In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

[Q]: Comment: I am one who disagrees with you.  

Those in society who derive greater financial benefit from it, owe it a greater percentage of their income.

In fact, I would go further, and stratify incomes into the tens of millions (56% on those over $500k, 66% over $5M, 76% over $15M, 86% over $30M - feel free to choose your own numbers here...).  This is not a new idea - top tax brackets in the US in 1945 were 94% over $200k.  

As well, in the booming 50's top tax rates were 91% (in the USA).
[A]: Disagree


[Q]: Comment: To be clear, I do not support electoral reform. The FPTP system has served Canada exceedingly well for over 100 years.  However, for this imbecile PM to declare that since he and his beloved Liberals are in power there is no longer any need to explore electoral reform is pure unbridled arrogance and stupidity.
[A]: Agree


[Q]: Comment: You are completely wrong. Just because something is "legal" does not compel anyone or any particular institution to provide it. Faith based organizations provide important services to our society and they are to be commended for doing so. It simply does not follow that just because a faith based institution refuses to provide something that is contrary to that faith that in turn it should be forced out of business entirely and in the process punish those who receive the much needed other services provided by the institution. That would be perverse.
[A]:
Disagree