>>That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am just curious if there is any evidence that you can site that supports your opinion.
>
>Other than the GST example I gave, no evidence. Just speculation on my part. It give you an idea on my faith in the private business :)
>
>>The last time I worked as a wage slave, it was for a large corporation. Employee bonuses at the end of the fiscal year were based on a combination of how much profit the company made and the employee's review (i.e., how hard they worked). It is not profitable for any company to have high turnover and unhappy employees do not stay or work very hard. So I disagree with you (now there's a surprise <s>)
>
>I agree with you, but not every company understand that.
>
>>Neither. But, then again, I believe that your premise is faulty. There is a third choice. Allow the prople who work hard and earn good money keep more of it in their pockets.
>
>I have no problem with the fact that those who work harder should have more money in their pocket. But it's not always the case. The salary are based on a multitudes of factors, but it's not always fair. Even today in an area of equality between men and woman and in our modern countries, it's not rare to find jobs where women receive a lower salary than men (in similar jobs).
>
>Another example of unfair salary: do you consider normal that a baseball player gain far more than the president of the USA?
>
>Have the private sector resolve these issues and then we could talk about the unfair amount of money the big bad government take out of our pocket ;)

Ballplayers -- entertainers in general -- operate under different economic rules than normal workers. They get paid a lot of money because they also bring in a lot. People will pay money to watch Roy Halladay or Albert Pujols, for example, play baseball. Who would pay to watch me write programs? That's right, nobody.