41–50 of 200 posts
Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a universal principle that wealth must follow a power law, and even if it was, the coefficient need not be so extreme. The wealth inequality in America is higher than it has ever been. This did not come about naturally.
It actually does come about ”naturally”. You just need compound interest and bit of randomness. See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... This does not mean it’s good. The source even presents some methods of avoiding it. But the key point is that it doesn’t need some sort of conspiracy of the rich to happen. It will happen inevitably without being anyones fault if steps are not taken to add…
The current financial system didn't happen by accident. It was intentionally built in the 1980s by the Reagan administration, at the behest of rich Republican donors. It was not inevitable, it was engineered.
My issue with all of these discussions is that they invariably present ideas that are just too complicated, and our tax code is just too complicated as it is. Create a system that can be applied evenly, and fairly, from the top to the bottom and then I think you’ve got a great and novel idea.
That's why the idea that taxes could be made easier by getting rid of brackets never made any sense. That argument is just a cover for undoing the progressive nature of the tax system (as in, the more you make, the larger the percentage you pay in taxes).
Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%
I belong to the Top 10% and I'm fine with that.
Why do Americans focus so much on the "ultra-rich" and the billionaires when you can build a successful welfare state by just taxing the Top 10% a little more?
Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%
No, because it’s easier to go after and strong-arm or pass legislation against a guy earning 250k than a guy earning 250mm.
The wealthiest make a lot of money, but it's nothing compared to the aggregate of millions of Americans making upper middle class wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That rage needs to be there so that we can change the system that produces and perpetuates the unfairness. Rage is a tool for electoral mobilization.
Rage is a tool for the destruction of polity and the elimination of power to help /anyone /, much less those who need it most. Rage deals more long-lasting damage in its application than it does mobilization. The bitterness and wrath remain kindled long after the desired short-term outcomes have been achieved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"...considering the exponential distribution of wealth." _That_ is the point
What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.
I can see the argument that, if a country attempts to close the gap with taxes, they will just lose a great deal of wealthy citizens and successful businesses, but that can change too. Nations can make new trade deals and treaties.
I’d love to see an analysis of who the top 0.01% are, in terms of income. My guess is the people who make the list this year, drop off the next and never end up on it again. The top people (again income) are the folks that sell their company or equity stake. It’s a huge windfall, but they never make that much again.