The world should be more fair.
That's completely false. I am assuming you are using the argument that they used the streets, police services, fire, etc. that all taxes paid for. While they did use these resources, so do we, and taxes are paid by the corporations(mostly) as well as every employee and their shareholders, if anything taxes being equal in the equation the corporate interests already paid MORE for usage than any individual or group and the argument is especially true when you add in the individuals working for said interest.
Not necessarily. Think about this, not all citizens go to or graduate college or tech schools. Many corporations train at the entry level for just such a case and these programs are done through private companies or in house at the corporations expense. As a matter of fact, in my state many of the millionaires only graduated high school or GED and worked their way up the chain. Now, I do get that the schools were paid for by taxes, but these taxes come in the form of business or property tax and allocated as necessary from the collection coffers, businesses pay more taxes than we do and so do wealthy people in said business, they pay more on that as well.
I get that. The key argument is still the same, the corporate taxes are higher and also pay for a great portion of that and on top they pay to further educate their employees at their own expense.
Well, here's the deal. The corporate and small business interests do more in the form of employing than any party's policies ever did. Much of the social theories that Democrats introduced over the years omit major parts of reality. Poor people built the roads, fine, wealthy people paid for it; Democrats tend to be punitive towards business interests as they have the "deep pockets" mentality, well, it's insulting to a business owner to assume 100% of the liability and then be regulated by non contributing " business partners" in government that contribute nothing, take at will, and use the full force of law to dictate the businesses practices, then turn around and say "it's not enough".
I guess you missed my liberal post where I said corporations don't have a duty to anyone except for who they chose to have a duty to. Similar sentiments have been expressed by other liberals. Maybe you should stick to replying to individual posters rather than making such anti-intellectual generalizations.
And the "poor" if you can call construction work that; build the roads for agreed upon pay in the hiring contract. The monetary value of not doing the labor is set by the business or government organization and the employee decides it matches their time/labor value requirement. What's your point?
Good men (or women I guess).
It's simple. You said the poor built the roads, sure, fine, and that the rich paid for them, also fine. The "poor" who are working to build those roads accepted a position, which required a contract to be signed which required values to be set. The contract values are this, what is the labor(not having to physically build the road) worth to the employer and individually what is the time lost to the individual employee and their physical labor worth to them in dollar values. Once those are all determined employment is attained.