News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax ... by ryanwaggoner on Friday February 05, 2010 @06:53PM (#1105313)
It seems a bit intellectually unfair to pit one specific person against a bunch of vague groups of people that we generally hold favorable views towards.

In the aggregate, I think one can make the case that the wealthy contribute more to society than the poor, in the form of jobs, capital, etc. How do you determine value to a society other than through what the society is willing to pay? And if those other jobs were worth more to society, presumably we'd pay people more to do them.

Re:People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax ... by jfager on Friday February 05, 2010 @08:49PM (#1105514)
A man was paid $6b for winning a bet against homeowners and the entire financial industry. It is relevant to point that out, because it directly contradicts the idea that a person's wealth is proportional to what they've contributed. And it's not like similar situations are hard to find (though his is a much more dramatic example than most).

What's intellectually dishonest is pretending that money is the only way to measure value.

Re:People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax ... by ryanwaggoner on Friday February 05, 2010 @09:19PM (#1105564)
Are you seriously arguing that millions of people should be taxed more on the basis of what one person may have done?
Re:People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax ... by jfager on Saturday February 06, 2010 @12:23AM (#1105835)
Are you seriously suggesting only one person has gotten wealthy without contributing to society?
Re:People who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax ... by ryanwaggoner on Saturday February 06, 2010 @02:51AM (#1105986)
No, but you seem to be arguing for a broader trend or application of the principle on an anecdote related to one person (and a pretty flimsy anecdote at that). Show me some data.