too rich?

[jonb]

Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.

That was your statement, but now you are saying when you used the word precedent in it, it was not about tax?

Again, I was talking about the precedent. The precedent being giving a government more power, specifically, the ability to just take money from the rich whenever they feel like it. The tax isn't the thing that causes the abuse; the ability to create the tax is.

If the government is allowed to just take money from the rich for no other reason than "they have it, and we need it", it creates a precedent which can be abused if the situation ever arises again.

But tell me, I've explained my arguments (several times now). Are you ever going to tell me what definition you were using for the word "tax" in your OP? Or are you going to (finally) admit that maybe "tax" was the wrong word to use?

How about the following amendment to your statement:

"it would only take 25% of 100 people's incomes to end extreme poverty."

or

"if we could encourage 100 people to give 25% of their incomes, it would end poverty"

The word 'Tax', Can be used to mean many things it does not always imply governmental tax. You have chosen one interpretation.
Whatever you have chosen my words to mean does not affect what I have written. However your insistence that my words only have one meaning depicts somebody who may be unable to draw multiple meanings from a text.
As such; why I should lower the language of my text to the seemingly basic level of your understanding?

That you want to turn what I am talking about into an argument about government rather than a thread about the issue of inequality is testimony in-itself of a pronounced bias. The sort of bias which tries to say the following statements are not contradictory.

' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'
'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

No, I will not alter my text because you lack the ability to understand it, or wilfully don't want to.