The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of posturing "do-gooders."
I think her idea is fabulous. Now all we need to do is figure out a way to pay for it. I have a solution.
We currently have income taxes (which tax the productive) and consumption taxes (which tax the needy regardless of income or wealth). Where is the social justice? What about taxing people who have lots and lots of money, but don't spend it?
That's why I propose the REALLY Fair Tax. It's a tax on assets, not income or spending. Soak the rich, as it were.
Simply add up the current market value of all your assets and subtract your debt. Then tax on this schedule by bracket:
- Up to $1,000,000 - zero
- From $1,000,000 to $9,000,000 - Tax 50%
- Over $9,000,000 - Tax 100%
Apply the tax on December 31 of every year ending in 6.
Examples:
Worth = $800,000 Tax = zero
Worth = $3,000,000 Tax = $1,000,000
Worth = $10,000,000,000 Tax = $9,995,000,000
That means nobody gets to keep more than $5,000,000. That will ensure social justice for all.
Now let's see how enthusiastic these rich Hollywood stars are about spending our money!
We should all give a little more indeed.
I'm a strong advocate for "No wife left behind", Angie.
She's eaten Brad Pitt. Now she's going to try to eat the world.
But let one poor African slip past the security (including live lions) and take up residence in an unoccupied bungalow in that resort she has booked for privacy, and he or she will be booted out immediately.
Here's my thought... Jolie likes to adopt children overseas. How about she also use her own money to start some sort of program to help educate children overseas. When you have money and a passion about helping others, you should also have the passion to use your OWN money. If I had that kind of money, it's something I would want to do.
And also the previous owner of George Constanza's car...
You write the first check, Jolie, of say 80% of the obscene profits you've made over the years.
"So I don't know what the great excuse is."
The answer is this, dimwit. Britain employs far more Socialism than we do. And they have the problems that are always associated with Socialism to prove it.
By the way, Jolie, America is the most charitable nation on the planet, precisely because we are not Socialist and don't have our charity funds stolen from us. Americans give more to charity than the top 3 charitable nations after us combined.
You know, maybe I'm wrong, but I get the distinct impression that, without makeup, Angelina Jolie would be rather plain looking.
To inject a little bit of fairness (and nuance) into this discussion, which Newshounds left out: Jolie wasn't advocating extending the policy of No Child Left Behind, but instead the principle. And who could argue with the principle of no child left behind?
And yes, the UK does spend more than the US on universal education. I was in a press conference at the World Bank annual Spring Meetings last weekend where no less than Paul Wolfowitz himself related that the US spends roughly $1 per capita on universal education, whereas the UK spends roughly $20. Do a google search and you'll find this quote. I was also in a Senate hearing on this issue yesterday afternoon, and the figures put forward by the panel were that the UK has 1/6 the US economy, but invests 3 times as much in universal education. This is all in the context of the UK's Gordon Brown (who was alongside Wolfowitz in the press conference last weekend) announcing they'll be putting US$15 billion into universal education over the next decade.
In ligh of the UK announcement, and since education is one of the three main issues on the agenda at this year's St. Petersburg G8, expect the President to make an education announcement at some point in the lead-up.
Nowhere in the Newshounds article did I see them relate that 100 million kids worldwide don't have access to even primary education. In Africa, the HIV-infection rate in girls who have a primary education is half that of girls who don't. For every year of primary education, a girl's chances of becoming infected with HIV decrease roughly 8%. Girls with primary education also have a lower fertility rate on average. Millions of kids in the developing world can't access primary school because they can't afford the school fees. When Kenya eliminated school fees they saw 3 million more kids in school. AIDS orphans are hardest hit.
If we're serious about spreading freedom and democracy, education is about as simple as it gets. How does one expect vibrant democracies to sprout in areas where millions are illiterate? Democracy relies and can't exist without educated electorates.
We can hand-wring and say it's not our problem, or we can step up to the plate, act our part as a global leader, and increase our investment in universal education--even if the reason is pure self-interest.
So, at a time when many Americans are having trouble paying for gas for their cars, this dingbat wants to tax them further. I wonder if she's a liberal...
Well, we are already educating Mexico's children...its not too far a stretch.
Hey, Angie...her husband is kind of busy right now. Rather that worrying about "educating girls," he's making sure the "girls" in the Muslim world don't have to worry about being beaten, raped, tortured & murdered...by their husbands, sons, brothers and nephews. Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that Muslim women don't register on Hollywood PC radar, like, they don't exist.
Brangelina, just as soon as Congress figures out how to tax the world to pay for it then maybe.
"Celebrities. Is there anything they don't know?"
Yea, Ayn Rand would agree with this.