Now this is what I was talking about - a bit of reasoned argument!
though continuing that metaphor, i don't think its when the rich man gets more money off comparatively that the other men get angry.
this is assuming that they're all getting the same meal,
and that all four of the poor guys are getting meals at all.
You see now we're running into the difference between the left and right side of that big ol' puddle. In the US, taxes aren't used in the same way as the UK. The biggest difference being healthcare. Here you get the healthcare you can afford, and are responsible for purchasing it yourself. So yes, the wealthy have better healthcare, but that's not the governments fault.
Pretty much everything here is privatized, so I'm not sure where that 50% of my earnings go to be honest. Yes, that's right I have to give half
of what I earn to the government. The armed forces don't defend me any better, the roads aren't any smoother, the police still pull me over if I drive too fast, I don't even use the public transport system, my daughter probably will end up in private school. What exactly is it that I pay that foot thick wad of cash for every year?
Is it any wonder that I comb the tax laws for as many credits and deductions as I can find?
and the restaurant being the government, its their responsibility to feed the poor guys, not directly the rich men's responsibility. even if that's where their money comes from.
But is it? At what point does personal responsibility end, and social/government responsibility begin. As far as I'm concerned it is my
responsibility to keep food on my family's table, not GWBs.
And to give that comment some context, I come from an extremely poor working class family. I am not the privileged elite. I dropped out of college because I ran out of cash. I worked frikking hard to get where I am, and yes, it kinda stings when my wages get redistributed.
and then lets say the rich men, especially this one richest man buys the restaurant. or maybe since he's the main person funding it he threatens to go to another restaurant if they don't do what he wants.
and what he wants may not be what the other 9 men want.
and since they all really rely on that resteraunt its unfair, especially since only the rich men have an option to leave.
This is where we come into alignment. Wealth is abused, as is power. Should bringing more money to the table give you a controlling stake? In business, yes. In matters of our society, I find that tough to reconcile. Although every logical ounce of my being says "why should it be different", emotionally it just doesn't feel right. It's people's lives we're talking about, and they shouldn't be manipulated for personal gain.