When it comes to businesses, though, that also took risks, put in the effort and used their brains to become successful, it appears that you believe they should be taxed more and their success makes it "difficult for you to stomach". Why is that, I wonder?
Perhaps because I never said it, and that the attitude is not one I have. You need to read Jennifer's comments more closely about the nature of the tax break that's being rolled back before you make suggestions such as the one you're making.
You haven't read your homework;that is why you wonder.
Taxed more than whom? by the way?
Do you mean the businessmen themselves being taxed or the corporations or what? If you're going to be outraged, I feel much more oriented when you can tell me what the outrage is about.
Your "Mercedes Benz in the mouth" comment leads one to believe that you feel successful people are rich because they were born into it, not that they worked hard for it.
You might try asking me if that's what I believe if you're uncertain. My feelings don't really matter here, it's what I think.
My thinking is that people end up rich for all sorts of reasons, from luck to pluck, including work. Hard work may help, but I've known lots of hard workers who've ended up on the street, and some who've died there. I'd like to think there's more of a connection between work and fortune than I've seen demonstrated. All told, I think work is better.
I've known lots of people who were rich because they had a rich ancestor. A lot of them were pretty nice people.
It sounds as though your thinking is that people are rich because they work hard for it: Is that your notion, or do you think something else? I wouldn't want to get you wrong.
I didn't know that Ron was rich. I'm glad to hear about that, Ron, though I feel a bit uncomfortable hearing about your story from Mike. I figure, if you want me to know your story, you'd tell me yourself so I'd be sure to get the emphasis right, otherwise you'd stay quiet and let me ask sometime if I got to know you well enough to feel comfortable inquiring. I don't have the feeling that we have the sort of relationship where it would be appropriate for me to inquire right now. Sorry.
You speak as though you have an idea as to what is "decent profit-making". What would that be?
That's very good, once again, Mike, except once again you take me out of context. My Grammar is not all that great, but even I can tell you that in the sentence you lifted that phrase from the hyphenated "profit-making," just as did the word "decent" that immediately preceded it, modified the word "corporation." It was a "decent" Corporation I was speaking about that was also a "profit-making" corporation. It was both a "decent" and a "profit-making" corporation, Mike, sometimes known as a "decent profit-making corporation". Profit-making is not a noun here. "Corporation" is the noun here. Profit-making, because it is a thing, an abstraction, could be considered an abstract noun, but then it would have to be placed in relationship with the word corporation somehow; and as a noun it simply does not fit, does it, Mike?
I guess you have accidentally taken me out of context again in a way that makes no grammatical sense, and tried to ask me a question that is a pretty silly question. It is probably answered better turned around, that would be, what is indecent profit-making? I figure the answer to that one is like the classic Supreme Court answer to the question of Obscenity — I couldn't define it for you, but I know it when I see it.
Or you might try, for the Profit question, excess money with no redeeming social value. Oops, I forgot! Money's not supposed to have any notion of excess, and it should have any social value.