxes period rather than force anyone else to pay something against their will. If it's wrong on one level, it's equally wrong on others.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The more specialty taxes applied, the more they dodge the bill.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
NO. First, not taxing the top 1% enough is not the reason why there is so much poverty. Second, there is no such thing as "redistribution of wealth" as most people understand it, even if it was tried. Redistribution of money is not redistribution of wealth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Government should not be in the morality business. Individuals should engage in morality business according to their own beliefs. Also, economic policies should be set to solve economic problems, not moral problems. Also...
-
Don't be naive enough to think First World countries give foreign aid for morality reasons. It is either given to maintain influence and power over the countries receiving it, or even more dirty and/or corrupt reasons.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.