On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country."
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.

OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every one. Then what?

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
First to Bruno's response to

(R):3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimately  doesn''t work, it
lowers every body's income to fit the curve.  A nd why trickle down doesn't

"I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work
for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on
propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much
investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military
industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands.
It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as
the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of
professional liars."

It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist
attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a
requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the
not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections,
financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their
lower share in the present unjust taxation-scheme.

The rest of your reply is appreciable, however the 'crumbling' down may only
follow a total disaster for the not-so-rich people.

The said 'taxing' is not a 'trickle down' trick, it is providing the
(missing) means to society to stay healthy and sane.

Now to Brent's addendum:

I agree - although Brent, too, has fallen into the trap of a misidentified
problem-view: the equalization of wealth, a 200 year obsolete idea that
cannot work for several reasons. Socialism (not to even mentioning
communism) are never realized (realizable?) dreams of idealists (calling
themselves "materialists").

Then again I would not identify 'the rich' as
"...people who live comfortably solely on their investments..."
which may not be objectionable (ppensioners, etc.) but the USERS of wealth
in directing the life of the country. Though they may do so, they should
contribute from their share of fortune to the expenses.
And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word

John M




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to