>>>Hey Tamar,
>>>
>>>>First, not all wealthy people are directly employing others. Some are living on investments, or on the wealth accumulated by their ancestors.
>>>
>>>OK I have to totally disagree with that on several levels. First off if they live a wealthy lifestyle then they are employing others to maintain that lifestyle. Landscapers for the property. Nannies for the kids....financial experts to manage the portfolio. And if it's wealth accumulated by family then, at some point, the family engaged others in the process of accumulating that wealth. Last I looked money doesn't spring from a well in the ground.
>>>
>>>>Second, typically, those who are employing others are also taking advantage of lots of the things that society provides. For example, companies selling lots of products are shipping them somehow and that's likely to involve something that taxes pay for, whether it's roads or airports or ...
>>>
>>>I agree in theory. But here we get into specifics. The company that ships products all over the place is paying more for that shipping,right? If I mail a thousand letters I am paying a thousand times more than you who are mailing one letter. I need a better example to debate this point. Think this one through again and come up with a more cogent argument.
>>>
>>>>I stand by my original statement. If you have more, you have more responsibility. "More," of course, doesn't have to be more things. It could be more brains or more something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And therein lies our fundamental disagreement. Tamar, you are making the classic Marxist argument whether you realize it or not. If you're OK with that, fine, but it's antithesis to the values the country was founded on. We were founded on equal opportunity and equal responsibilities. I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or for that matter the Bill of Rights, is this precept of yours. Please, enlighten me. Let me give you a headstart - it's not there at all. So this opinion of yours runs counter to our founding principles de facto.
>>>
>>>As the saying goes I don't agree with your opinion but would defend your rights to it. But, strictly speaking, it's un-American structurally. And there is nothing you can point to in our founding literature that says otherwise.
>>
>>Except for that failed Jamestown coop, that turned into an exercise in capitalism before it succeeded.
>
>Was that the one where they were planning a coop but chickened out?

ROFL that was a good one - I'm surprised Dragan didn't catch it first...