You keep talking about the rich in glowing terms as the innovators and producers whose fabulously wealthy existence we should all be grateful for and in awe of......
I don't automatically hate them because they have more than me. Since what people make in free markets is none of my business, I don't accuse them of anything, or expect them to give anything to me.
Profits as a share of GDP in almost all western countries are at record highs, along with executive pay while real wages for the majority stagnate or even fall.
Pay for politicians and bureaucrats in the U.S. are at record highs as well.
What on Earth leads you to conclude that those enjoying these record profits and executive payouts are the most personally productive and innovative? Where do you get this idea from?
In free markets,
that's the only way money can be obtained. It doesn't grow on trees in only the yards of the wealthy.
This notion that simply being rich makes one a "wealth creator" or is evidence of personal innovation is patently absurd. But it seems to lie at the heart of your argument here.
Your argument seems to be that a few people get money while doing nothing to earn it, or have never done anything to earn it. Seems pretty absurd to me, unless you can show me how that works.
A healthy, educated workforce with a safety net that makes things like losing ones job or getting ill a temporary setback rather than a tragedy from which it is impossible to recover to live a fully productive life - These things benefit the whole economy in the long run. Add in investment in infrastructure and more generally the use of public finds to create an environment in which businesses can thrive, innovation can occur and wealth can be created such that all in society, rather than an elite few, can benefit. That should be the aim....... No?
The U.S. Constitution addresses infrastructure, a
limited government environment in which businesses can thrive etc. but it doesn't address things like health and education and safety nets, because there would be too many differences of opinion about just how those things should be done, so it leaves it to the states, or to the people, free to address those things privately, with things like private charities.