Quote:
|
The poor are the army grunts, workers in the factories and the consumers of the rich's products. The poor in essence protect and grow the assets of the rich. In turn, the rich provide for the poor, at least enough that the poor don't kill the rich and take their assets. The rich should be happy to pay 49% of their income; they get to keep the other 51% of the millions and no violent worker's rebellion occurs.
|
Look, that's plain ridiculous. You're basically saying that the rich owe that money to the poor, and if they don't pay up, they should be turned on/assaulted/killed and have all of their assets taken. How can you possibly justify that? I just as well turn this on its head:
The rich are the entrepreneurs, investors, and creators of all of the poor's products. The rich in essence make possible and provide the assets of the poor. In turn, the poor work for the rich, at least enough that the rich don't throw the poor into work camps and withhold their assets. The poor should be happy to only pay less than 15% of their income; they get to keep the other 85+% to use as they choose, unlike the rich, and no institutionalized slavery occurs.
Wow, that sounded really intelligent. Thanks for playing.
I don't think the quote is out of context, I read the whole article. I suppose what I object to most is the assumption that the government knows best, and that even if it did, could effectively do anything about it. This has been proven wrong over and over again, both in domestic efforts and abroad, for at least the last 50 years. When will people give up this pipe dream?