Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

Post by collyw » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:29 PM UTC

v_lisivka wrote: post #294

austenallred wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment read to me as "nobody cares, communists want to kill everyone that has the Internet." A pretty reasonable thing to downvote IMO.

You nailed the point, but these downvotes are suspicious regardless of that. I receive downvotes often, so I know the pattern. Two my comments are downvoted in short burst: 4 downvotes at once. This is why I asking to check downvoters for vote-ring or something like that.

Post by throwaway84742 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #296

throwaway84742 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Top 1% of earning, not necessarily top 1% of wealth. When it comes to hanging the rich nobody cares about such details.

On a moderate but above average salary in Spain. If I get some inheritance when my parents die and have my own apartment paid off, then I could be in the top 1% in 20 years time. I am by no means rich by western standards, just a bit above average. Do you suggest we hang all pensioners who have paid of their properties and earned a reasonable wage throughout their lives in Western Europe? Jordan Peterson seems correc…

Post by maoistinquisitr » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:55 PM UTC

jblow wrote: post #250

micky_25 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. What about western countries where people under 35 are dealing with high student debt, unaffordable housing, stagnate wages and "gig" economy jobs? Things look pretty glum unless you've got some form of inheritance on the horizon.

The high student debt and unaffordable housing are almost entirely due to policies of the Democratic Party, a.k.a. the party that is supposedly trying to reduce income inequality. Interventions often don’t do what you wanted them to do.

Post by joncrocks » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #276

adamlett wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, imagine how much more competition there would be on the pharmaceutical market, say, if governments didn’t discourage innovation by demanding that products be tested and safe. Think of barriers to entry it creates in the chemical industry that waste must be discarded of in highly regulated (and expensive!) ways. Not to think of air travel, which is so regulated that I doubt we’ll ever see a startup in that market…

This seems to me to be the trap of a false choice between regulatory power without bounds vs no regulation at all. A much more interesting discussion would be about the proper scope of regulation. To take your example regarding pharmaceuticals, instead of mandating a particular regime of testing and efficacy, why couldn't the government require products that have not passed that particular hurdle be labeled as such?

Post by mikeash » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #299

mikeash wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to count the entire world for wealth then you need to count the entire world for taxes too. I strongly doubt that the super rich are paying the vast majority of taxes worldwide. For US taxes, see: https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf The rate is definitely lower for poorer people, but nearly as much as the standard punditry, focusing only in federal income tax, would have you believe.

Unless I'm reading your source wrong, it looks like it says that the top 10% pays 50% of taxes? I feel like I should make it clear that my personal opinion is that top marginal tax rates should be much higher than they are, especially on capital gains, but I don't think it's fair to say that the working class is paying all the taxes, given the breakdown.