Buffet Says: Tax the Mega Rich

[orcus116]

Reduction plus reallocating funds for broken programs might actually help. Raising taxes seems to be more of an after effect of how screwed up what's already in place is more than some necessity. Surely there's some way to restructure how the money pits are swallowing the most money to make them swallow it less quickly? Raising taxes constantly seems way more of "oh well that's just the way it is I suppose" response.

[Scheavo]

Raises haven't' been raised 'constantly," in fact, they've been lowered steadily for a while....

[Riceball]

Well, I suppose the most damning statistic is that the US tax burden is just 14 per cent of GDP; OECD average is about 27-30 and in Europe its more like 40.

Now, the US also spends less as a percentage of GDP than most of the world, but it still spends more than it earns. I know GDP isn't a great comparison to make, as a high US GDP is caused by all kinds of things (including Government spending), but the fact that its about half of the average shows that these nutcases who think taxes are too high are just that, nutcases.

Back to the point, no doubt Buffet has self-interest in keeping the US tax code in its current form, as does anyone who doesn't pay much tax does, but I think he quite rightly makes a point that as a percentage of income rich people get off quite lightly under the current regime. And, quite rightly so, he points out that not only do the mega rich have the capacity to pay more taxes, its more equitable to raise more tax from this group than lower and middle income earners who are struggling with rising prices and weak wages growth.

[chknptpie]

Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.

The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.

I just don't see how they are mutually exclusive. If I notice that my budget is out of whack, I do two things - try to work more hours to increase the money I'm bringing it and limit my extra spending.

[Nigerius Rex]

I just don't see how they are mutually exclusive. If I notice that my budget is out of whack, I do two things - try to work more hours to increase the money I'm bringing it and limit my extra spending.

Without addressing the problems with the majority of most state and federal social programs first, you are adding water to a leaky pale that is slowly opening more and more with each new budget. Not to mention your money has you to regulate its use, a government committee spends its budget, requests more, spend that, requests more, then finally gets shutdown or cut into a fraction of its original scale because its wasted its allotted amount ten fold.

[Riceball]

Exactly, the whole system needs to be revisited, rather than just tinkering around the edges here, raising the borrowing limit there. Unfortunately, I don't think the US has either the cultural or political will to make any wholesale changes to their system, despite the economic imperative.

[Super Dude]

The first page of this thread is hilarious.

[Major Thirteenth]

Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.

The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.

I really don't care how other countries tax their citizens. If they tax higher than us, it's damnation for their citizens, whether they know it or not. I only care about taxation in my country. And in my country, taxes need to be cut 70%. Roads are good. Post offices are fine. Lots of neat weapons so we can destroy the world a few thousand times is good. Court system to adjudicate disputes and prosecute criminals? I'm good with that.

What needs to be done away with?

1) All redistribution
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.

2) All entitlements
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.

3) All medical care
Medical care is a service. No need for government involvement.

4) All programs for the "poor"
Poverty is an individual problem. Poor people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.

5) All cultural and related programs (NEA? Gone.)
Cultural programs are PURE theft.

6) All space and science programs (publicly funded NASA? Gone.)
Yes, I love space exploration and scientific research as much as the next guy. When it is funded by private institutions. It's immoral to tax citizens into poverty to pay for a space program or the NSF.

7) Social security? Gone.
Individuals are responsible for saving for their old age. Those that don't can seek help from others, charities, or die.

8) Foreign aid to "developing" countries? Gone.
It is ludicrous to piss away money by transferring our hard earned wealth to two-bit "impoverished" countries who refuse to institute freedom and capitalism (which would solve every problem of every "developing" country.)

9) Publicly funded environmentalists and all others of their ilk? Gone.
Environmentalists can do their studies using their own money. Then pay for media time to persuade us as to whether we are behaving responsibly. In short, they cannot coerce anyone, they can use rational persuasion to cause others to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.

10) Roads, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, infrastructure, national parks? I'll allow it. Certain edifices legitimately serve the public good and are not in anyone's individual interest to create. But we must be very strict in defining these. They should be minimal.

11) Public education? Gone.
Educating children is the responsibility of individual parents. No one has a right to have children. It is a choice. A choice which needs to be made at the right time when there is sufficent money and time to do the job correctly.

Get the picture? We need more freedom and individual initiative. That is what drives the country, nothing else. But aside from what works, we need to consider morality in all decisions of this type. And it is essentially immoral to take from one person for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another. So all public policy making must recognize that essential rule and not violate it.

[MasterShakezula]

Though I agree that spending is far tOo high, the balance of the budget would benefit greatly from higher taxation upon citizens who have enough money to be unaffected by it.

Also, it sEems you have a great deal of trust and confidence in private institutions and the private market?  Are you positive that the private institutions are Innantly good and would not do wrong, even it doing wrong would produce a greater profit?

I understand not having a great deal of faith in the gov's competence or motivations, but I don't believe that private institutions would have much more success in providing services that our gov currently covers.

[Super Dude]

_____ people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.

Gotta love that American spirit.

[Scheavo]

Hey M13, since you view poverty as so inherently easy to get out of, why isn't living in a country consent to be taxed? No one is forcing the rich people to live here, or do business here.

Also, people do pay into their own social security; social security isn't asking anyone else for help, it's in fact forcing people to provide for themselves in the future.

I won't bother with everything else I think is wrong with your post.

[Adami]

Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.

The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.

I really don't care how other countries tax their citizens. If they tax higher than us, it's damnation for their citizens, whether they know it or not. I only care about taxation in my country. And in my country, taxes need to be cut 70%. Roads are good. Post offices are fine. Lots of neat weapons so we can destroy the world a few thousand times is good. Court system to adjudicate disputes and prosecute criminals? I'm good with that.

What needs to be done away with?

1) All redistribution
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.

2) All entitlements
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.

3) All medical care
Medical care is a service. No need for government involvement.

4) All programs for the "poor"
Poverty is an individual problem. Poor people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.

5) All cultural and related programs (NEA? Gone.)
Cultural programs are PURE theft.

6) All space and science programs (publicly funded NASA? Gone.)
Yes, I love space exploration and scientific research as much as the next guy. When it is funded by private institutions. It's immoral to tax citizens into poverty to pay for a space program or the NSF.

7) Social security? Gone.
Individuals are responsible for saving for their old age. Those that don't can seek help from others, charities, or die.

8) Foreign aid to "developing" countries? Gone.
It is ludicrous to piss away money by transferring our hard earned wealth to two-bit "impoverished" countries who refuse to institute freedom and capitalism (which would solve every problem of every "developing" country.)

9) Publicly funded environmentalists and all others of their ilk? Gone.
Environmentalists can do their studies using their own money. Then pay for media time to persuade us as to whether we are behaving responsibly. In short, they cannot coerce anyone, they can use rational persuasion to cause others to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.

10) Roads, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, infrastructure, national parks? I'll allow it. Certain edifices legitimately serve the public good and are not in anyone's individual interest to create. But we must be very strict in defining these. They should be minimal.

11) Public education? Gone.
Educating children is the responsibility of individual parents. No one has a right to have children. It is a choice. A choice which needs to be made at the right time when there is sufficent money and time to do the job correctly.

Get the picture? We need more freedom and individual initiative. That is what drives the country, nothing else. But aside from what works, we need to consider morality in all decisions of this type. And it is essentially immoral to take from one person for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another. So all public policy making must recognize that essential rule and not violate it.

You have a very interesting way of viewing the world. I look forward to seeing more of what you have to say on similar topics.

[Super Dude]

I find it interesting, actually. They all follow the common theme of freedom and individuality, the people subscribing to this philosophy of economics and property. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it does neglect other American values such as equality, and human values such as responsibility. I believe that civilization works because we are morally and practically bound to one another; we depend upon each other to survive.

[PowerSlave]

Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.

The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.

I really don't care how other countries tax their citizens. If they tax higher than us, it's damnation for their citizens, whether they know it or not. I only care about taxation in my country. And in my country, taxes need to be cut 70%. Roads are good. Post offices are fine. Lots of neat weapons so we can destroy the world a few thousand times is good. Court system to adjudicate disputes and prosecute criminals? I'm good with that.

What needs to be done away with?

1) All redistribution
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.

2) All entitlements
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.

3) All medical care
Medical care is a service. No need for government involvement.

4) All programs for the "poor"
Poverty is an individual problem. Poor people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.

5) All cultural and related programs (NEA? Gone.)
Cultural programs are PURE theft.

6) All space and science programs (publicly funded NASA? Gone.)
Yes, I love space exploration and scientific research as much as the next guy. When it is funded by private institutions. It's immoral to tax citizens into poverty to pay for a space program or the NSF.

7) Social security? Gone.
Individuals are responsible for saving for their old age. Those that don't can seek help from others, charities, or die.

8) Foreign aid to "developing" countries? Gone.
It is ludicrous to piss away money by transferring our hard earned wealth to two-bit "impoverished" countries who refuse to institute freedom and capitalism (which would solve every problem of every "developing" country.)

9) Publicly funded environmentalists and all others of their ilk? Gone.
Environmentalists can do their studies using their own money. Then pay for media time to persuade us as to whether we are behaving responsibly. In short, they cannot coerce anyone, they can use rational persuasion to cause others to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.

10) Roads, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, infrastructure, national parks? I'll allow it. Certain edifices legitimately serve the public good and are not in anyone's individual interest to create. But we must be very strict in defining these. They should be minimal.

11) Public education? Gone.
Educating children is the responsibility of individual parents. No one has a right to have children. It is a choice. A choice which needs to be made at the right time when there is sufficent money and time to do the job correctly.

Get the picture? We need more freedom and individual initiative. That is what drives the country, nothing else. But aside from what works, we need to consider morality in all decisions of this type. And it is essentially immoral to take from one person for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another. So all public policy making must recognize that essential rule and not violate it.

First of all, our infrastructure is pure shit. Need I remind you what happened in the twin cities a few years ago? While it's true that projects like the "bridge to nowhere" that happened in Alaska and was media fodder during the '08 election are a perfect example of the wastes that libertarians often complain about, we can't afford to ignore our nation's infrastructure for obvious reasons that all benefit business in this country.

The rest of your ideas are completely worthless unless we move back in time and become a farming based society. I have a strong feeling that I'm one of few (if not the only person that posts frequently in this part of the forum) that works in a factory setting. I couldn't imagine working side by side with people that are in their late 60's, 70's or beyond. Considering the cost of living and the costs of healthcare in this country, what you're advocating would force people to work well beyond the point that they should be allowed to retire. That's not even mentioning the unsafe conditions that would be created for everyone working in the vacinity.

I share many ideas with many of the libertarians in this forum but, sometimes I'm honestly at a loss at where some of you guys get your extreme ideas. Often times they aren't thought through very well and it's obvious. Instead of advocating some of these extremes I think you guys would be better served by supporting reforms to these programs that would ultimately benefit all of us.

[Nigerius Rex]

but it does neglect other American values such as equality, and human values such as responsibility

For me at least, its not a neglect of character, discouragement of equal treatment, or a lack of important values like responsibility and compassion. It is an understanding that what is needed cannot be provided for everyone that claims to need it, least of all by the state in its current form. Doing so wastes the most money and causes the most problems in the long run.

I share many ideas with many of the libertarians in this forum but, sometimes I'm honestly at a loss at where some of you guys get your extreme ideas.

Try not to lump us together.

[PowerSlave]

but it does neglect other American values such as equality, and human values such as responsibility

For me at least, its not a neglect of character, discouragement of equal treatment, or a lack of important values like responsibility and compassion. It is an understanding that what is needed cannot be provided for everyone that claims to need it, least of all by the state in its current form. Doing so wastes the most money and causes the most problems in the long run.

I share many ideas with many of the libertarians in this forum but, sometimes I'm honestly at a loss at where some of you guys get your extreme ideas.

Try not to lump us together.

That's why I used the word "some" instead of saying "all".

[TL]

I'm only talking federal income taxes:

Top 1% pay 40%
Top 49% pay 100%
Bottom 51% pay 0%.

There are many loopholes (i.e. deductions) and these must be closed, but the rates need to be lowered after that... the tax base has to be broadened.

It's difficult to pay income tax when you don't have a job.
Also, most of those in the 51% who have jobs but aren't paying income tax aren't because they're barely scraping by as is. You really think a family of 4 bringing in $22,000 per year needs to 'pay their fair share', but returning the top income tax rate to what it was in the '90s is unacceptable?

By the way, that bottom 51% controls about 2.5% of the wealth in the United States. That's taking into account all of their worldly possessions. Taxing every member of that group at 50% of their income would bring in less tax revenue than taxing the top group an extra couple percentage points (which would still only be about 37-38%).

[Scheavo]

By the way, that bottom 51% controls about 2.5% of the wealth in the United States. That's taking into account all of their worldly possessions. Taxing every member of that group at 50% of their income would bring in less tax revenue than taxing the top group an extra couple percentage points (which would still only be about 37-38%).

That's why we need to take everything the bottom 51% own, remember?

[William Wallace]

Hey M13, since you view poverty as so inherently easy to get out of, why isn't living in a country consent to be taxed? No one is forcing the rich people to live here, or do business here.

You totally asked for this.

But seriously, what's with the presumption that being part of society is a privilege provided by our overlords? You want the wealthiest, most productive people to underwrite the whole shitty social experiment and shut the fuck up - or leave.

By the way, expatriating in order to protect wealth is rather difficult; The IRS is wise to the tactic and jumps up the ass of anybody who does attempt to go. So you're not even entirely correct to say that you're not forced to stay.

[Scheavo]

I don't actually accept that as a line of thinking, I'm pionting out a discrepancy is how idealistic pure libertarian thought is. As you allude to, the reality on the ground often makes it difficult to actually do what you want to do. Systemic and structural issues in society can help keep people in their place, and where they are at.

But seriously, what's with the presumption that being part of society is a privilege provided by our overlords? You want the wealthiest, most productive people to underwrite the whole shitty social experiment and shut the fuck up - or leave.

Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society. Why do you presume ourselves to be individuals? That is a hypothesis which has never really been tried out, and in fact, seems to be scientifically wrong. We are members of a group as much or more so than we are some monadistic "individual." For any "individual" to become wealthy requires a huge network of other people, and their interests, their work, to actually come together. What I want is for the wealthiest people to work with the society they benefit from, to acknowledge that they are not an individual, that their achievements are not solely their own, and that they would be nobody without society. Furthermore, why do you assume that the wealthiest people are the most productive people? If CEO are so productive, why can laborers strike and, ya know, end production?*

Wealth is not an indicator of some virtue, or a sign of productivity. Think it was Ghandi who called wealth without work one of the seven greatest blunders of the world, and that's exactly what we have with a lot of the rich people today.

*edit. Okay, somewhat of a stupid question; it implies I think managers do nothing, and are invaluable, which is wrong. I just think their value is much more equal with their employees (and in some caes, I think the employee's are much more valuable than the CEO or the manager).

[Super Dude]

I don't actually accept that as a line of thinking, I'm pionting out a discrepancy is how idealistic pure libertarian thought is. As you allude to, the reality on the ground often makes it difficult to actually do what you want to do. Systemic and structural issues in society can help keep people in their place, and where they are at.

But seriously, what's with the presumption that being part of society is a privilege provided by our overlords? You want the wealthiest, most productive people to underwrite the whole shitty social experiment and shut the fuck up - or leave.

Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society. Why do you presume ourselves to be individuals? That is a hypothesis which has never really been tried out, and in fact, seems to be scientifically wrong. We are members of a group as much or more so than we are some monadistic "individual." For any "individual" to become wealthy requires a huge network of other people, and their interests, their work, to actually come together. What I want is for the wealthiest people to work with the society they benefit from, to acknowledge that they are not an individual, that their achievements are not solely their own, and that they would be nobody without society. Furthermore, why do you assume that the wealthiest people are the most productive people? If CEO are so productive, why can laborers strike and, ya know, end production?*

Wealth is not an indicator of some virtue, or a sign of productivity. Think it was Ghandi who called wealth without work one of the seven greatest blunders of the world, and that's exactly what we have with a lot of the rich people today.

*edit. Okay, somewhat of a stupid question; it implies I think managers do nothing, and are invaluable, which is wrong. I just think their value is much more equal with their employees (and in some caes, I think the employee's are much more valuable than the CEO or the manager).

Pretty much this entire thing.  It's not for nothing that a national economy is healthiest when there is a large, strong middle class.

[slycordinator]

*edit. Okay, somewhat of a stupid question; it implies I think managers do nothing, and are invaluable, which is wrong. I just think their value is much more equal with their employees (and in some caes, I think the employee's are much more valuable than the CEO or the manager).

BTW, if you were trying to say "I don't mean to imply CEOs/managers have no value", invaluable doesn't mean "having no value." It means having such a great value that it's not possible to calculate how valuable the thing in question is.

[Scheavo]

Hmm... that's true from the dictionary, but the logical make-up of that word seems to imply that it can either be beyond value, or below value. It simply means that they are "non" valuable.

So I admit I technically used the word wrong, I just think that the technical use of the word is illogical.

[slycordinator]

Valueable == able to be valued. In+valuable == not able to be valued. That's not the same as "being valued at zero."

[Scheavo]

Okay, I'll admit that in the sentence I used it, it's logically wrong.

Still, I think to say that invaluable implies "great" value is still wrong. For starters, to say that something is great is giving that thing a value, so if you say that something invaluable because it is beyond value, and so great, you just contradicted yourself.  Why cannot the thing be enigmatic, so that you simply are not able to value it appropriately? The thing could be of no value, litttle value, great value, etc.

Pretty much this entire thing.  It's not for nothing that a national economy is healthiest when there is a large, strong middle class.

One thing that always annoys me about conservative tax ideology (i.e. dont' tax the rich) is that the people saying this always seems to be ignorant of the fact that that money is going to go right back to those rich people.

[Super Dude]

I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.

[PowerSlave]

I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement but, could you be a bit more specific?

[Scheavo]

I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you did. I'm chiming in.

[Super Dude]

I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement but, could you be a bit more specific?

I just meant that a strong economy relies on a strong middle class, i.e. a middle class with a lot of purchasing power that can keep the money flowing.  I don't personally believe in the trickle-down system, and I think that the economic woes we've been seeing the last few years are a sign that it doesn't work, because we've been doing that and it hasn't made things better but worse.  The divide between rich and poor is growing wider and ever wider and the economies of the world continue to struggle, maybe not as a consequence, but certainly not in spite of it.

[PowerSlave]

I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement but, could you be a bit more specific?

I just meant that a strong economy relies on a strong middle class, i.e. a middle class with a lot of purchasing power that can keep the money flowing.  I don't personally believe in the trickle-down system, and I think that the economic woes we've been seeing the last few years are a sign that it doesn't work, because we've been doing that and it hasn't made things better but worse.  The divide between rich and poor is growing wider and ever wider and the economies of the world continue to struggle, maybe not as a consequence, but certainly not in spite of it.

I'm more of the opinion that before we consider raising anyone's taxes we should refocus where the taxes that are already paid are spent. That's not to say that I think you're wrong but, in my opinion there are so many issues with our tax code and spending that need to be addressed first and foremost.

[j]

we should refocus where the taxes that are already paid are spent.

This is the biggest problem, is the way the tax money is spent.  The US federal government has proven itself over the years to be horribly bloated, wasteful, and inefficient, and is a complete and total failure at running the social programs which many of us would otherwise support.  There are several reasons for this, but that discussion is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

As for some of the shit on page 1, I was under the impression that Buffett and some wall street fat cats pay less taxes in total because the majority of their income comes from capital gains, not because of the income tax rate in their bracket.

-J

[William Wallace]

Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society.

We've debated the content of the rest of your post to death, but I would like some justification for this line of reasoning, or at least the argument that stems from it. It's fair to say that people form societies because there is a mutual benefit to be gained by everybody involved. That being said, you use that to justify well redistribution, which I think is unwarranted. Am I missing something?

[Scheavo]

Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society.

We've debated the content of the rest of your post to death, but I would like some justification for this line of reasoning, or at least the argument that stems from it. It's fair to say that people form societies because there is a mutual benefit to be gained by everybody involved. That being said, you use that to justify well redistribution, which I think is unwarranted. Am I missing something?

Ya, try and piss off your fellow members of society, and see how well that works out. Try a small scale experiment, piss off your friends, and see how long you still have them as friends. A democratic Athens killed Socrates.

Looking at the issue over a period of time, a country with a strong middle class is more stable, democratic, and the people in the society enjoy a higher quality of life. When there's a big gap between the rich and the poor, eventually there's revolutions, civil unrest, and so many other problems that come along with it. The wealthy don't benefit, it's against their interest as well - even theoretically against their actual well-being. A good book detailing this would be Political Order in Changing Societies by Hunnington.

[William Wallace]

Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society.

We've debated the content of the rest of your post to death, but I would like some justification for this line of reasoning, or at least the argument that stems from it. It's fair to say that people form societies because there is a mutual benefit to be gained by everybody involved. That being said, you use that to justify well redistribution, which I think is unwarranted. Am I missing something?

Ya, try and piss off your fellow members of society, and see how well that works out. Try a small scale experiment, piss off your friends, and see how long you still have them as friends. A democratic Athens killed Socrates.

Looking at the issue over a period of time, a country with a strong middle class is more stable, democratic, and the people in the society enjoy a higher quality of life. When there's a big gap between the rich and the poor, eventually there's revolutions, civil unrest, and so many other problems that come along with it. The wealthy don't benefit, it's against their interest as well - even theoretically against their actual well-being. A good book detailing this would be Political Order in Changing Societies by Hunnington.

That's not an answer. A generally wealthier society is obviously a happier society. But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others. Also worth noting: endorsing a libertarian view of public assistance isn't synonymous with causing social upheaval. That's a bullshit assumption existing in the minds of academics and nowhere else in the world.

If I sound like a bigger dick than usual it's because I read We the Living this week. 

[Scheavo]

But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others.

Because without living in that community, or using that community in some way, there would be no income to be taxed. You can't sell nobody anything to make a profit, you can't sell nobody a service. I don't know where the line is, but there is a point where someone is getting rich off of the community, or at least isn't being fair in how they dole out the money they have control over. Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market? What kind of work was accomplished? All the work would be done by other people, by the members of the companies they invested in, by the workers hired, etc. Yes, it's a valuable service that we need, but it is not so valuable to deserve hundreds and thousands of times as much money as the common worker. Do you think the corrupt bankers who have exploited the US government, bet against the stock market, etc, deserve their money?

Why is a member of a community entitled to more than his fair share of the wealth created by the community?

And are you still disagreeing that being a member of society is a privilege, or just how I use that to defend my position?