Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:48:42 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 03:24:26 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:45:30 AM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:55:55 AM

Preventing destruction, I'm all for that. Destroying an adversary that creates more destruction than what he produces is only a gain.

However, destruction in the name of the destruction that has occurred, merely an eye for an eye... If that's justice, call me unjust as much as you please. Equality is overrated. Equality for the sake of equality is a farce of crocodile tears and envy. It is merely emotion with only loss for us all.

End the 1% they claim. Redistribute the wealth they say. It would only be so just if they had truly been stolen from. Have the purported victims --the 99%-- been so looted and so raped of this great value they have created; the millions upon millions that are earned by these specialists; by these doctors, lawyers, scientists and technicians that make the so-called 1%? Will the dissolution of their regime of offering highly valuable services to society really make things just or only lead to further destruction?

The argument is that the 1% don't deserve public subsidy. No-one cares about doctors earning decent money. People care that bankers get paid millions to take risks but that if a banker screws up, the taxpayer is on the hook for the loss.

If doctors don't receive their required value, they won't work. The bankers are irrelevant in this equation. Very few of the recorded "1%" are financial profiteers. They are mostly specialists. Why should they punished for the mistakes of others? Why should they be forced to subsidize?

The vast majority of the people being subsidised are in the 1%. The argument is very simple. If a select group in society is getting huge subventions from the taxpayer, then unless they are doing something to earn that money, the system needs to change. Currently banks are sitting on a taxpayer guarantee that is worth trillions to them. New players cannot enter the market as the guarantee only applies to those "too big to fail."

Do you think this is fair? Are you happy to see your tax money spent on that?

I am not. I am against taxation entirely. The system does need to change. However, we are not talking about banks nor businesses. We are talking about ordinary people like you and me that are currently being demonized by society for the value they provide.

The vast majority of people being subsidized are not in the 1%. They are in a group that is off-the-record, that does not allow their wealth to be shown publicly. The public, accountable 1% are just ordinary, highly-skilled people; not bankers and certainly not corporate accounts.