Riding on horseback through the Sherwood Forest/UK the man in his green tied leggings took from the rich and gave to the poor as he thought justified. One of the first "social workers" he was ready to give his life for his course.
Karl Marx author of "The Capital" and founder of communism came from a well to do family. In London, he had a housemaid looking after him. Reading books in London in academic circles he concluded that the best form of governance is Communism. Never happened to share the sweat with labourers in dark and dangerous factories he went for Russia, a great agricultural country to implement his concept set out to heal the wounds of an industrialised nation, a blueprint for failure. He, his followers and comrades was unable to prove his theory is right only the strategy needs readjustments.
Observing today's democratic societies voices are loud and popular to ask for higher taxes for the rich to share among the less fortunate. Even a Billionaire does not use schools, roads, hospitals and libraries more than the man depending on social handouts.
Tax systems do not distinguish between wealth accomplished by own sweat or inherited and when inherited whether to labour for it or sit by the beach and control company and money via smartphone.
Richness is accumulated by mainly inherit the wealth from ancestors, struggle to set up an own enterprise or by illegal means.
Companies have a point of beginning and a point of the end so does wealth. Regardless of how mighty and powerful today's companies are. Dynamic in companies coming and going addresses best the need of a society that is itself constantly changing.
The loud voices in and around parliaments come mostly from Politicians that in the worst case have never worked but left university to jump into party politics with a seat in parliament or government officials, teachers and lawyers many of them unaware of the hardship to establish a company and make it from zero to hero. Never been substantially challenged by the life they sit relaxed and well protected in their ivory towers to come up and out with ideas that would make them popular by the many.
They believe someone emerging from down under the risk all he has, his finances, his reputation, possibly his first marriage among others would bring out people happily sharing, by force, the fruits of their labour with the rest of society that never risked anything in their lives and never tried to create jobs and a future for others. When such an underdog loses his company he loses his identity. When a worker/manager loses his work he moves on to the next workplace.
When an underdog has made it from nowhere to be somewhere he must be encouraged to see that God made him great for which reason he should honour God by taking good care of the ones around him. Politicians are the wrong force to do that but the overall spirit in society is which must be open and understand the constant need for change and that in the end, only individuals among them will create new jobs considering all big companies today started once with a simple humble person mostly not well educated except by his dream.
Why is it that politicians of today convinced of their theory that an underdog has to be selfless to a great extent instead of decided by himself how much extra he wants to give, very clearly seen in the Bible with the vineyard owner and his day labours? For their theory to be credible why do they not stand on evidence, create a company, become wealthy and then come out with their theory as evidence of their accomplishments? Would this not be more convincing to bring about a just and inclusive society in which all citizens are constantly challenged to bring out their best and create jobs for others and stop depending on others to create jobs for them?
I just wonder and humbly ask.