There are a few things that I suspect almost everyone of every political stripe can agree on:

We want fewer murderers. We want fewer rapists. We want fewer homeless. We want fewer (insert horrible plague HERE) victims. We want fewer forest fire/earthquake/hurricane/tornado/etc. victims. We want fewer scam artists. We want fewer quack doctors. We want fewer car thefts. And so on, fill in the blank. And government generally at least makes handwavy motions towards claiming to want policies that will, presumably, lead to fewer of these. That’s all well and good.

But there are also things we don’t all agree on. One is “we want fewer billionaires” and even “we want fewer millionaires.” For example:

Abolish the Billionaires!

The cost to our democracy of billionaires with enough wealth and power to dictate the rules of capitalism for their own benefit is incalculable

So, these people want to enact laws and regulations to make sure that there are fewer of these people that they don’t like. Note that Robert Reich, the traitorous scumbag who penned the above bloviating bullcrap article, says: “Entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos would be just as motivated by say, a $100 million or even $50 million.” Which, for anyone who has watched Elon Musk spend *far* more than that just getting SpaceX off the ground, never mind everything he’s dumped into Tesla, is an indicator that Reich is a ᚠᚢᚳkᛁᚾᚷ ᛗᚩᚱᚩᚾ who should be kept as far away from the economy as possible.

But aside from Reich, at any herd of whackadoodle moonbat protestors you’ll find people screaming about how terribly unfair it is that some people like Oprah get to have billions while they don’t, and thus billionaires should be banned. Often they crank out the meaningless factoid that “60% of all wealth today in inherited,” as if that was a bad thing… while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of that wealth will be blown to oblivion by the third generation, no need for taxation. And while you’d hope that the crazies wouldn’t have an effect on the electorate, the fact is that they do; how else to explain the repeated elections of the likes of Pelosi and Nadler? So, the “ban billionaire” bozos should be countered, and I think I have a simple way of doing so.

Take a look at that first list of things everyone wants less of… murderers and thieves and so on. How many people want *themselves* to be these things? How many people *want* to be rapists or con artists or plague victims? Few, and those who do are generally nuts. But… how many people bloviating about how terrible it is that there’s wealth inequality would *leap* at the opportunity to be filthy stinkin’ rich? Dangle a dose of cancer in front of most people, they won’t touch it; dangle a winning Powerball ticket in front of most people, they’ll feed their grandmothers to the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal to get it. And this is as it should be: murder is bad. Wealth is good. Even if most people might not understand the intricacies of economic theory, most people understand that the economy is not a zero sum game; I’m not poorer because some tech bajillionaire came up with a  process or a gizmo that a billion people all wanted to buy. It’s no skin off my nose if you get rich, and it’s *certainly* a good thing if *I* get rich.

So, apply the test to politicians. If a politician put forward a “reduce child rape” bill, it would be fair to ask Senator Pedo McCreepyBiden to please stop fondling the schoolkids. How many politicians bitching about wealth inequality are themselves substantially wealthier than the average American, own multiple homes like these:

Face it: the great majority of the complaining about wealth inequality comes from a place of pure jealousy. And while I might be jealous of the vacuous actor paid millions of dollars to just look pretty on screen… I’m not jealous of the mafia hit man or crackhead or any of the other types that government policies supposedly work to abolish.