> 3. The rich didn't get that way entirely on their own merits (and sometimes not even principally that way).

In America, though, more so than most other places. If you look at economic mobility in America, it is impressively high.

> If you haven't seen or read Elizabeth Warren's famous remarks, here they are: <QUOTE> "There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody.

Sure, nobody does anything alone ever.

> You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for.

A lot of road funding comes from fuel taxes, new infrastructure is built from the budget, where the corporate profit taxes, local and state sales taxes, and other miscellaneous fees and tariffs go. It's not as though companies don't pay for the roads they use.

> You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

Chances are the public did not pay outright for their workers' educations. But let's assume for a moment that the public paid for their educations: Why did the public pay? Did the public pay so that they could hold it over every future employer, or did the public pay so that they could empower the individual to make him/herself useful for his/her own good? I'm willing to bet the latter. This kind of tyrannical thinking on her part is a big part of why subsidies are so much worse than their immediate effects: they paint a picture of dependence on the state where none previously existed.

> You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory...

Actually, they do. This is why companies spend so much money on private security and insurance: the police are not duty bound to protect your company's assets in the moment, they'll typically only follow up to a report. In the end, the company (and indirectly its employees and customers) pay for the cost of most crime in a highly direct way.

Then look at Venezuela, which became a "democratic socialist" country. Marauding bands literally came and seized everything at various factories and other businesses; and they did so with the full endorsement of the state.

> Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." </QUOTE> This is spot on.

The money doesn't go to "the next kid who comes along"; at least, not hardly ever.

The real way wealth is kept in a social circle across generations is through social networks and in-person learning. You will never convince me to invest as much in teaching some stranger as selflessly as I would my own son.

> 2. On the other hand, resentment, triggered by a feeling of being ignored and abandoned, is "a thing," whether we like it or not (probably programmed by natural selection). Moreover, people tend to view their well-being in comparison with that of their neighbors [0]; failing to keep up with the Joneses can be a real demotivator. That's especially true if you've come to believe that what you see the Joneses have, and you don't, is not a luxury but a necessity. For good or ill, most of us have that tendency, to one degree or another — ask any parent who has heard, But Dad, I NEEEEED a [whatever]!

You don't solve that problem by giving mental children exactly what they want. You teach them that a) they'll probably squander it, because they didn't work for it, and b) if they really want it, they can get it through honest means.

If you have a problem with "failing to keep up with the Joneses", then you're in deeper doodoo than the freedom dividend can pull you out of. There is no amount of material wealth you can reasonably transfer to that person to make them satisfied with their lot in life.