> Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical

> Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. No, you're also getting paid for the lack of appreciation of the capital in the machinery, the possibility that the machinery loses value, and the maintenance and upkeep of the machines. If you're a landlord, you're paying for maintenance, property tax, and code upgrades in exchange for money for shelter. It's just a means of exchange of goods for money, like any other. Or do would you rather that productive machinery (including capital) be not produce, and capital locked away from productive use? By not charging money for the use of goods, you disincentivize the purchase of capital machinery/real estate as there is no upside, only downside to ownership/usage. > Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It isn't right for people to charge rent for the use of capital, just because, and you have to redistribute wealth because otherwise you'll be forced to anyways, screw what's right. Either argue from the moral high ground or sheer pragmatism. You can't have both. > I'm among those that should be taxed more! Nobody is stopping you from donating more money to the government or any number of good charities. Why should extra taxation be necessary and involuntary when people with consciences like you are willing to act on your better impulses rather than just whine about the status quo?