Re: "Why should those that have work for, and achieved, wealth be punished while the slackers that don't poke a stick at a snake to earn a dime, gets all the freebies of the government."
Since I have *never* advocated that, I can't really answer that question.
(Just for the purpose of discussion though... what does *inheriting* money from someone have to do with 'freebies from the government'? Except that I suppose in BOTH cases someone is getting something they didn't actually 'work' for?)
"Those that achieve wealth have risked their capital, and worked their asses off, to make an enterprise a success."
(Sometimes.... That *is* a well-trod way to wealth. Other times someone did no work at all, merely got lucky [as in a lottery winner... or perhaps 'lucky in birth' a la Paris Hilton :-) Unless, that is, her earnings as a model actually outstrip her spending. I wouldn't take that particular bet if you gave me odds. <G>)
There is also the 'old fashioned way' to wealth: marry into it! :-)
"That, of course, does not pertain the professional athletes that are receiving huge contracts for supposedly playing a game."
Hey! I've got no problems with anyone actually EARNING what the market will bear --- it's straight forward Capitalism, the 'scarcity effect' at work. High demand for certain skills, combined with limited supply, equals relatively high compensation.
You aren't coming out for 'old money' (inheritances) and against 'new money' (earnings) are you? That would be a very odd slant on Capitalism! |
