>>>>>The endpoint of all those arguments was the oppression of the the "weak" by the "powerful" was foreordained and inevitable.
>>>
>>>Where's that coming from.
>>
>>We really don't have to answer that question.
>>However we do have to say that it's unconscionable that a retired teacher who has who has worked all her life has to choose between rent and medicine while a Walmart heir whose only accomplishment was being born tools around in private jets.
>
>I guess Sam Walton was also born rich. He made the money gave millions to charity and millions to his kids. I don't begrudge him 1¢. BTW, the inheritance tax rate in 1992 was 55% of everything over $6 million. So, didn't the US government get 55%?
>

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:static

Check the three names with Walton in them. Combined net worth over $120 billion.
It's convenient to invoke Sam's name, but what exactly did those 3 do that earned them $120 billion?
That's a handout to end all handouts.