1) Keeping their banks, insurance companies, and auto plants afloat during a recession (and not just the ones that were actually bailed out).
2) An educated workforce that produces talented employees.
3) A health care system that produces healthy employees with low absenteeism rates.
4) A justice system that protects their property rights.
5) A military and law enforcement system that protects their property and personal rights.
6) An infrastructure system that can deliver goods from their suppliers to their business, without prohibitively expensive shipping costs. That can power their factories via an electric grid and provide them with data via the internet, without prohibitively expensive utility costs.
7) A consumer class with disposable income, which can purchase the goods and services that their businesses provide.
Those are a few that I can think of off-hand. Furthermore, a lot of recent spending on the lower- and middle-class is to combat the recession, for which the wealthy are disproportionately responsible. So even in those cases, it's not so much an increase in benefits to "the parasite classes" at the expense of the wealthy...it's making the kid who broke the window pay to have it fixed.
No. Although the wealthy do benefit from government as stated above, the whole point of taxes is to provide things that the market cannot or will not. It doesn't make sense to establish a one-to-one ratio of more taxes from me personally = more benefits to me personally. Taxes provide for the public. Services in which the "I pay more, I get more" model works should be (and typically are) privatized. Government specifically handles areas where that model DOESN'T work.Originally Posted by TurtleDude