in article capi39$jvj$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/16/04 10:31 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article camual$i38$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 10:41 PM:
> 
>>> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
>>> In order to protect his wealth, he requires roads, an education system
>>> (for him to acquire educated workers), large-scale and long-term stability
>>> (fiscal and political), interaction with other stable corporate and
>>> political entities, armed protection of a vast array of assets (police,
>>> armed forces, various government agencies looking into misuse of his
>>> funds by those trusted by him to invest them), building regulators to
>>> ensure that someone doesn't build a polyamine-extraction facility upwind
>>> from his very expensive abode, etc.
> 
> 
>> I agree that Bill Gates gets more benefits from government services on a PER
>> CAPITA basis, but clearly he does NOT receive anywhere near as much benefits
>> on a basis PROPORTIONAL TO TAXES PAID.
> 
> "Clearly"?
> 
> Not at all. Clearly, he recieves benefits (including tax SHELTERS), a
> legal system which favors him, etc.
> 
> None of the above apply to the poor.

Even with tax shelters, Bill Gates pays a LOT of taxes, the extreme poor pay
little or no taxes. The poor gets welfare, housing allowances, Medicaid,
free legal aid, food stamps. Bill Gates gets to pay for all that.
 
>> (I hate shouting, but you simply aren't paying attention otherwise.)
> 
> I paid attention. You are simply wrong.

No, you simply are letting your hatred of the rich interfere with your
judgment.

I notice that you gave up actually trying to rationalize your mistaken
beliefs. If I am wrong, show me. So far, your arguments have been extremely
flawed.