A thousand years ago the richest people were those who controlled the most land and had the most peasants to work for them.
Many liberals seem to think that that is how all modern rich became rich today: on the backs of their employees.
A hundred years ago the people who were richest were those who provided the most good for the most people. Rockefeller became rich by providing oil for lamps, ending whaling, providing oil for power plants, giving us electricity, providing gas for cars giving us mobility. Carnegie got rich by providing steel, from which we got cars, ships, tools, and railroads. Vanderbilt got rich by creating railroads. All of these rich became so because many others were ready, willing, and able to pay for the goods and services that these men provided. Even had they ignored charities altogether the world would still have become a better place thanks to their work. And they were rightly rewarded for their work by becoming wealthy.
If you disagree, then tell me which of the following to people got more out of the following situation: a surgeon who performed a life saving surgery and got lots of money, or the person who's life was saved?
Which do you prefer: life or money?
Isn't getting lots of money for saving lives a fine, and appropriate, reward?
Isn't getting lots of money for building homes, cars, computers...a fine, and appropriate, reward?
Many liberals still think that we live in the same world as the pre-America world. We don't. Since America was founded most of the people who have become rich have done so because they created and invented good things.
Not all modern rich have become so because of their great deeds. Many have done so becasue they get special deals from the government; rules to prevent completion, tariffs to prevent importing competition, subsidies, bailouts, and more.
Most people who became rich since America was founded have done so becasue they were the best at serving their fellow man. Keep that in mind when someone says, "the rich need to pay their fair share."