Good morning, sir. I trust it will be a productive one. By the way, I'm reading a book by von Braun about the operational principles of rockets. Even though the book is old, it's fascinating. You knew this, I sort of knew it, and he makes clear they are complex son's of guns. Makes the launch sequence process come to life for someone who only been "in" on the part where someone counted backwards from 10. On Offtopic I'll copy what he says about the computer system for the Saturn V. But to the matter at hand.

I'm assuming the "parasites" are the people who pay lower taxes, or in the case of some, none. Under this assumption you would mean by "eating the rich" contributing less of one's income to the general coffers. The graduated income tax might be considered by some as "eating the rich". If I missed the point, let me know, but it seems consistent with your statement and previous views.

Let's wander around with this a bit.

Most folks view capital and labor as a symbiotic relationship. I think we can agree that capital is no good without labor, and that labor is no good without capital. And I think most folks read "parasite" as perjorative. If those statements aren't fair in this context, disregard the below.

In a symbiotic relationship, how much sense does it make to call either half a "parasite"?

Or regard either half a "parasite"? (Is this "standpoint epistemology?)

Does that imply there is a "victim" host and a "victor" parasite in the process?

If so, why does the "victim" have so much more than the "victor"?

Is Bill Gates a sad, surrering host to a myriad of parasites, a bigger loser than most because he pays so much more in taxes than anyone else?

Or is "parasite" merely inflammatory rhetoric, for it's own sake?

Just boggles the mind on a Monday morning.

Hope yours is a good one.

Arf