"""
Another thing to consider in terms of whether the rich “deserve” their money, or whether those rewards belong to the society that bestows them is the consolidation of labor. Consider Oprah Winfrey. She s probably only marginally better than the next best candidate for talk show queen. Yet she has amassed 100′s of millions while the next bes candidate for her job has no such job at alll. So we have two people, one tha is maybe 5% better at being a talk show queen, her income is 100 million, and another, 5% worse, and her income is some middle class wage like 50,000. Because of consolidation, the society only needs one Oprah Winfrey. We are paying 100 million to the role, not the woman. That’s the key point. She herself is worth 50,000 plus 5%, and the role of talk show queen, which could have been filled almost as well by many, many other people, is worth all the rest of the money. That role belongs to society, not to Oprahe Winfrey.
You see the same thing with CEOs, bankers, and others where consoliated and mass production allows only a few highly productive roles. The wealth associated with those roles, which is to say the consolidate dower, belongs to society not to the individual lucky enough to get to fill the role. This is why tax rates of 91% on the few that occupy the most consolidate roles was thoroughly appropriate and part of an economic approach that led to America’s greatest period of growth and general prosperity. High taxes on those who wield societies greatest powers on behalf of society are normative. The power, the influence they wield belongs to the society that allows and enables it, not to the individual who fills the role.
"""
[ comment by 'Sharn cedar' on 'DEAR RICH FOLKS: Get Ready For A (Tax) Revolution In Which Your Money Will Be Taken Away',
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-increases-are-coming-2011... - sic, a few typos uncorrected ]
