lurkette

Actually it's the first. Ratbastid and I make above the median income for a family of 4, let alone for 2 people. All of our basic needs are met and beyond that everything else is gravy. I don't mind paying taxes (I do mind how they're spent by the government) and I don't seem to have a problem with other people who need it getting "my" money. A flatter social gradient - relative equalization of resources - actually ends up being better for the society as a whole in terms of education levels, public health, and general standard of living. I.e., the more unequal a society is, the worse its citizens fare ON AVERAGE in terms of education, health, etc. (See Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations: http://www.acscd.ca/acscd/public/dhw.../acscd-dhwn-21)

Edit:

Actually, on second thought the scenario I prefer includes the above (lurkette===> everyone else) but is more like ridiculously wealthy===>bypass lurkette who's doing just fine===>everyone else. The stupidly unequal distribution of wealth in this country is not healthy for us in the long run. You get to the point where wealth and therefore power are concentrated in the hands and serving the interests of a very very small group of people, and it's no longer a democracy unless you can fool the country into thinking that voting=democracy. The global distribution of wealth is not great either.
http://www.lcurve.org/

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France