Or in the public interest.
The New Deal.
The Great Society.
Creating a dependent class is not in the public interest.
Yet that is exactly what we have done, much to our shame.
Whoosh!
Funny thing to say to an atheist like Gates.
The reason why you are attempting (and failing) to make a good point is that there are many rich people that did learn from history and know that society has to have safety nets and offer help to the less well to do with tools like taxation.
I think you missed the point about maldistribution. You seem to be under the impression that the free market always distributes the fruits of production equitably between capital and labor.
If the wealthy want the working class to make their cookies, perhaps the wealthy should pay the working class for doing so, or they can make their own damn cookies. Its not like they don’t own the ovens.
It depends on how you define the public. You seem to be arguing that the taxpayer’s interest = the public interest. Our tax system does not tax people according to how much government service they consume. The family with 4 kids in public school pays no more in taxes than an otherwise similarly situated family with 1 child in private school. The parents with 4 children in public school might very well be in favor of increasing teachers salaries and giving them all sort of assurances to make teaching an attractive career option for really capable people.
I would also point out that in many jurisdictions, the taxes are largely paid by a small group of wealthy while the services are enjoyed broadly. So to the extent that you are equating taxpayers with the public, you are equating the wealthy to the public. Now whether or not you agree that those with more should pay disproportionately more or not is another debate but when you equate taxpayer to public interest without considering the consumer of government services, that is what you are doing.
I think you are confusing liberal with communist
What you are describing are former hard-core capitalists with guilty consciences. Of which, Bill Gates is a perfect example. he was ruthless in his heyday.
Maybe a Wozniac or Jobs is closer to the ideal of a self-made wealthy liberal… But all of these people used ruthless capitalist tactics to create their wealth.
Come on… Name one. That isn’t some sort of entertainer.
Actually, socialists in America declined in number because they could not offer a better idea than the new deal, as it is clear, several American rich people then supported the efforts to reform and not to end the capitalism system.
So for the taxonomic chart of the SSlug we have so far:
Dumb
Liar
And now..
Willful ignorant.
Keep adding to the rows sluggie, when in the future you pretend to be a smart guy I will link to your posts here as evidence of what you really are.
Who’s confusing what?
Once again, that straw man is fun to hit by you, but it shows all present that you are still stupid enough to try it again.
Why does everyone here insist on inserting arguments about private industry when this thread is clearly about public unions? I couldn’t care less if private industry unionizes.
I am well aware of the elite ruling class; they are your masters.
\You won’t even touch that one with a ten foot pole, will you?
Making the straw man bigger does not help.
(Are you so ignorant that you don’t realize how dumb you look now?)
So you will have to obey them as you offer no other good solution like the American socialist or communist parties. Having many of them be capitalists is not a deal breaker or a cause to not follow or fund liberal causes. As much as your want your straw man to be valid, it actually makes me hopeful for the future.
I’m ignorant because you can’t name one self-made independently wealthy liberal who didn’t start out as a die-hard capitalist?
The key to liberal success is to have LOTS of conservatives to confiscate wealth from. OR… to start out as a capitalist and gain guilt and conscience with age.
Your masters call them “useful idiots.”
Lenin is our master?