So the answer is forced donations to ensure the lives of people who either cannot or choose not to be able to survive on their own? If you are going to force the top 20 to bare the brunt of the lowest on the system than they should get majority say. Top tax contributors should have a heavier weighed vote and the system should be revamped to exclude the freeloaders.
Or, maybe all charities should be able to use force -- because that's more in line with human nature? Give UNICEF kids a Mac10 or a redcross employee a .45 to ensure people give their money to cause against their will? No, of course not that would be silly.
But an income earn not giving 8k a year to social security -- that's grounds for jail, even though he or she will never see a dime upon their retirement. And then by all indication, be responsible for their own funding when their time comes.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100780248
Just call it forced charity with no thank yous. The top 20, 10, 5 and 1 percent (who pay 50 of all federal income tax) flip the entire bill for th federal programs with out so much as any gratitude -- and people wonder why they don't vote for the party who wants more out of them while touting, pandering and parading the people who don't pay a cent. Now that's sad