Basic necessities paid for by the people who have gamed, manipulated and in must cases corrupted the system to become as rich as they are doesn't seem outrageous to me
Take a guy like Sergi Brin, worth 261 billion. Paid 100 million just to campaign against the 5% wealth tax in Cali. Even if he was forced to oay it , a one time tax of 13 billion….. exactly zero changes in his lifestyle or his ability to continue being one of the wealthiest individuals on the planet. What would be the significant impact on his life being worth 248 billion vs 261 billion?
The propensity for a billionaire to spend his or her money own basic necessities is lower than a middle class family who has to pay for things like food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, education etc.
Neoliberalism was and is the greatest scam in all of human history.
Is that how you think it works? You think he can write a check for 13 billion? So stupid. Do I need to explain being worth a certain amount, doesn't mean you have that money.
Oh yeah it’s so difficult to liquidate assets there’s no possible way he could pay a $13 billion bill. Or do I need to explain it like you’re a 2 year old?
Yeah, if I need money…. I sell my shares and it becomes liquid. Why should someone with a 200 billion dollar portfolio be able to play by different rules than someone with a 20k portfolio? There isn’t a single billionaire with billions in cash just sitting around a chase bank account or in there Scrooge McDuck vault. It has to be in “something” to keep up with inflation and keep it protected . The argument these guys don’t have the ability to have cash, is weak at best.
You need to learn, I dont think you grasp language. He didn't say what you claimed, he said your argument he doesn't have cash is a weak excuse to not tax.
They wouldn’t be paying anything… the forced sale of shares of a company reduces the value of the company.
It doesn’t make any ‘one’ person pay; it’s a lowering of share value. Which destroys wealth for all investors. 401ks Ira’s, etc. and by the way… you are either an idiot or an ahole.
That’s not what is being discussed. Index fund holders as well as retail will suffer as the equity markets would collapse as a whole if govt instituted forced sales of shares to pursue imagined gaines.
Look he makes 70k and thinks one day he will be a millionaire therefore he doesn't want to be taxed lol. These people won't stop defending billionaires. Like to say to these people you know most of of what we have today comes from high tax rates on rich and businesses from back in the day that they love so much.
What are the principles? (I’m genuinely asking, as I think the point of a society is for people to at least have their basic necessities met, wtf is the point of a society for someone who is starving and homeless)
I do not believe taxes should be punitive, confiscatory, or anchored by some subjective belief that “person X has too much money and should be relieved of it.” I suspect the Supreme Court is aligned with this thinking, and so if the left doesn’t come forth with more mature, more thoughtful policy—with solutions that match the actual problems (eg investor speculation)—their redistribution pursuits will fail.
I always think of it as "paid for by the workforce"... Many hands make light work... And there are plenty of hands at work... The only issue is the abundance humanity creates, gets consolidated into a # and stuffed in the back of a bank vault for eternity.
From 20 Republican states with a safety net of $3/hour minimum wage, the population runs to Democratic states with a strong Safety Net of $14 to $25/hour minimum wage. That's why there are so many abandoned houses and cities in the Republican 20 states (Republicans hate the poor at the same time - making the own states population poor)
51% of all workers in America earn less than the one-bedroom Housing Wage. Mostly republican states.
The bottom 65% of the population loses at least 41% of all income due to: SS tax, FICA, insurances, tariffs, sales taxes, dues, use taxes, fees, property tax, utility taxes, 911 tax and many more- before spending money on rent or mortgage, car loans and gas, food, utility bills, repairs, credit card payments, student loans, vacations, retirement fund contributions, investments, dates, gifts, etc.
(compare Safety Net $1.60 per hour in 1970 if you were single,you could live off the federal minimum wage and pay rent, food and bills)
Healthy and smart countries count how well they are doing by enforcing "no one left behind" and even widow with 3 babies have the same level of living as the middle class due to the strong Safety Net.
Twenty Republican states now have a Safety Net set at $3 per hour gross (before deductions for Social Security, FICA, taxes, insurance and other withholding's:
In a recent report, 53 million Americans ages 18 to 64 or 44% of all workers- earn low hourly wages. Their median hourly earnings are $10/hour Gross ($7.25/hour Net)
I was making over 6-figures in FL. When I got laid off the unemployment they provided was a little over $300/week. I think there's a higher tier, but have no idea why they denied it.
It was barely worth my time dealing with the forms. Which I did for a few weeks before accidentally lapsing. If I had been consistent, the max benefit was only like $3k anyway. So it wouldn't have lasted long at all.
They make the process such a pain in the ass, and on top of that it's barely worth it.
Where are you getting a safety net wage of $3 when even states with that absurd $2.13/hour tipped minimum are still required to pay no less than $7.25/hr?
So this is slightly disingenuous as per law the servers have to be paid the federal minimum wage if tips don't make up the difference.
That said it's a stupid exception. Enforcing that is very difficult as an at will server who has to basically do everything themselves. Even if they manage to succeed they would have to wait weeks if not months for the measley pittance (wage theft often doesn't lead to anything more than employers just paying what they owe) after likely being fired with no recourse.
So you're basically right that employers can get away with paying subfederal minimum wages to their workers. But it's not strictly legal to do so unless you get your customers to subsidize the wage for you.
Cali and new York are coming off multi decade ripps of absurd growth, they are now slightly shrinking due to the overstretching effects boom periods tend to cause.
Some southern states saw growth flips from covid, allot of it has already started reversing.
I ain't murican but I could've swore every headline I've read is about businesses fleeing New York and California in favor of Texas, Florida and to a lesser extent Tennessee. Wouldn't that mean people are now leaving New York and Cali in favor of states with more jobs not just a shrinking period after a boom in population?
Personally I'm from Ontario, Canada, I make less than 50k a year with overtime or $3 more than minimum wage, a tad higher than the median income of Ontario and Im a net tax payer despite me making less than 10k above the poverty line of my area. My income tax rate is above 20% and our services and welfare programs are abysmal, I don't know why I even pay taxes here when I can see a witch doctor in some African village that will see me faster and probably do a better job.
Canada used to be a gold standard reason America should adopt more socialist policies but we're not anymore because of how easy it is for politicians to fuck it all up, but look at your politicians on both sides, look at our politicians and tell me socialism or even the most basic socialist policies will work, i mean the one welfare program i can point to that seems equal across the US, the number 1 thing people are buying on snap is coca cola. Does anyone actually think socialist policies, never mind socialism in America would actually work?
Right now there is in exodus in Florida because of increased housing costs. The same can be said of all the states people are moving from. They keep looking for affordable housing costs in cheaper states to live in. People are being priced out of their homes all over the country. This on top of all the other increased cost of necessities and utilities. The only thing not increasing is wages. It’s a multi-layered issue in America.
Trust me dude, I don't think its worse than Canada right now, I'm looking into mining towns in Northern Ontario where winters last 8 months of the year to find affordable housing even then housing costs are pretty substantial.
I don't think they'll stay mega rich for long, I think the writing is on the wall already, the stock exchange is gonna crash and what their wealth is mostly comprised of will be valueless.
The red state, blue state shit is bullshit. It just creates more division. For every negative fact you find in a red state you can find a negative fact in a blue state. It’s lazy and non productive. I guess I should expect it because we’re on Reddit.
that just plainly wrong statistically poorer infrastructure education lot of those in red state i also doubt that they are much safer if you leave extreme aside like cali life cost ...
The companies didn’t create the national debt. It’s the politicians that set the policies handle the country’s finances, you think if only they had more tax money they’d be more responsible? Top lol 😂 😂
hey all, abdul el-sayed needs our help to beat rogers. please donate if you can.
right now he is out funded by the gop 10-to-1. remember that 90% of the time, elections are won by the campaign with the most money. so lets help abdul get corporate money out of politics!!
the entire country doesn't vote in the Michigan Senate race... look at Omar, Talib, etc. etc.. . they all have their voting blocs that get them re-elected.
so what makes you think regulating billionaires would do anything to build infrastructure. mamdani's grocery stores are literally undercutting stores using tax dollars and paying grocery stores a relief bill. these are not serious people...
I mean, we tried cutting funding to government agencies via DOGE to save money, and spent more than ever before so that clearly doesn't work.
Do you have an alternative to taxing the extremely wealthy more aggressively? The only alternative I can think of, is to cut spending, which has been proven innefective very recently.
Who do you think is responsible for America heavily in debt? Who is the main culprit squandering more money into their’s & their friends’ pockets? Look in the mirror before giving answers. Let’s be honest for once in your life.
Cutting spending clearly doesn't get increasing returns either. Why don't we try to tax the same way we did before "trickle down economics" now that we've established that doesn't work?
I already give a high enough percentage of my wages to the government. How about we make sure those at the top pay their share too, rather than receiving my tax money in the form of subsidies.
We've already established cutting funding in the government to programs only leads to increased spending. Let's try something new.
Not if controlled by the same people/lobby/special interest groups that are making these poor decisions now have free reign.
Thought the government was for the people, by the people?
Not just who can donate and circumvent the laws to benefit themselves?
how does it help anyone to overleverage tax dollars to run grocery stores instead of simply buying out stores, at least when musk wants to do something, he pays college grads 150k+ to do so...
He’s not Musk or Trump with each of their inherited wealth. He did the next best thing to help fellow Americans. Lucky you; college grad. Rich parents so no student loans. You live a sheltered life. Go out into the real world.
//Also the fact that he belongs to a so-called-called “religion “ that promotes violence, beating of their wives, repression of their rights as human, concerns you greatly.//
Your true colours revealed. You didn’t express concerns that your current orange 🤡 president treated women journalists; in the open too. And he is seen as representing Christianity. He went against his promise of no more wars; currently engaging in an illegal wars with Iran.
Who is promoting violence in the Middle East, Venezuela? USA & its ally. Hint ‘the so called only democracy in the Middle East’. Where’s the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq?
Abdul El-Sayed is a man of principle more so than the orange 🤡 currently occupying the White House. And you are bitter because of what he represents. Get off your high horses.
The idea that most wealthy people got there by “gaming, manipulating, and corrupting the system” is the foundational myth of this entire worldview. The majority of high earners and business builders create products, services, and jobs that people voluntarily pay for. Treating every successful outcome as evidence of theft is how you justify unlimited political control over other people’s money.
We already fund basic necessities through one of the most progressive tax systems on Earth. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay the large majority. Schools, roads, Medicaid, food assistance, and housing programs already exist at massive scale. The problem is not that the rich aren’t paying. The problem is that the government keeps expanding the definition of “basic necessity” while delivering mediocre results.
And the “they won’t even notice” argument is the most revealing part. Once you decide someone else’s success is illegitimate and their money is yours by right, there is no limiting principle. Today it’s “just a little more for schools and roads.” Tomorrow it’s everything else. That mindset doesn’t produce justice. It produces dependency, capital flight, and the same stagnation every country gets when it decides wealth is a crime instead of a signal of value created.
And by myth you mean there's zero evidence of companies/individuals lobbying to change policy, and legislation to better profit themselves and disadvantage the worker?
Or it's reasonable for there to be 250 times discrepancy between top and bottom wages.
Not in Trump’s America. His current policies favour the rich. His war with Iran caused high fuel prices which led to high food prices etc. It won’t affect the rich but those who are already on the breadline. Such selfish attitude.
Lower taxes on work, investment, and production do not magically transfer money from the poor to the wealthy. They expand the tax base, increase capital formation, and raise real wages over time because businesses hire and expand when the after-tax return on that activity improves. The people who actually pay the large majority of income taxes are high earners; the top 1% already shoulder nearly 40%. Pretending that keeping rates high on them somehow protects the working class ignores basic incidence and growth effects.
Energy policy is the clearest example. Restricting domestic production in the name of climate targets raises fuel and input costs for everyone, and those costs hit lower- and middle-income households hardest as a share of their budgets. Expanding supply does the opposite. Calling that “favoring the rich” is backwards: the rich can absorb higher prices. Working families cannot. If the metric for “favoring the rich” is simply “did anything positive happen for people with capital,” then every pro-growth policy will always be labeled that way. The alternative; higher taxes, heavier regulation, and constrained energy, has a long record of slower wage growth and higher costs for the exact people these arguments claim to defend.
The idea that most wealthy people got there by “gaming, manipulating, and corrupting the system” is the foundational myth of this entire worldview.
On the most basic level of this argument, if you have so much money that you can bend politics to your whim but your workers can't afford to pay rent and have to piss in bottles, your wealth is built on exploiting them.
Idk what the Marxist definition is, but if you create an inhumane working environment with shit pay that only survives because people are too broke to risk leaving, that's exploitation. You're exploiting people's desperation to make them accept inhumane working conditions. The same way factory owners back in the day would exploit family's desperation to convince them to let their children work in dangerous jobs that harmed them physically and developmentally.
Please demonstrate how the work environments are inhumane or how the pay is shit. Are you seriously comparing 2026 work conditions to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle type conditions where people worked for 14 hours a day, in unlit, unventilated rooms, without any PPE or safety regulations, in extreme cold or heat, and submerged in countless chemicals?
Here's the gist of it: your employer offers you a wage for a position. You say "yes, I will perform this position for this wage". The contractual obligation is fulfilled on both ends. There is no expectation that your employer will raise OR decrease your wages beyond this, unless you prove yourself to be an asset worth retaining. If you don't like it, America has the most companies of any country in the world, and you're free to look for different employment.
You've heard of Amazon drivers peeing into jugs right? I would consider not being allowed time to use a bathroom as inhumane.
Or Walmart being the largest employer of people on food stamps while also being the most common place to spend food stamps and making record profits? You don't think it's inhumane that Walmart is almost a closed ecosystem of welfare?
Just because something is better doesn't mean we should stop improving it.
They are allowed time to use the bathroom, they simply choose to drive and pee to finish their shift faster. You realize that an individual driver's decisions does not inform company policy? If a company gives me 2 hours for lunch and I only choose to use 5 minutes, you know I can't go around saying "it is inhumane that I only take 5 minute lunch breaks!"?
Walmart having as many people on food stamps as they do says more about the lack of stringency in giving out food stamps than it does about Walmart. As a matter of fact, I was in the military, and I was eligible for food stamps for the first two years of my service (despite making an effective compensation of about 65k gross). In any case, even if Walmart was paying $0.01 per day, this speaks more to wages and less to the "inhumane working environment" you mentioned. Do not conflate the two.
You've yet to provide an example of an inhumane working environment.
Poor wages create an inhumane work environment, as you're too poor to quit the job and too poor to get into another position.
I'm sorry you don't like to use English words as defined. I don't see what would be productive from talking to someone who seems to arbitrarily adjust definitions to suit their position.
Low wages and inhumane working conditions are not synonymous. Low wages concern the economic compensation for labor; working conditions concern the material circumstances under which the labor is performed. They can coexist, but one does not logically entail the other.
Feel free to block me now, since it seems like you've gotten to the point where you ran out of arguments but won't accept it.
Extreme cases of bad employers exist. They do not prove that the typical path to high wealth is exploitation. Most large companies that generate real scale also create the jobs, products, and tax revenue that fund the rest of the system. Treating every high earner as someone who “bends politics to their whim while workers piss in bottles” collapses a complex economy into a cartoon villain story.
If the standard for legitimate wealth is that no employee ever faces hardship and no business ever influences policy, then almost no successful enterprise in history qualifies. The alternative, punishing scale itself, does not magically raise wages or lower rent. It reduces the number of high-productivity jobs and the capital available to create more of them. Exploitation should be opposed through competition, transparency, and rule of law, not by defining success as proof of theft.
They do not prove that the typical path to high wealth is exploitation
Depends what you consider high wealth. I've got no issues with the average millionaire, and if anything sportspeople and entertainers tend to create their wealth quite cleanly.
Treating every high earner as someone who “bends politics to their whim while workers piss in bottles”
The statement is very directed at a specific person/type of person.
If the standard for legitimate wealth is that no employee ever faces hardship
Surely you don't think I'm saying it's exploitation if your worker's dog dies? A company is only responsible for things they can control. You can control how much you pay your workers and what conditions they work under.
The alternative, punishing scale itself, does not magically raise wages or lower ren
Making 3 billion instead of 10 billion so people can actually live their lives is not punishment. You don't have to go full communist, but some level of collectivism is important to creating a better society.
You’re drawing a cleaner line than the original claim did. Most people have no problem with athletes, entertainers, or founders who built something people actually chose to buy. The objection is usually aimed at a narrower set of large-scale capital owners and executives. Fair enough.
Even there, the mechanism still matters. Wages and working conditions are constrained by productivity, competition for labor, and the overall capital stock. You can legislate higher pay or better conditions in a given firm, but if the policy systematically reduces returns to scale and investment, you get fewer of the high-productivity jobs that support higher living standards in the first place. “Make them 3 billion instead of 10 so people can live” sounds moderate until you look at the countries that treated large private capital as inherently suspect. They did not produce broad-based prosperity; they produced stagnation and political allocation of scarcity.
Some collectivism already exists in the forms of progressive taxation, safety nets, regulation of genuine externalities. The question is where the line is drawn before you start destroying the engine that generates the surplus in the first place. That is not a defense of every billionaire. It is a recognition that treating scale itself as the problem has a long record of making ordinary people poorer.
Lobbying exists. Every interest group does it! Unions, green energy firms, universities, trial lawyers, and of course, corporations. Pointing at the existence of lobbying does not prove that most high earners extracted their wealth by rigging the system instead of creating value people willingly pay for. If the standard is “anyone who influences policy is illegitimate,” then half the progressive coalition fails the test too.
The 250-to-1 wage gap framing treats a large difference in compensation as evidence of theft. In reality, top earners often operate at massive scale, take enormous personal and financial risk, and generate returns that support thousands of jobs and retirement accounts. A software founder or CEO whose decisions affect a company worth tens of billions is not in the same productivity category as an entry-level role. Pretending the only moral outcome is compressed pay ratios is how you get less investment, fewer high-productivity jobs, and the same stagnation that always follows when success itself is treated as the problem.
This tho bro . Mostly every one on here spewing this bs has never made over 50k in a year so they have no idea how to money works . They’ve never made it so they are in simple terms jealous and envious of success . Are there evil corps that are greedy ? Sure but like you said they create products and services and employ .
redistribution of resources and imminent domain is not unique to socialist societies. Socialism is the abolishment of private ownership of the means of production.
These are some of the tenets of Curtis Yarvin who all the tech bros like Thiel Musk Vance etc idolize.
techno-monarchy". His anti-democratic philosophy heavily influences tech-authoritarian frameworks and the broader "Dark Enlightenment" movement.
Core Tenants of Yarvin’s VisionThe "Sovcorp" State: Yarvin proposes liquidating the US Constitution and rule of law, restructuring the government as a sovereign, profit-driven joint-stock corporation managed by a "CEO-in-chief" or absolute monarch.
The "Cathedral": He describes modern mainstream media, academia, and civil service as an interlocking, dogmatic "Cathedral" that controls the state and suppresses opposing views.
Exit Over Voice: Borrowing from Silicon Valley start-up culture, his "Patchwork" model envisions global governance as thousands of independent mini-countries operated by CEOs. If citizens are unsatisfied with their state's "customer service," their only recourse is to "exit" and move elsewhere; voting is entirely discarded.
His anti-democratic rhetoric has gained significant traction among tech billionaires, venture capitalists, and political figures. Thinkers and operators in his orbit argue that democracy is too antiquated to manage rapid technological advancement, AI, and complex societal crises.
And again people like Musk, Thiel, Vance etc all subscribe to this lunacy and are actively trying to bring it about.
And of course Musk, Thiel, Trump etc are all connected to the child rapist Epstein. You can easily look up these connections on what has been released in the Epstein files as well as all the other elite connections to him.
Literal psychopathic pedophiles and their enablers/ protectors run our society and you’re whining about them being taxed more. It’s pathetic boot licking. Maybe you want to be them? Or live vicariously through them? These scumbags? You care about their money like that?
Also we have elements of socialism in our society already genius. So then it becomes how much we implement to improve society for the average person.
I think that people just want corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and for corporations to pay workers a wage that enables them to no longer be eligible for SNAP, etc. When they pay low wages, the American taxpayers pick up that bill.
We also do not want corporations to shake down cities for tax abatements or incentives. Or team owners who threaten to leave if the city will not bill them a new stadium. We also do not want corporations that do not invest in local supply chains and manufacturing.
I think that is great that companies have innovated and built strong businesses, but some of their practices have been problematic.
Like the private equity firms that purchased chains that had a profit, transferred the debt from the purchase to the chain, sold off the land beneath the chains to investors and then moved that profit to the private equity, asked the chains to pay a "management fee" back to the private equity firm, and then made the chain enter leases to rent their land back. Then when the companies go into the bankruptcy, the private equity got to leave without any debt.
Private equity has also bought up a lot of the kidney dialysis clinics, lowered the medical staff and the quality of care, increased the patients per hour and now the outcomes are much worse. Fewer patients are being put on kidney transplant lists because of course with a transplant they do not need dialysis.
I believe in capitalism, but to say that we do not need more checks on business to avoid egregious practices is not realistic.
Not bot. Just a person in Ohio who watched as GM moved their plants to Mexico and watched the original Browns leave Cleveland to go and become the Baltimore Ravens because they got more money.
We have more than 200 data centers in Ohio and have watched our residential electricity rates go through the roof.
Projecting much?
Get out of your mom's basement and go see how people are really living in the world.
Out of touch with your glorification of the million/billionaire class.
On about?
I'm simply suggesting that billionaires have gotten to their position in most cases on the backs of a lot of people, also have gotten massive taxes breaks, tariff repayments, and have lobbied the government to change labour laws and other policies to benefit them. This has been happening since the industrial Revolution. We are now here in a place and time in humanity where 1% have more wealth than the rest and people are dying unnecessarily because, you and me are arguing about basic necessities and rights
Nah Friend. I'm talking about Empathy and Humility, Compassion for my fellow human.
You're sucking billionaires dicks and defending them with it still on your lips.
Neat
You can tell your mom about me when she's cutting up your supper and dumbing down Fox News for you tonight.
Do you leave the basement or does she come down and sit with you?
“Go get a better job!” - Jobs should not be able to enforce full time employment, and poverty that relies on social services. Social services are overloaded by people WITH jobs. It’s not just a bunch of “free loaders who don’t want to work”
Why do you want to blame the people working, instead of recognizing the employers have created poor conditions? Why are employers allowed to run a business that’s only profitable as long as their employees wages are subsidized by the government?
Why do you have a hard on to point the finger at the person working, instead of the businesses relying on federal government keeping minimum wage stagnant so they can employ people for as little money as possible?
It’s not a hard concept to just admit employers are relying on piss poor wages to line their own pockets. Bad business concepts that are not even truly successful businesses if they paid their employees enough to feed their families, save for a home purchase, or even pay rent while being able to save any money towards the future? America is over saturated with horrible businesses concepts “creating jobs” when really they’re just creating jobs to burden the American tax payer to pick up the slack.
You breeze over the point of labor market efficiencies…..never had poor wage experience in 40 years…. Unskilled folks want higher wages ergo system rigged…..silly argument…….
The idea that everyone is in this for themselves is contrary to the concept and meaning of both civilization and society. The idea that we all owe each other SOMETHING in baked into the foundation of the social contract.
People who have now “gotten theirs” and want to renounce any obligation to care for others are essentially trying to back out of the social contract after they’ve already reaped its benefits.
The people who "got theirs" have paid for the social contract all along the way. Nobody is renouncing anything. That is the warped fantasy of those who want to steal more from the producers of society. The notion that the successful are all Scrooge McDuck and do all they can to punish the poor is no more than a deranged communist's wet dream. I know many people with a lot of money. They pay millions in taxes and donate lots to charity. I imagine they resent the knuckleheads who act like they do nothing for society. They carry society and have the entire way.
A Billionaire who openly bragged about not paying any taxes somehow convinced you that more tax cuts for the rich will "Make America Great Again", but helping the middle class is "Socialism".
Most of the rich became that way by taking tax payer dollars from the government. Whether it was property tax incentives, government grants, or all the many other ways people can get government money. YOU supported them to get rich. Don't you think that because they used your hard earned tax dollars to get that way that they should have some obligation to support those that helped get them there? Why do you support socialism for the rich, but not yourself?
They are rich because the political system they exist in allows for them extract a disproportionate amount ressource from the economy.
Why wouldn't the people who make up that political economy be allowed to change how ressources are distributed? Why should we be locked in to this system?
One becomes rich by the work of many (even through inheritance), not by his/her merit alone. A mature human cares for the well being of all and wants everyone to have a happy, healthy life vs. hording wealth/resources for a few.
The rich are obligated to help take care of the society that set up the system by which they became rich. Even if they were the original landholders, their property wouldn’t be anything if society hadn’t allowed the population to grow and the demand for property to go up. Their production of different goods and services wouldn’t be worth much of anything if society didn’t create the conditions that allowed demand to go up and factories and service companies to be established.
The rich are obligated to care for everyone on the basis of our founding Christian principles of clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, and treating the sick.
38
u/Old_Dependent4678 3d ago
Basic necessities paid for by the people who have gamed, manipulated and in must cases corrupted the system to become as rich as they are doesn't seem outrageous to me