It's possible that eliminating the top 1% of a sample would shift the value (not the position) of the median remarkably, but that would say more about a weird distribution in the middle than it would about major inequality at the top.
Anyway, it's a stupid way of describing a real problem.
Yeah, income inequality is a big deal. As I said, the math offended me.
So would we be better off brainwashing people who abuse statistics in reeducation camps, or just using those camps to kill them? I can see benefits to both approaches.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It's possible that eliminating the top 1% of a sample would shift the value (not the position) of the median remarkably, but that would say more about a weird distribution in the middle than it would about major inequality at the top.
Anyway, it's a stupid way of describing a real problem.
What kind of back patting is this supposed to be!?
So would we be better off brainwashing people who abuse statistics in reeducation camps, or just using those camps to kill them? I can see benefits to both approaches.
Well, the latter approach would yield more nutrients for the first few batches of Soylent Green. That's the sort of thing that seems like a tiebreaker to me.
It's possible that eliminating the top 1% of a sample would shift the value (not the position) of the median remarkably, but that would say more about a weird distribution in the middle than it would about major inequality at the top.
Anyway, it's a stupid way of describing a real problem.
Yeah, income inequality is a big deal. As I said, the math offended me.
So would we be better off brainwashing people who abuse statistics in reeducation camps, or just using those camps to kill them? I can see benefits to both approaches.
We'd be best off if we made a consuming media class mandatory along with civics.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish here, the forum's moderately progressive/american-democrat leaning anyway
Oh, I'm pretty sure the forum could move further to left just to be safe. I mean, I think anyone making over $10,000,000 a year should be obligated to finance the dinner of anyone making less than $20,000 a year. And I should get to choose who buys it for me, too.
On a somewhat serious note, the use of the term "Soviet Empire" in the OP left me in despair. This might have been intentional. I would have felt equally in despair if the term "American Empire" was used outside of a Shirow Masamune context.
Do you understand me, OP? I agree with you, but your use of such a term has left me in despair!
On a very serious note, I'm fairly certain conservatives, and many liberals even, don't think that Minsk is in another country. Minsk is part of Russia. Belarus is part of Russia. Of this, they are convinced. Conservatives are also not aware of the infant Union State, so they cannot use that as an excuse.
On a somewhat serious note, the use of the term "Soviet Empire" in the OP left me in despair. This might have been intentional. I would have felt equally in despair if the term "American Empire" was used outside of a Shirow Masamune context.
Do you understand me, OP? I agree with you, but your use of such a term has left me in despair!
On a very serious note, I'm fairly certain conservatives, and many liberals even, don't think that Minsk is in another country. Minsk is part of Russia. Belarus is part of Russia. Of this, they are convinced. Conservatives are also not aware of the infant Union State, so they cannot use that as an excuse.
The map scares many, many people.
Oh, I was totally on a serious note when I said I wanted Tony Hayward to buy my food for the rest of my life.
Oh, yes, I was using the term that I felt conservatives would be the most familiar with. You start throwing around the word 'Soviet' without an '-Empire' suffix, they get really confused.
EDIT: Baby steps, baby steps! Once we get them able to consistently identify their own country on the map, we can worry about the cartographical errors regarding the Russian federation.
On a somewhat serious note, the use of the term "Soviet Empire" in the OP left me in despair. This might have been intentional. I would have felt equally in despair if the term "American Empire" was used outside of a Shirow Masamune context.
Do you understand me, OP? I agree with you, but your use of such a term has left me in despair!
On a very serious note, I'm fairly certain conservatives, and many liberals even, don't think that Minsk is in another country. Minsk is part of Russia. Belarus is part of Russia. Of this, they are convinced. Conservatives are also not aware of the infant Union State, so they cannot use that as an excuse.
The map scares many, many people.
Oh, I was totally on a serious note when I said I wanted Tony Hayward to buy my food for the rest of my life.
Oh, yes, I was using the term that I felt conservatives would be the most familiar with. You start throwing around the word 'Soviet' without an '-Empire' suffix, they get really confused.
"Union" for example. It's clearly evil, but it's not the right word.
Conservatives also do not know what 'CCCP' stands for, but their gut tells them its evil. On the subject of Minsk, my eye was immediately drawn to Belarus for some reason (must be Belarus' sexy outline), and then I remembered that a lot of people don't realize Minsk is not in Russia. The same way Toronto, for example, is not in Michigan.
EDIT: Also, where is Kevin Nash? He is conspicuously absent.
How do you folk reconcile taking money someone worked for away to feed someone who doesn't work?
Imagine if a rich guy goes into the ghetto and steals robs a mom and pop shop. "Well i was hungry and didn't wnat to walk to the bank."
Same principle. "I was hungry, but DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO EARN OR DESERVE MY FOOD."
"Well just TAKE IT FROM THE GUY THAT DOES."
"Hey, we don't have any money."
"Tax the earners!"
Oh, and just FYI, under Bush, people who made >30k a year were tax exempt. After this last April they freaked out and started scrambling to repeal that law since....45% of Americans were paying no taxes.
So now, what you guys want to do is make EVERYONE WHO IS NOT ON WELFARE an "earner" who must pay into the system to support those on Welfare. Congrats; If you have a job they want to classify you as the, "Bourgeoisie." Good job with that.Soon, those not on Welfare will realize they can make a better wage on Welfare, and turn to Welfare, leaving the bill in a smaller portion of the population. Smaller, smaller, smaller.
Same thing happened in Greece. Coffee shop workers paying in to support government workers and welfare hags who were making in excess of 60k a year.
Cut Welfare, invest in public works, and offer the jobs firstly to those on the welfare list. We need workers, not mooches. I can not fathom how this escapes you?
I like how you guys make broad sweeping generalizations then in the same breath support crippling economic policies without thinking them through in any way shape or form. I mean, "Corporatism will save us!" idea that some of the Right have is fucking insanely stupid, but equally stupid is the, "Government is for us, and us is U.S.!" idea everyone's got.
So you're saying that the same people who lied to get us into Iraq and has left thousands dead and even more crippled, divided the nation, passed laws that push us towards a Police state and strip away our civil rights and liberties can be trusted because it's your side even though none of that freedom crippling legislation passed has been repealed in two years and with a Democrat controlled congress with a willingness to push legislation through in a blatant move of Partisan-politics, and instead of questioning that, you're patting each other on the back and circle jerking to how fucking intelligent you all are and how much better you are than those stupid redneck right-winger psychos in their trailerhouse compounds in the country?
Yeah, congrats! You're this Decade's republican party.
Manji2099 on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
So I guess this is the "Scream at political strawmen" thread?
Since when is the USA a medium sized country? I believe it's number 3 or so in total size, including Alaska.
Let's see if I can remember this correctly:
- Russia
- Canada
- China
- United States
- NOTMERRKALAND
So, yeah, fair enough - America's a pretty large land mass. 4th place ribbon ain't so bad.
The continental mass by itself is not very big. However, combined with Alaska, the United States does have a lot of area.
Our advantage is, I think, that compared to Russia or Canada, our land is on average far more fertile, and we do not have huge tracks of just tundra and ice.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
how do you folk reconcile taking money someone worked for away to feed someone who doesn't work?
It's simple.
Tony Hayward has millions upon millions of dollars. It's ludicrous excess. Meanwhile, some people have nothing.
There's a need that Tony can fill. Namely, buying people lunch who cannot afford lunch.
I insist we make filling this need mandatory (And that is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. I think David Miscavige should buy me Christmas presents. And by 'Christmas presents', I mean he should send me like a loaded-up pre-paid Visa card on the 25th of every month, SO IT'LL BE CHRISTMAS ALL YEAR!
You don't want to destroy CHRISTMAS, do you!?)
Wouldn't I feel guilty taking their money? Of course not, silly goose. Nobody who makes that kind of money is a good person. They are de facto terrible people, because they know that they have all the wealth while most of their fellow people have nothing.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Since when is the USA a medium sized country? I believe it's number 3 or so in total size, including Alaska.
Let's see if I can remember this correctly:
- Russia
- Canada
- China
- United States
- NOTMERRKALAND
So, yeah, fair enough - America's a pretty large land mass. 4th place ribbon ain't so bad.
The continental mass by itself is not very big. However, combined with Alaska, the United States does have a lot of area.
Our advantage is, I think, that compared to Russia or Canada, our land is on average far more fertile, and we do not have huge tracks of just tundra and ice.
I seem to recall someone mentioning in one of the immigration threads we could comfortably fit the whole population of Mexico in one of our emptier states, like Wyoming. We've got loads of room to expand yet, even counting the mountainous/desert area in the west (and we still managed to erect a city in the middle of a desert, wasteful as it is).
Wouldn't I feel guilty taking their money? Of course not, silly goose. Nobody who makes that kind of money is a good person. They are de facto terrible people, because they know that they have all the wealth while most of their fellow people have nothing.
... I should get around to that economics thread soon, eh?
Since when is the USA a medium sized country? I believe it's number 3 or so in total size, including Alaska.
Let's see if I can remember this correctly:
- Russia
- Canada
- China
- United States
- NOTMERRKALAND
So, yeah, fair enough - America's a pretty large land mass. 4th place ribbon ain't so bad.
The continental mass by itself is not very big. However, combined with Alaska, the United States does have a lot of area.
Our advantage is, I think, that compared to Russia or Canada, our land is on average far more fertile, and we do not have huge tracks of just tundra and ice.
I seem to recall someone mentioning in one of the immigration threads we could comfortably fit the whole population of Mexico in one of our emptier states, like Wyoming. We've got loads of room to expand yet, even counting the mountainous/desert area in the west (and we still managed to erect a city in the middle of a desert, wasteful as it is).
Whoever said that was a silly, silly goose. Mexico has 100,000,000 people.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Since when is the USA a medium sized country? I believe it's number 3 or so in total size, including Alaska.
Let's see if I can remember this correctly:
- Russia
- Canada
- China
- United States
- NOTMERRKALAND
So, yeah, fair enough - America's a pretty large land mass. 4th place ribbon ain't so bad.
The continental mass by itself is not very big. However, combined with Alaska, the United States does have a lot of area.
Our advantage is, I think, that compared to Russia or Canada, our land is on average far more fertile, and we do not have huge tracks of just tundra and ice.
I seem to recall someone mentioning in one of the immigration threads we could comfortably fit the whole population of Mexico in one of our emptier states, like Wyoming. We've got loads of room to expand yet, even counting the mountainous/desert area in the west (and we still managed to erect a city in the middle of a desert, wasteful as it is).
Whoever said that was a silly, silly goose. Mexico has 100,000,000 people.
Point taken, makes me wish I could find that thread.
I seem to recall someone mentioning in one of the immigration threads we could comfortably fit the whole population of Mexico in one of our emptier states, like Wyoming. We've got loads of room to expand yet, even counting the mountainous/desert area in the west (and we still managed to erect a city in the middle of a desert, wasteful as it is).
Whoever said that was a silly, silly goose. Mexico has 100,000,000 people.
It very much depends on the density people want to live in; if we packed people in at Singapore or Hong Kong densities (i.e., having the average person live in a forty story apartment block), even at Singapore-levels of high-quality housing and infrastructure we could fit a hundred million people in a square a hundred kilometers wide. And still have businesses, parks, etc.
Wouldn't I feel guilty taking their money? Of course not, silly goose. Nobody who makes that kind of money is a good person. They are de facto terrible people, because they know that they have all the wealth while most of their fellow people have nothing.
... I should get around to that economics thread soon, eh?
You think it's eyebrow raising to call Tony Hayward & David Miscavige bad people?
On a very serious note, I'm fairly certain conservatives, and many liberals even, don't think that Minsk is in another country. Minsk is part of Russia.
I seem to recall someone mentioning in one of the immigration threads we could comfortably fit the whole population of Mexico in one of our emptier states, like Wyoming. We've got loads of room to expand yet, even counting the mountainous/desert area in the west (and we still managed to erect a city in the middle of a desert, wasteful as it is).
Whoever said that was a silly, silly goose. Mexico has 100,000,000 people.
It very much depends on the density people want to live in; if we packed people in at Singapore or Hong Kong densities (i.e., having the average person live in a forty story apartment block), even at Singapore-levels of high-quality housing and infrastructure we could fit a hundred million people in a square a hundred kilometers wide. And still have businesses, parks, etc.
Geographically maybe, but in terms of you know, reality? A 33% population increase in an instant would go badly.
Not to mention God help us when Wyoming has ~110 electoral votes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
On a very serious note, I'm fairly certain conservatives, and many liberals even, don't think that Minsk is in another country. Minsk is part of Russia.
I thought Minsk was a hamster
I'm very confused
Minsk. An integral part of the Russian COMMUNIST Hegemony?
This was a pretty funny thread. I thought it might have gotten too serious for a bit but then Manji2099 posted and it was hilarious again. Thanks, dude, for bringing a 2099 mindset into this.
Wouldn't I feel guilty taking their money? Of course not, silly goose. Nobody who makes that kind of money is a good person. They are de facto terrible people, because they know that they have all the wealth while most of their fellow people have nothing.
... I should get around to that economics thread soon, eh?
You think it's eyebrow raising to call Tony Hayward & David Miscavige bad people?
I think David Miscavige is evil, but not because he's rich. He's evil because he's the leader of the Church of Scientology.
As for Tony Hayward, I blame BP's shareholders rather than him.
But more generally, I don't think rich people are morally obliged to share their wealth. My own support for progressivism is built on maintaining equality of opportunity, and if taxing work and goods is necessary to achieve that, then so be it. Beyond what is needed for that, if shareholders and sports teams and media conglomerates and all the other people who pay all these massive earners want to throw their money away, then it's up to them. They seem to think they're getting their money's worth.
ronya on
0
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
That is certainly an OP.
And if being liberal means I'm a socialist, then hell, sign me up.
if this is a really big congratulatory "i'm smarter than conservatives" thing, i think someone ought to definitively nail down the solemnity and in how jocular (if at all) a tone it ought to be read
But more generally, I don't think rich people are morally obliged to share their wealth. My own support for progressivism is built on maintaining equality of opportunity, and if taxing work and goods is necessary to achieve that, then so be it. Beyond what is need for that, if shareholders and sports teams and media conglomerates and all the other people who pay all these massive earners want to throw their money away, then it's up to them. They seem to think they're getting their money's worth.
I think they've brainwashed you into thinking this by virtue of owning all of the information channels for so long. They're not obligated to share their wealth because... well... they're just not. Not only is life unfair, but it has to be one-sidedly unfair. Always unfairest to the poorest.
I say fuck that. How many scumbags do you think we could list that absolutely do not deserve one red penny that they have that make over $10,000,000 a year? I'm not even saying take all of their money - I'm saying they have to buy me a hamburger and some video games. We'll even make it all democratic & free markety of freedom: everyone under 20K income gets to choose who's gonna be their piggybank. Don't want to get gang raped by people that don't have any problem with robbing you blind? Don't be an asshole!
But more generally, I don't think rich people are morally obliged to share their wealth. My own support for progressivism is built on maintaining equality of opportunity, and if taxing work and goods is necessary to achieve that, then so be it. Beyond what is need for that, if shareholders and sports teams and media conglomerates and all the other people who pay all these massive earners want to throw their money away, then it's up to them. They seem to think they're getting their money's worth.
I think they've brainwashed you into thinking this by virtue of owning all of the information channels for so long. They're not obligated to share their wealth because... well... they're just not. Not only is life unfair, but it has to be one-sidedly unfair. Always unfairest to the poorest.
I say fuck that. How many scumbags do you think we could list that absolutely do not deserve one red penny that they have that make over $10,000,000 a year? I'm not even saying take all of their money - I'm saying they have to buy me a hamburger and some video games. We'll even make it all democratic & free markety of freedom: everyone under 20K income gets to choose who's gonna be their piggybank. Don't want to get gang raped by people that don't have any problem with robbing you blind? Don't be an asshole!
IT WILL REGULATE ITSELF!
I do support fairness; like I said, equality of opportunity.
Of course, if you suggest a way of identifying the scumbags who don't deserve what they have, I will certainly support it. Even if the people who make over ten million a year are disproportionately scumbags, I am loathe to take away stuff from the people who do make said ten million in a year in a legitimate fashion just to get at the scumbags who happen to also do so.
Posts
So would we be better off brainwashing people who abuse statistics in reeducation camps, or just using those camps to kill them? I can see benefits to both approaches.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What kind of back patting is this supposed to be!?
Also: More damn lies & statistics:
Well, the latter approach would yield more nutrients for the first few batches of Soylent Green. That's the sort of thing that seems like a tiebreaker to me.
We'd be best off if we made a consuming media class mandatory along with civics.
I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish here, the forum's moderately progressive/american-democrat leaning anyway
Woohoo! This thread is for me again!
Glenn Beck: one more reason to mash your head aganst a solid surface until blissful oblivion finally takes you.
OP was funny though.
Oh, I'm pretty sure the forum could move further to left just to be safe. I mean, I think anyone making over $10,000,000 a year should be obligated to finance the dinner of anyone making less than $20,000 a year. And I should get to choose who buys it for me, too.
I choose you Tony-chu!
Do you understand me, OP? I agree with you, but your use of such a term has left me in despair!
On a very serious note, I'm fairly certain conservatives, and many liberals even, don't think that Minsk is in another country. Minsk is part of Russia. Belarus is part of Russia. Of this, they are convinced. Conservatives are also not aware of the infant Union State, so they cannot use that as an excuse.
The map scares many, many people.
Oh, I was totally on a serious note when I said I wanted Tony Hayward to buy my food for the rest of my life.
Oh, yes, I was using the term that I felt conservatives would be the most familiar with. You start throwing around the word 'Soviet' without an '-Empire' suffix, they get really confused.
EDIT: Baby steps, baby steps! Once we get them able to consistently identify their own country on the map, we can worry about the cartographical errors regarding the Russian federation.
"Union" for example. It's clearly evil, but it's not the right word.
Conservatives also do not know what 'CCCP' stands for, but their gut tells them its evil. On the subject of Minsk, my eye was immediately drawn to Belarus for some reason (must be Belarus' sexy outline), and then I remembered that a lot of people don't realize Minsk is not in Russia. The same way Toronto, for example, is not in Michigan.
EDIT: Also, where is Kevin Nash? He is conspicuously absent.
Let's see if I can remember this correctly:
- Russia
- Canada
- China
- United States
- NOTMERRKALAND
So, yeah, fair enough - America's a pretty large land mass. 4th place ribbon ain't so bad.
Imagine if a rich guy goes into the ghetto and steals robs a mom and pop shop. "Well i was hungry and didn't wnat to walk to the bank."
Same principle. "I was hungry, but DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO EARN OR DESERVE MY FOOD."
"Well just TAKE IT FROM THE GUY THAT DOES."
"Hey, we don't have any money."
"Tax the earners!"
Oh, and just FYI, under Bush, people who made >30k a year were tax exempt. After this last April they freaked out and started scrambling to repeal that law since....45% of Americans were paying no taxes.
So now, what you guys want to do is make EVERYONE WHO IS NOT ON WELFARE an "earner" who must pay into the system to support those on Welfare. Congrats; If you have a job they want to classify you as the, "Bourgeoisie." Good job with that.Soon, those not on Welfare will realize they can make a better wage on Welfare, and turn to Welfare, leaving the bill in a smaller portion of the population. Smaller, smaller, smaller.
Same thing happened in Greece. Coffee shop workers paying in to support government workers and welfare hags who were making in excess of 60k a year.
Cut Welfare, invest in public works, and offer the jobs firstly to those on the welfare list. We need workers, not mooches. I can not fathom how this escapes you?
I like how you guys make broad sweeping generalizations then in the same breath support crippling economic policies without thinking them through in any way shape or form. I mean, "Corporatism will save us!" idea that some of the Right have is fucking insanely stupid, but equally stupid is the, "Government is for us, and us is U.S.!" idea everyone's got.
So you're saying that the same people who lied to get us into Iraq and has left thousands dead and even more crippled, divided the nation, passed laws that push us towards a Police state and strip away our civil rights and liberties can be trusted because it's your side even though none of that freedom crippling legislation passed has been repealed in two years and with a Democrat controlled congress with a willingness to push legislation through in a blatant move of Partisan-politics, and instead of questioning that, you're patting each other on the back and circle jerking to how fucking intelligent you all are and how much better you are than those stupid redneck right-winger psychos in their trailerhouse compounds in the country?
Yeah, congrats! You're this Decade's republican party.
The continental mass by itself is not very big. However, combined with Alaska, the United States does have a lot of area.
Ayn Rand continues to be the fourth worst human of the last century.
Our advantage is, I think, that compared to Russia or Canada, our land is on average far more fertile, and we do not have huge tracks of just tundra and ice.
It's simple.
Tony Hayward has millions upon millions of dollars. It's ludicrous excess. Meanwhile, some people have nothing.
There's a need that Tony can fill. Namely, buying people lunch who cannot afford lunch.
I insist we make filling this need mandatory (And that is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. I think David Miscavige should buy me Christmas presents. And by 'Christmas presents', I mean he should send me like a loaded-up pre-paid Visa card on the 25th of every month, SO IT'LL BE CHRISTMAS ALL YEAR!
You don't want to destroy CHRISTMAS, do you!?)
Wouldn't I feel guilty taking their money? Of course not, silly goose. Nobody who makes that kind of money is a good person. They are de facto terrible people, because they know that they have all the wealth while most of their fellow people have nothing.
I seem to recall someone mentioning in one of the immigration threads we could comfortably fit the whole population of Mexico in one of our emptier states, like Wyoming. We've got loads of room to expand yet, even counting the mountainous/desert area in the west (and we still managed to erect a city in the middle of a desert, wasteful as it is).
This is an... interesting characterization of welfare policies.
e: for balance, I find this also eyebrow-raising:
... I should get around to that economics thread soon, eh?
Whoever said that was a silly, silly goose. Mexico has 100,000,000 people.
It's Randian.
Point taken, makes me wish I could find that thread.
It very much depends on the density people want to live in; if we packed people in at Singapore or Hong Kong densities (i.e., having the average person live in a forty story apartment block), even at Singapore-levels of high-quality housing and infrastructure we could fit a hundred million people in a square a hundred kilometers wide. And still have businesses, parks, etc.
You think it's eyebrow raising to call Tony Hayward & David Miscavige bad people?
I'm very confused
Geographically maybe, but in terms of you know, reality? A 33% population increase in an instant would go badly.
Not to mention God help us when Wyoming has ~110 electoral votes.
Minsk. An integral part of the Russian COMMUNIST Hegemony?
I like to think he's gone Galt.
I think David Miscavige is evil, but not because he's rich. He's evil because he's the leader of the Church of Scientology.
As for Tony Hayward, I blame BP's shareholders rather than him.
But more generally, I don't think rich people are morally obliged to share their wealth. My own support for progressivism is built on maintaining equality of opportunity, and if taxing work and goods is necessary to achieve that, then so be it. Beyond what is needed for that, if shareholders and sports teams and media conglomerates and all the other people who pay all these massive earners want to throw their money away, then it's up to them. They seem to think they're getting their money's worth.
And if being liberal means I'm a socialist, then hell, sign me up.
does that mean the OP is joking
i seriously don't get it
if this is a really big congratulatory "i'm smarter than conservatives" thing, i think someone ought to definitively nail down the solemnity and in how jocular (if at all) a tone it ought to be read
I think they've brainwashed you into thinking this by virtue of owning all of the information channels for so long. They're not obligated to share their wealth because... well... they're just not. Not only is life unfair, but it has to be one-sidedly unfair. Always unfairest to the poorest.
I say fuck that. How many scumbags do you think we could list that absolutely do not deserve one red penny that they have that make over $10,000,000 a year? I'm not even saying take all of their money - I'm saying they have to buy me a hamburger and some video games. We'll even make it all democratic & free markety of freedom: everyone under 20K income gets to choose who's gonna be their piggybank. Don't want to get gang raped by people that don't have any problem with robbing you blind? Don't be an asshole!
IT WILL REGULATE ITSELF!
Well played.
I do support fairness; like I said, equality of opportunity.
Of course, if you suggest a way of identifying the scumbags who don't deserve what they have, I will certainly support it. Even if the people who make over ten million a year are disproportionately scumbags, I am loathe to take away stuff from the people who do make said ten million in a year in a legitimate fashion just to get at the scumbags who happen to also do so.
I'd do it myself, but I'm awful at crafting compelling OPs.
I laughed.