As we all know, the top 1% (this cut-off is arbitrarily chosen. You can choose your own) in the United States possess huge amounts of wealth. I once saw an image with the caption of "excuse me while I park my boat in my boat", which basically illustrated just how much wealth and possessions the elites have, and highlighted the kind of opulence that most of us could only dream of. I can't help but think that, if the super-wealthy were to give some of their money to some of us, let's say the middle class, then these people would probably be able to put that money to good use. One of the things they could do is to raise a (bigger) family. I feel that this would be an ultimate boon to the States, because the real workers, the real drivers for this country's economy are the people who belong to the middle class. I am not saying that we should just force the super-wealthy to straight up transfer their money into the pockets of the rest of us. This comes too close to communism for my liking. So I have an alternative: what if we re-write the laws such that wealth will not be thus concentrated in the hands of a comparatively small number of people? Can we not, craft laws such that wealth and prosperity will be shared more fairly and equitably between the owner class and the worker class? I say this because I can really see the steady and gradual decline of the American middle class. And we need these people. These people carry this country on their backs and move it forward. If we could give them more money and encourage them to have more kids, we would truly be doing the country a great service. What do you guys think?
1. The 1% (or something close as you say) last I checked kicks in at around 350k give or take. Those are probably going to end up with about 200k or so after taxes at all levels, so you are calling people who net about 200k a year "super wealthy." What if those "super wealthy" people went to school until they were near 30 and now work 90 hour weeks to make that money, still take it for corner bums to spend on lottery tickets? 2. Most of the recent "super rich" ...way beyond the 1%... made their money selling millions of people Iphones and the like. If allowed to -keep- it, they might invest it in something that turns out as the next Iphone, the next miracle we can all line up to buy for $500 and make them even richer. OR we can give it to corner bums to spend on lottery tickets. 3. Most of that "wealth" that union label stats, charts and graphs ill-define is of a nature called "illiquid." The mere act of "liquefying" it would destroy well over half of it if not much, much more... maybe even ALL of it. Still take it and give whatever is left over to corner bums to spend on lottery tickets?
I think that I don't care what anyone else earns, makes, or has. I think I have to bust my ass to improve my human capital and provide value to my customers in order to make a good living. What someone else earns is none of my business.
That's what massive credit expansion courtesy of the FED gets you. Massive and growing wealth disparity
This is why I said that people could choose their own percentage. When I said the top 1%, I meant people who are OBSCENELY wealthy. If 1% doesn't cut it, how about the 0.00001%? Would this satisfy you? Also, when I said "the super-wealthy", I meant the wealthy capitalists who control the means of production. People who are share-holders and owners of huge, multi-national corporations. These people don't "work 90 hours a week" nor have they "gone to school till they were near 30". So it appears that we might be talking about different things. Lastly, you seem to have mis-interpreted my OP. I didn't mean to take rich people's money so that we could give it to bums to blow on lottery tickets. In fact, I specifically said that I wanted the money to go towards the middle class. Preferably for them to spend on raising a family, although how this is to be achieved is still up for discussion. Quite a lot of owners and shareholders of mega-corporations don't have to "bust their ass". They profit off of the labor of their workers, aka the middle class.
I clearly acknowledged what you posted, and am trying to make the following point. How many people is .00001% out of 320,000,000. Here's the point, you can't get enough from those super rich to do much of anything. So why have you been conditioned to talk about the 1% but then waffle to the "super rich?" Because your public union knows full well it can't get enough from the super rich (hell they'll just leave anyway). You CAN get enough, or at least MOREMOREMORE from the people who already work 30-50% of their lives away.... WORK.... work... You just have to fool enough people into conflating the merely "affluent" who bust their asses working with the "super rich." Oldest public union trick in the book. Oh, so just the .002% of companies, the largest public ones? Not the other 29,800,000 companies? See above, same ruse, different context. Yeah, they damn well do. You won't find a large company CEO who works less than 90 hours a week... they may do it on the golf course or over dinner, but they are working always, they never turn off. That's why they and Michael Jordan make the big bucks, and you and I do not. But you are forgetting some rich folks. LOTS of our rich in the U.S. aren't corporate Wall Street types, they are entertainers, writers, musicians, athletes, actors, etc. Lots more of those than Wall Street hedge managers and tech billionaires. I guess it was just an oversight that you left those out, right? So it appears that we might be talking about different things. Bet they'd rather have more Iphones and Disney DVDs than a little extra cash... in fact they make people richer and richer daily PROVING that they would. Quite a lot of owners and shareholders of mega-corporations don't have to "bust their ass". They profit off of the labor of their workers, aka the middle class. [/QUOTE]
Precisely whom do you think is paying Middle Class salaries? Please note billionaire is a life time achievement award, it is not generally a yearly salary. Please also note that the federal government, not including the several states spends an amount equal to the entire net worth of Bill Gates in less than 3 hours. There are 300 +million people in this country, abillion dollars divided equally among them is about 3 bucks each.
Perhaps it wasn't very good that I arbitrarily chose the cut-off point at 1%. What I really was thinking of is the super-rich. I don't know whether it's really 0.00001% or 0.0000000001% or a number that is even smaller. My point was not to argue about the actual statistics. The extremely wealthy is what I meant. See above. I do not confuse the affluent with the super-wealthy. Can you please stop talking about people who work super-long hours? I already said I was referring to the extremely wealthy capitalists who own the means of production. I don't understand why you keep bringing up people who work lots of hours. I don't understand the hostility coming from you. Why do you talk like I am trying to trick, dupe, or otherwise cheat people? All I did was brought up an idea for people to discuss with. Even if you disagree with me, you don't have to get aggressive. I do not mean the CEOs. I referred to the shareholders and owners of huge corporations. These two classes of people are different. The CEOs are still paid employees. First of all, aggressiveness on your part. Secondly, you seem very emotionally invested in this topic. Lastly, I was NOT thinking of entertainers, writers, musicians etc. I very clearly said wealthy capitalists who own the means of production.
No one gives a crap apparently but typical US citizens are quite poor compared to most of their European allies, and even their northern neighbor, Canada. First of all, wealth inequality is a distinctly different animal from income inequality. I'm only going to deal with wealth inequality here. An interesting fact, the typical Canadian adult is far wealthier than his/her US counterpart. For years now Credit Suisse has issued a global wealth report, it is fascinating reading. Wealth = net worth. What the study shows is: Average wealth per adult in US = $344,692.00. Average wealth per adult in Canada = $270,179.00. Median wealth per adult in US = $44,977.00 Median wealth per adult in Canada = $96,664.00 As anyone with half a brain can see, the US is a far wealthier nation. In Canada, however, the wealth distribution is far more equitable than the US. The same holds for Europe. Keep on truckin'.... https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en...2016/11/en/the-global-wealth-report-2016.html
Why do I keep bringing up people who work lots of hours? Because the "extremely wealthy capitalists who own the means of production" you keep floating ISN'T REAL, but instead a purposefully dehumanized, depersonalized lie narrative specifically crafted to get you to STEAL and simultaneously believe you are still a "good person" while stealing from your fellow man. You have bought into an immoral abstraction. On the other hand, hard-working business owners who bust their ass risking everything in one of the 30,000,000 businesses in this country, and already spend 30-50% of their working lives paying taxes, IS REAL. Some "capitalist who owns the means of production" doesn't live near you, but a plumber with 5 trucks who employs 15 people and will sell his business for $3 million dollars next year after 30 years of sacrifice does. The doctor who gets up at 5 AM every morning while you are still sleeping and is making rounds til 9PM while you are watching TV does. The mill owner who funds your local little league team and high school charity does. If you learn nothing else here, learn that the power of the state to tax is not some benevolent social engineering mechanism, but a necessary evil, a dreadful, immoral power that forces people into involuntary servitude. Such a power should be exercised as narrowly as possible, should be strictly limited and controlled. There's not really any such thing as "taking from the rich and giving to the poor," it never ever works out that way no matter how hard they try to sell you that snake oil.
In 1999, Bill Gates lost $40B in wealth without losing a dime in currency. Wealth is largely measured for most of these people in what they think they next guy is willing to pay for what they have. The 1% need other 1%ers to buy their $100M paintings in order for that painting to be worth $100M. Let me give you a more concrete example. I am buying a piece of property on the original purchase price of $365K. I put $30K down and financed the rest. I rent that property out for what the mortgage, taxes, and insurance cost me. It has never put a dime in my pocket and has taken $30K out of my pocket (actually more than that because of a new roof and heat/AC repairs and replacements). Now on paper, we can assume off that $365K purchase price less what still is outstanding on the mortgage which is around $90K, I have an increase in wealth of $275K thus far. In reality, I have no increase in wealth but a decrease in wealth of $30+K until such time as that mortgage is paid off. Even it it were paid off today, who knows what I could get for it even if I wanted to cash out. Likewise, if I were to become disabled, I might on paper become a member of the bottom 10% but still have wealth that could make be a member of the top 1% for a moment when I liquidated. Anyway, this top/bottom percenter stuff is largely penis envy. Poor people today on welfare live a much higher quality of life than a middle class person a few generations ago because of the advancements in technology and the lowering of the cost to access the necessities of life.
A retiree with a IRA who lives off dividend checks would be hurt by your suggestion to give more of the profits to the workers and less to the owners. I can't go for your suggestion. If a worker is unhappy being a worker, then perhaps he should look into one of the many worker cooperatives in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives#United_States)
