On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:05:51 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Scott:

Sorry for calling you "Dude" (if indeed you took offense). However, to
assume that wealth in the hands of the wealthy is static is ludicrous. The
assumption that anyone but a liberal would just sit on $900,000 is very
"Dude-Like." The $900,000 would be invested- creating additional value for
the economy.

The wealthy didn't get wealthy by ascribing to socialist nostrums. Unless
they inherited it; like most wealthy liberal socialists (but I repeat
myself- three times!).

Steve Swartz


That's my whole point. People complain that the wealthy have too much
money and think it ought to be more evenly distributed and that's
crazy. Sure it sounds good at first cut and who wouldn't want the
poor to have a better lot in life BUT as the saying goes "it takes
money to make money". Granted not every rich person decides to
donate money to the poor but TAKING it from them simply because they
have it. . .well that's not just wrong but it's not too smart either.
That $900k can be put back to work and WILL be (the rich person got
rich by being smart, not because they stole it). Ninty million more
pennies doled out would be wasting it.