It’s not about money: proof (if any were needed)

Just imagine this scene, in pre-school (or where-ever): “And, little Barack (or George, William, etc.), what would you like to do when you grow up?”
“I wanna impose my will upon millions and millions, miss!”

But what about taxation? Taxation does not primarily serve to finance the government, rather to steer the behaviour of the people. And even so; high taxation does not prove that it’s all about the money.
After all: what foes the government do with taxes?
Spend it on stuff the people haven’t asked for, but which the state has the power to force upon the people.

Seriously?

Lefties are upset that some class of people (say, corporate executives) got richer than other classes (say, factory workers)? Are they professional begrudgers?
How about being grateful that nigh-on everybody can afford to buy a car these days (unless the left wing govrtnment artificially jacked up the price with penal-taxes)? So, some people have nicer cars than others. So? WHO CARES? Yours does excellent MPG, has air con, ABS, car stereo (with MP3!), comfy seating.
How about this: queen Victoria (the actual god-damn queen! of England) had a bed in her bathroom. Meaning that she had a bed pan close to her bed. Plus a bowl of water to wash herself. Not a seperate room for the toilet bowl, with ventilation to suck out the stench, like modern houses have these days, thanks to the wealth afforded by capitalism.
If it is so important to persons that everyone is (equally) poor, that classifies them as lefties. Keen to sacrifice the interests of the entire population, to their desires.

“It’s all about the money”: Middle-East history

After WW1, a the Ottoman empire fell apart and France and Great Britain took an empty outline of the north of the African continent/Arabia and drew some lines on it, to create some artificial new countries. Which were designed such, that they forced all kinds of differing tribes, that could not stand the sight of eachother, to live together.

So, permanent strugglse for power developed, and the tribesman that won the struggle had to abuse his power with such gruesome violence that the whole of the continent developed a nasty reputation. Saddam Hussayn’s torture cellars spring to mind, as well as his habbit of shooting his relatives for “plotting against him” during cabinet meetings.
True, when in power, they would also pocket the proceeds of oil sales / begging for development aid in the west.
But not such vast sums as to justify the claim that “it’s all about the money.”

Zelfs Shakespeare wist het al

“What’s in a name?”
De naam GroenLinks is uitstekend gekozen: groen, want ze houden de files met alle macht in stand en dus de CO2-uitstoot hoog (fotosynthese). En links: want ze offeren de belangen van de burger op aan hun eigen pleziertjes (rechts offert ze op aan het grote geld en trekt dus minder sadisten)

Verdiensten?

Als tweede kamerlid, vang je ruim een ton per jaar (109.000,=). Waarom? Dankzij hen worden we op de minst competent (en wenselijk) mogelijke wijze geleefd. Dus: wat ze verdienen is billenkoek. Maar ze krijgen bizar veel geld, omdat ze dat zelf hebben kunnen regelen.
Wauw, dat ik dat niet zelf heb bedacht, een instelling oprichten waar niemand ooit om heeft gevraagd. En dan zorgen dat iedereen mij met tegenzin bakken vol geld betaalt; wie weigert wordt in een donkere grot opgesloten, waar ze zelf voor hebben betaald.

Hitler the patriot

“Geheimnisse des Dritten Reichs” on Netflix
www.netflix.com/title/80004958?source=android
Hitler did not pay all the taxes he owed . So, he was actually quite the patriot.

Not about the money
No, you can’t say that it was all about the money. Of course he wanted to be stolen from as little as possible, but that’s all you can say asd well as a perfectly natural reflex. Although at the time, western governments were generally not so awful as they were to become (under and following Hitler)