As an example of the fact that democrats are not really religious. If what you say is true, and also the Jesus wanted class warfare, then the religious democrats, following Jesus, would not use it in the law.
Democrats don't really claim to be religious, is the thing. There's a difference between being Christian and being a psychotic fundamentalist, even if I have difficulty seeing it at times.
The OP is wrong in claiming that Jesus is the primary inspiration behind taxing the wealthy, although frankly I'm baffled as to why the Republicans haven't adopted the economic policies Jesus advocates, with many of them claiming to be his followers and all.
It depends upon how they run their business. Those who work smart & don't drink away the profits do quite well.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "rich," then - when most people hear the word "rich," they think of the uber-wealthy types that don't have to work anymore to continue profiting. Lawyers are still contributing to society, even if people often make fun of their contribution.
The marginal tax rate drives investment, as does treating expenditures as capitalized or expensed.
Reduce the return on investment, & you reduce investment. I experience that first hand, & hope that you will too some day. (Note...that is not a curse.)
Hmm. From what you've told me, it looks like the solution is to tax useless assets, luxuries, and foreign imports much heavier, lower the capital gains taxes (but keep taxes on personal profits that aren't used to expand the business), and close tax loopholes.
Dead weight? Who else would run those engines of our economy?
The people who actually do run the engines of our economy - managers (I assume by "run" you mean "operate" and "direct," not "fuel," "build," etc). Small business owners generally manage their own resources and make investment decisions and carry risks, and that is their contribution to the economy. Once a business gets big enough, the owner will generally, out of necessity, delegate those tasks to other people, but it is still the owner that reaps the bulk of the profits from doing so. (Call me crazy, but I don't think Bill Gates singlehandedly micromanages all the affairs of Microsoft anymore.)
At this point, at least as far as I can tell, the owner's main contribution is having carried risk at some point in the past.
In a market economy, it isn't about the degree of difficulty, but rather the value of the contribution.
Right, but when you're getting paid roughly 300 times what the people you hire do, your contributions are
probably being
slightly over-valued. Remember, capitalism doesn't necessarily give pay by contribution when it comes to workers - it gives pay by how little the business owner can afford to give and still keep the worker, and it gives personal profit to executives by however much they decide should go to themselves instead of towards the expansion of their business.
But were it so easy, why isn't every factory rat (a term of endearment, having been one) setting the world on fire with their innovations, skill & daring do?
Some combination of them not having the ability (I know I don't), tuition being too expensive for an increasing number of people, and a lack of advertising ability. If there comes a day when only the wealthy can afford the education needed to function well in modern society, then only the wealthy will be able to grow wealthier, and social classes will be pretty much locked.
Then, even if the factory rat were to come up with the next Big New Thing, he'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who was interested. Wealthier people have connections and are more likely to be able to afford advertisements. I remember hearing about how Bill Gates started Microsoft with work he did in his spare time in his garage. Through his hard work, Microsoft slowly grew into what it is today. But, say that Bill Gates grew up in a time when there was already widely available computer technology. Do you think he would still be able to get a successful business started from scratch?