If you can admit that some people are poor despite working very very hard, and some people are rich and lazy as hell. The part missing from ideological arguments like this is a sense of proportion.
Who earned their way to rich? Well someone posted the other day that 80% of millionaires in America are self-made. I'd say that's pretty damn good. Go America. That leaves 20% that *may* be lazy ****s, although in my personal experience, only about half the folks from money are lazy (although ALL of them are far better off than they would be if they started poor, but as you said yourself, we make wealth SO we can pass it to our children and their lives can be easier). So call it ballpark 10% are lazy ****s.
Now let's do the same exercise for the poor. Do you think more or less than 10% of the poor are lazy? Do you think more or less than 10% of those on welfare are milking the system? Back up your arguments.
Now for a completely separate discussion that should appeal to any libertarian or free-market economist: where does it make the most sense to INVEST (in tangible dollars) as a society in order to provide the greatest YIELDS (in tangible dollars)? This is not an ideological argument in any sense. If giving the lazy rich tons of money actually yields more to society than the investment, then we don't give a flying **** that they're lazy and didn't earn it. Are we in agreement thus far? If so, I'll go on.
irate2:
