While they can make schools, they only do so for portion of their money. The government could use all of it (not all their money, but if they had the same amount). I chose names that are known and so how they appear outward and spend their money is important, but think of all those rich people in the background who don't build schools and don't give back to the society.

I can't say I agree that it's stealing. These people live in a society in which they could grow and have success. Could they make that kind of cash if they were living alone in a cave somewhere? Oprah's money comes from the pockets of the people of America, society lifted her up. Considering the immense excess she has, it's only fair she should return some of that wealth to the society that brought it in the first place.

You can say that money comes back in the form of schools and so on, but the general trend is it doesn't. As Sleepy Jack posted, it's been accumulating on the top more and more since the 70s - obviously there's some kind of positive feedback loop which is taking wealth from the bottom and feeding the top layers of society and that trend will pull USA deeper into the pit unless you can somehow turn the tide. Some of the that wealth gathering in people at the top is wealth which is lost from society - until it's given back.

edit :

Compared to your America, I live in a very socialist society. Here I'm a student which means I don't have a job and get by on a government loan which I only have to pay back part of in the future when I'm working so yes, I'm smooching off the state (my biology education is free - payed for by the state). I don't feel bad about it because when I buy something, I pay money to the government and when I get hired as a biologist, I'll give back to the government in the way of taxes. What comes around goes around, but in the end most people are net givers to society which makes it better for all.

Now, I've been to America and I was not surprised to see it wasn't exactly like Seinfeld or CSI, but after visiting and staying with 3 different families in New York, I was surprised to see that my living standards as a student in Norway are higher than any of those 3 families and these are people with real jobs. America is a country with vast amounts of natural resources and everything else going for it, so I think there's probably something that could be improved on.

My point is living in a socialist country, I'm already quite well off. There's more to go around for everyone - well, almost - we don't have any Paris Hiltons here (who is richly rewarded by the US society by the way).

edit :

I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I get a bit irked when I see all these suggested and predicted problems with wealth redistribution and more socialistic politics because I'm not experiencing any of these issues myself. I think we do experience the suggested benefits however. I admitted I don't know everything about America and that there's stuff I could learn, but maybe there are some lessons you guys could learn too from outside your borders.

I was hoping you'd cite the Wealth of Nations or something he actually wrote. Again, I've seen nothing aside from your book for dummies that says that.

don't worry, you're damn polite compared to all the neo-communist wankers out there. :)

i think one of the major hurdles which prevents a large-scale socialist policy from being accepted into our economic policy is that it's almost an antithesis to the American dream -- the ideology that if you work hard, success and a good quality of life will follow. that's not to say that other people can't afford to have a decent living, but intrinsic to many Americans is the idea that the means to provide for yourself is well within your own power and certainly your responsibility, not the government's.

Just like Paris Hilton.

Yes.

Good to see you back, unfan.

socialism wouldn't have prevented that walking, talking cunt from being a cunt.

At least she wouldn't have been paid for it. Imagine the Simple Life, 24/7. She has no other marketable skills anyway.

Really good post Lucifer Sam (Top of page)

Good point. Earlier in the thread JJJ pointed out that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are the 2 richest men in America, and give a lot to charities and such.

I think it's worth pointing out that these men are both staunch Democrats, and thus, less likely to be big free marketers. I'm not sure with Gates, but I'm pretty sure Buffett is on record as referring to the current tax code as 'insane', and he feels it is his civic duty to pay a lot more, especially since he gets most of his from capital gains, and they're only taxed at like, 15%.

You're right that Buffett does feel it's his duty to give back, but he is in favor of a flat tax, he was upset (really he was) that he was only taxed 18% (because of capital gains which as you correctly noted are taxed at a considerably lower rate) of his income. Buffett believes in philanthropy and does have a disdain for the widening gap between the elite rich and the middle class. But his solution is an equitable tax system and accountability from the wealthy to the soceity that allowed them to attain such wealth.