royls@telus.net wrote:

No, it is not. It is based on the __**FACT**__ that those who
actually have much more than their fellows have typically done little
or nothing to deserve their positions of privilege.

Deserves? According to whose standards?

Yours? Who the ***** are you?

Do you think you are God and can judge who deserves and who does not?

What makes your standards valid?

Are you a legend in your own mind?

royls@telus.net wrote:

No, it is not. It is based on the __**FACT**__ that those who
actually have much more than their fellows have typically done little
or nothing to deserve their positions of privilege.

Deserves? According to whose standards? Yours? Who the ***** are you? Do
you think you are God and can judge who deserves and who does not? What
makes your standards valid? Are you a legend in your own mind?

Bob Kolker

I am definately not a socialist and believe America went to far with
social welfare programs that paid able bodied people to not work, but
Clinton changed most of that.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:58:47 -0500, Robert Kolker
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:11:04 GMT,

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:57:29 GMT, Joseph Hertzlinger
<jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:

On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700,

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html

Why should we care?

Caring about justice is one of the things that makes you a human
being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.

Why does this have anything to do with justice?

It is based on the assumption that anyone who has more (or much more)
than his fellows must have done something evil to get what they have.

No, it is not. It is based on the __**FACT**__ that those who
actually have much more than their fellows have typically done little
or nothing to deserve their positions of privilege.

I know exactly four truly rich people personally, well enough to know
what they are like and how they got their money.

One inherited. He is a nice guy, quite smart, but has never held a
job, run a business, or made much in the way of a contribution. Why
bother? Nothing he does is going to make any difference to his
lifestyle.

One is a slick and cunning crook who made his fortune by getting
people to invest in his bogus companies, none of which ever pay a
dividend or even make a profit. He has full-time lawyers who
supervise his "business" operations, primarily so they can warn him
when he is about to stray into illegality. He refers to the investors
he has bilked of their life savings as "***** and Dora Dumbf*ck."

One is a one-hit wonder who swiped someone else's idea, reworked it,
and made an immense fortune through his IP monopoly privilege. He now
devotes his few working hours to finding good ideas, acquiring them
from their originators (usually for a pittance) and trying to repeat
his early success. He has invariably failed in these efforts (his
reworked versions always being inferior to the original ideas), and
has sunk more than one well-known company in his industry as a result.
He constantly reminds people how much richer (and by implication,
better) he is than they are, has no friends, and is despised by his
employees, social acquaintances, and even his family.

The last one is a small businessman of humble origins, very shrewd and
hardworking, who made $1M, put it into real estate, and retired --
then watched in amazement as his $1M turned into $10M without him
lifting a finger. You see, he had always assumed that the way people
get money is by hard work, honesty and thrift. Then he got money, and
learned the truth.

-- Roy L

You provide a very interesting summary of how people obtain their
wealth and it is clear to me that their is a large flaw in the system
where those who have wealth often don't create wealth and those who
work hard for a living often are not rewarded for the wealth they
actually create.

My parents bought 6 rental properties in an area where housing prices
skyrocketed and always bragged about their wealth. Of course they paid
less tax than I did as a wage earner as depreciation writeoffs helped
offset rental income even though the value of their properties
skyrocked. Like many they had a thing against paying taxes, gave
little to charity, and did not spend much of their wealth and died
without ever enjoying what they earned. My sister will inherit their
houses tax free for which she did nothing to earn the wealth she will
receive.

I am definately not a socialist and believe America went to far with
social welfare programs that paid able bodied people to not work, but
Clinton changed most of that. I now believe America has been moving to
the extreme right where wealth is concentrated amongst a small percent
of the population who often don't create wealth to the detriment of
hard working wage earners and society as a whole is worse off for this.
America is beginning to resemble a 3rd world country in many ways with
extreme differences in wealth.

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:

A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.

All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment. Then Congress will find
other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
corporations.

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:

A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.

All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment.

Then Congress will find
other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
corporations. Now, what legal and feasible means do you propose to do
away with this? Be specific.

Bob Kolker

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:33:47 GMT,

Justice requires rewards commensurate with contributions, and
penalties commensurate with deprivations imposed on others. It is
self-evident that the top 1% in wealth have not made a greater
contribution than the bottom 90%.

No it isn't.