3 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 15.0 ms ] thread
How about what was received?

Police protection, employee education, etc. If the 1% dislike contributing to society - they should leave.... But then who will:

* shampoo their hair, * fix their airplanes, * build their 60th house, * worship at their feet

The point that the article was trying to make is that in a capitalist economy, the people who make money only make it by provided a valued good or service (criminals obviously not included here). We point at the 1% with their cash hoards but they only received that cash by selling something in a voluntary transaction that benefited both parties.

E.g. I sell you a coke and get a dollar. You now have a coke and I have a dollar. No one complains that you should share that coke but bc I made a dollar (or several million dollars from selling millions of cokes) I am vilified for not "giving back to the community". The reality is I have already given back to the community -- millions of cokes! I provided a good or service that benefited the community! People like Cokes!

Now the author makes a hyperbolic point about them not paying any taxes or giving them congressional medals of honor which I take as humor.

I agree that the rich should pay taxes to pay for "Police protection, employee education, etc." I suspect most people believe this as well.

No, the rich in many cases (but not all) rigged the rules so that they could legal steal from the rest of society.

Twas true in the Gilded Age (1880-1900s) which is why Teddy Roosevelt busted up the monopolies.

Twas true during the S & L crisis.

Read http://4closurefraud.org/ to understand how the banks are stealing, getting rich and not having to pay a penalty.