Your question has an assumed premise, arising out of your projecting into my comment a mindset that exists for you, but not me.
The progressive approach to tax policy is to shift the burden of the cost of society to those who benefit from the system the most, and allow those who cannot afford to pay taxes not have to pay them. This is just and promotes job growth.
That's really all you need to know about the progressive tax proposal, and your question is either answered, or it is moot, by the above statement. take your pick.
The statement arises out of emotion, and, as such, your reasoning is clouded.
In short, you are projecting onto reality something that isnt there.
its not about "me". But, you want to maneuver the conversation as if it were, because you want the conversation
shifted away from a policy argument, to it being about a guy (me, in this case ) who is "jealous", and wants to take away money from rich people because he can't stand seeing people be rich. See, if you frame the conversation that way, it is easier for you to attack it, because you have reduced a policy argument to a petty thing. Sorry, I'm not playing your game.
you're off by $299,700,000, that changes the dynamic of my example.
You operate from the concept that a person is entitled to keep all of his or her earnings. That is false.
Moreover, you use loaded words, like "evil rich people", i.e, you are projecting a mindset which only exists for you.
You are operating from a typical right wing mindset, "that government assistance" equals "mooching off hard working people" and equals "not taking responsiblity".
It's a mindset, and you would have to jump out of your own skin to see how silly it is, that you are projecting
on how liberals base policy, but like Truman in the Truman show, you'll never see it as long as you live in that bubble
Your loaded terms betray your mindset. "bureaucrat" is a slur to government workers. If there is anything rational about
such a term, your logic, in essence says, government jobs are not legitimate. As if someone on a government job is a lesser
human being than someone who is.
So, let's take the poisoned well from which a loaded term like that springs, to it's logical conclusion.
"Bureaucrat" implies illegitimacy, it's not a definition, but it's intrinsic to the meaning.
So, if a government job is not legit, then let's eliminate all government jobs.
So, a nation without a government is anarchy.
Name one successful country that has no government.
Therefore, we can see the absurdity of your mindset.
Wishful thinking, this is typical how the right projects onto the left. You need to do this so you wont' have to feel guilty.
You are going to lose that battle, and the world is becoming increasingly how republicans cheat in order to win, since
they have trouble winning when lots of people vote, and since they have trouble garnering a majority.
A little ( okay, Mass. District 6, wonderful, you got me), but Repubs have taken it gerrymandering to extreme (29 states). Here is a scholarly treatise on the subject.
Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth
When more people vote democratic in a state that sends more repubs than dems to congress, not only is the dem message
resonating, gerrymandering becomes even more of an issue. You are way off here.
Sorry,
Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million. That reveals that it was Trump who was rejected, and only took the whitehouse by a fluke of the electoral college.