When you have $10 million or $100 million a year and you're taxed at, say, 35 percent, that's not huge. When you're a working-class person, that's the difference between having a roof over your head and living under a bridge.
The theory of "trickle-down" economics has not really worked out; it's more "trickle-up" or "trickle-parallel." There is only so much a person can consume. There is so much they can lend to the economy before they plateau, and that money piles up in bank accounts somewhere just collecting interest.
I'm not saying seize money from the rich. I'm saying that, at some point, you have enough money, and you have a moral responsibility to start spreading the wealth around.
When I see the wealthiest people, their lobbyists and political puppets asking us to give more and accept slashes to public education or other programs that provide for the common welfare and allow a chance at upward mobility, righteous indignation sets in. You can only push people so far down before they rise up and demand change.
I always hear people bust out the examples of unionized auto workers who make six figures a year assembling cars, and say that's not right. How is that wrong when that person has worked decades to achieve that seniority and pay grade, yet someone who has never gotten their hands dirty can make millions a year sitting in a board room?
People say the executives earned it. Really? So when did learning to game the system and negotiate your way to the top become more honorable than an honest day's labor?