Is wealth in fewer hands better than "spreading the wealth around"?

[Squilliam]

kowenicki said:

Squilliam said:

I don't exactly know what you do so how can I say?

It is irrelevant, that list you just posted is bogus.

You would have to add in the fact that I employ people and therefore contribute back by allowing my employees to pay taxes.

Also, just to take an example, the police protection point is so far off its funny.  MOST crime is by the less affluent against the less affluent.  So policing poorer estates is more expensive than policing wealthy suburbs.  Most criminals are lazy, they rob their own kind... its nearer.

 

 

 

 

In the absence of a state police force, it would be people like you forking out for private security. You could just say its the cost of living in a civilized society. Besides, with relatively more affluence you'd have the most to lose if it all fell apart. You therefore have the most incentive to maintain it.