Imagine if you worked at home, didn't make a steady income, and had a few million dollars that you made some years ago. Now imagine if your taxes were raised heavily (not income tax, but general taxation of the '1%') and caused you to go from having $3 million to becoming middle-class and eventually lower class. By then, the person will have entered the middle or lower-class range and will have had to ditch their normal means and go get a 9-5 job that may or may not be what they even were interested in. This person can't "fix" the debt; they will simply be drained of their money from extreme taxation.

Bottom line: Large corporations should be the ones heavily taxed, especially based upon their merits. Joe, who happens to have a few million, should NOT be drained of it just because he is considered rich.

Yes, that's true. I'm sure tons of scumbags would soon begin hiding the fact that they make incredible income and just avoid taxes all they can. This may be useless to argue about, but I would like it if, somehow, those who have no proper income (yet own a great amount of stagnant wealth) could be exempt from increased taxes. I mean, one could assume that someone able to make a fortune all at once could easily do it again, but one cannot know the circumstances of everyone.

For all we know, there could be someone who scored big one day and then never held a steady job afterwards. Should they continuously be overtaxed until they simply have no wealth left? No.

It's all just a gray area, frankly. There should still be more emphasis put upon those who make loads of money every year vs. those who HAVE loads of money NOT from income. Income tax is the only thing that should be raised, besides large corporate tax. Small business tax should not be raised, but we should definitely have companies like General Electric pinned after what they've been doing to avoid taxes altogether.

What if someone doesn't MAKE 75% if the money, rather, he has 75% of the money? There are such things as wealthy individuals who make less money annually than a McDonald's worker does. Why? Because some rich people earn their money all at once and, afterwards, don't earn income. It would suck to have more taken away from that person when all it does is drain them of it. Those who actually have enormous salaries are the ones to be taxed more, if anything.

I would say 'No' for those that are rich because of a one-time occurrence. For example, if someone created a start-up or something and received tons of money, yet otherwise doesn't have income, he should NOT be taxed extremely heavily. Those who continuously earn tons of income can be taxed some more (especially stupid companies like General Electric, which avoid taxes altogether), but not those who had a one-time hit. All that would do is make a rich person less and less wealthy, assuming they don't earn a continual income. Normal income tax makes sense, but not stupid things like a 'rich' tax or, even worse, property taxes. Property tax is stupid: you have to pay money to own property that you already paid for; and if the city creates a new, expensive project, your property tax goes up higher! Only large businesses should be charged with property tax... but that's a whole different debate.

From what I have seen, agnostic views typically lead to the person bailing on their religion and remaining - for the most part - a non-believer of God. (Of course, this isn't the case 100% of the time, but major skepticism can follow this route plainly.) However, is this to say that an agnostic person is not Christian? No. One can celebrate and hold faith in Christianity, yet - from time to time - wonder whether or not there IS such thing as God. I mean, we never will know for sure; I wager that millions of Christians have, at some point, sat and wondered the same thing. Now, do I believe that an atheist can be Christian? No. In fact, I find it rather irritating that some people will sit through church and celebrate Christmas without the intentions of showing faith in God. If you don't believe in God, you should NOT classify yourself as a Christian. Your cultural backgrounds may be those of Christianity, but you are not a Christian. Returning to agnostic ones, I would say that their final decision upon things rests their case. They can contemplate it forever, but one can never refrain from leaning towards one side even the slightest bit more than on the other. During the process, however, I would not cease to call such a person 'Christian,' but I would still be wary of the fact that they have not fully come to terms with their final mental decision. Now, this is not to say that they cannot appreciate the cultural qualities of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) if in fact they decided to not believe in the religion; after all, I know of people (such as an English teacher of mine) who appreciates biblical passages as fine literature, yet - from what I know - is not a person of Christian faith. That is fine by me if a non-religious or non-Christian person appreciates the cultural values of Christianity, but they are also not to be called Christians - in the same way that a once-agnostic-and-now-non-religious person is no longer a Christian. Again, that final decision not to believe in God is the breaking of the water. (BTW, I am Christian, just in case any of you were wondering. Note that I am not saying that it's bad to not believe in God, but I still stand by my religion.)

That's an interesting idea, but it would render our schools scrambling for extra resources for such kids. Besides, we need productivity in this country. Sure, you could argue that a kid who would choose to use his phone is likely not going to become a productive one, but then there's the possibility that he could by buckling down and facing class with severe phone punishments.

Marijuana is detrimental to our youth: it destroys brain cells, removes a person's motivation in life, harms the lungs, and puts others at risk (such as drivers on the road). If we are tolerant with weed, we are sure to have a less productive society. I have known of too many people who have crushed both their motivation and brain cells by smoking weed. We must also consider second-hand smoke and the irritation towards others. The stench given off by a single blunt is enough to cause a public disturbance. Even a cigarette cannot pollute the air as badly as marijuana can. Legalizing this can result in more health issues, more delinquent activities, and eventually more tolerance for other nuisance drugs.