Let’s wait before we dismiss it. Unless I want to dismiss it. Then I’ll dismiss it.

Because it’s based on hearsay, second account information and so it would be much better to have the actual transcript. But if you trust word of mouth more than the transcript of the actual words, you do you. 

Oh, one of those. So even if the full unredacted transcript comes out, will you be one of those putting on your tin foil hat saying it was edited and we’ll never see the real conversation? Or will you eat crow?

You’re making the assumption they even have an income. Part of this article and this debate is about kids who grow up with money from their parents. People like Trump and his family. You could have million in assets and no regular income. Or you could be a retired millionaire with no income. 

You said something is immoral and I’m asking you why it’s only immoral in the absolute most extreme case. Holding wealth is either immoral or it’s not. The government should either intervene or it shouldn’t. It’s not only somehow immoral when your $ goes over $32M. Or is that actual your argument?

I guess you’re also one of those people that thinks we need to heavily tax the top 1% so we can give it to the bottom 99%.

So I’m clearly talking about how you would pay people an awesome wage. So you’re saying that’s an example in reality? Or was taking a pay cut from $800M to $600M in reality? Sorry. IN REALITY? Your reality is probably in all caps where people run around shouting at each other because they’re so damn angry all the…

So it’s not going to be unredacted?

Wow you give me an example and I show you that “it truly doesn’t work that way in reality, here’s an example you might have heard of called Walmart”.  Try again?

I’m saying there’s no winning when you come in with a closed mind. That’s why I then directly said I have an open mind that could be changed. Hellhog and I were having a discussion. You REALLY struggle with reading comprehension. Just picking out the individual pieces that suit you, eh? I’ve seen that before.

Well someone surely doesn’t understand what it means to move the goalposts. “only...I’m correct”. Okay, so I asked “why” it’s immoral and your answer is it’s immoral because.... you’re correct.

Well you very clearly didn’t understand the comments. So it’s hard to argue with someone that doesn’t comprehend basic points.

Did you read the comments or not? OP said if they were a CEO they’d pay everyone a fair wage. That’s where the whole topic came from. You’ve got a lot of idiot going on over there. Either you can’t read or you just didn’t. Or (pretty sure) you did and you understood none of it. Well done.

Someone sure is angry. So since I’d rather have my money go to the causes I think need it most instead of the ones that the government want to give it to, that’s immoral?

You forgot the word “unredacted”.  He’s going to release the full and unredacted transcript.  I think we all should be cheering that decision.

Wow, so the CEO of Walmart donates ALL of his salary. And everyone of his workers gets an extra $200/year. Wow. That helped a lot. “Amazing” wages. Sure.

That’s fine if you want to give your money to help other people. My wife and I pick two charities every year around Christmas time for our yearly donations. It’s actually fun. My problem is with an annual fine on people because they simply “have too much stuff”. Because, as the author says, having too much stuff is…

But the predictions don’t work at all. More often than not they predict the opposite of what happens. I’m on my phone and not able to just pull up a dozen articles for you but it’s not hard to look yourself. The problem is assuming it’s settled science. This ‘well 97% of of a groomed group of scientists claim that…

You’re refusing to say whether it’s moral or immoral for wealth inequality to exist (which the author claims in the first sentence). You are very pro additional taxes on the wealthy which the author says should happen because it’s immoral. You then said you also didn’t say it’s not immoral, you’re making no claim on…

If there’s no inherent reason why we SHOULD tax mega millionaires, is there any inherent reason why we SHOULDNT tax megamillionaires?