Wow, that's as goofy as some of the nonsense, I hear back from a whacko like BOB3? Is this really you?

Phil Anschutz had a lot of money he come into, he spent his money well, and did even better, as a result.

His offer to sell CA the Coast Line was a bargain, whatever he had spent on buying the SP (a "bargain that had been "hollowed out" which had a huge maintenance and equipment need backlog). This "evil" "billionaire" "red herring" was used as a meme from some of those who opposed this purchase, that we were giving an "evil" "billionaire" a giant gift.

The fact is that we blew it in CA. If that had recovered a good portion of what he paid for he SP, good for him, he was offering us a tremendous bargain price, and I think he was kind of amazed that we turned him down.

As to your proposition that we should burn our political opponents at the stake, or just because they are wealthy billionaires, who were either born real lucky and/or are pretty damned shrewd? I'd probably just tax them a little more at higher marginal rates. I'd tax poor unfortunate heirs and billionaires like Phil commensurate with his relative wealth, based on their income. That's partly because of the legal protection he has under our system which allows him to have such good fortune. Then of course, when the country is invaded or nuked, he'd have more to lose, and thus he owes a contribution to provide for expensive things like the "common defense". And, he should pay his fair share of the roads airports, and other common infrastructure that benefits his ability to generate that higher income. And, finally, there is the debt he owes to society and to those thousands of employee's, and the communities he profits from to pay his fair share for some of that.

So, when the extreme right and/or the extreme left get done "burning" all of those they don't like, envy, resent, hate, for whatever reason, including because of their success as represented by income, wealth, or education, or even just basic morality, like for standing up to people who would burn people at the stake, who's going to give us this freedom we are lucky to have, or quality of life and standard of living we all are striving for?

Phil's entitled to his view of politics, and he's entitled to do the best he can.
But, within a system of rule of law, that should limit his power over us, just like we should keep the "gubmint's" power limited over us, through our legal checks and balances, and our moral social contract to do good, that benefits all of us, but probably could be quite a bit more equitable, and hopefully that makes things more "just" for all of us.

A workhorse out there like Phil, making good money, by making some pretty smart moves, you really do want have him help pulling the wagon for all of us...you don't want to sell him to the knackers... So, no burning!