91–100 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a question: How many countries have you visited? In asking this, I'm assuming that since you say "here", your PoV is the United States. If that is incorrect, I apologize.
I've visited about a dozen countries. Some of them "third world." The US has pockets of communities that are as impoverished as anywhere.
In the United States, the richest 1 percent have seen their share of national income roughly double since 1980, to 20 percent in 2014 from 11 percent. Not true. The highest income 1% have seen their share of national income roughly double. But the highest income 1% is not the richest 1%.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/01/17/measuri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only numbers 8 through 10 are what any reasonable person might consider even remotely "self made" and lumping "middle-class background" and "upper-class background" into 8 (so that Mark Zuckerberg could be considered 8 instead of 7) is a stretch. Any credible list of "self-made this" or "successful entrepreneur that" should include a disclosure of parental wealth.
Also, Mark Zuckerberg went to high school at Phillips Exeter. Their current tuition is $39,000 per year for day students, and $50,000 for boarders, of which he was one (although he went during 1999 equivalent tuitions). On the 1-10 self-made scale they have, with 1 being inheritance and 10 being self-made, he ranks an 8. So that is the bearing for this scale they made to keep in mind - the 8 of 10 toward "self-made"…
I went to boarding school and came from a family of two church musicians. Some of my classmates came from wealthy families, others came from very modest backgrounds.
This is such an interesting article, attempting to answer one of the biggest questions of the 21st century in one fell swoop. However, I'm not sure all of the reasoning and analysis holds up. For example, software engineers with salaries over 390K are far from rare in the US, and Switzerland has both large numbers of bankers per capita and private doctors with incredibly high incomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are millions of people in the 1%. The 400 people at the very top aren't going to come into it much.
But even within the 1%, the income distribution is highly skewed, i.e. those 400 people are responsible for a very sizable total of the overall wealth within the 1%.
Similarly, it is possible to earn $200k/year (not in the top 1% for income) and save very aggressively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding 4, I'm curious why it's in this list with the others. It certainly makes life better for the individual, but doesn't losing all its top talent to foreign countries hurt developing countries?
As I said, vastly different views, to the point of being annoying. We, as a country, are not in the business of "country-building" but rather survival and that of avoiding pain. Our government doesn't need talented individuals - they just need brainwashed populace and stability for their power. Thinkers are direct infraction to the system and usually are not tolareted. Also, what do you expect disarray of talented in…
Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…
And what should that upper limit be? Who decides what it is, and how do we ensure that people powerful enough to get close to that limit don't simply play financial games to skirt these rules?
If the source of my wealth is unrealized capital coming from ownership of a company I founded, what am I supposed to do if my wealth nears the cap? What is to prevent bad actors from inflating my stock price to force me to sell? If I hold my companies privately, who decides what they are worth and by proxy how much wealth I possess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not much of a response. The interview treated Koch influence on politics as a forgone conclusion. (Because it is and Charles didn't seem to argue otherwise). The point of the interview was to learn about his personal philosophy. Something of which wouldn't be of much interest were it not for his huge amount of influence (that, again, no one is arguing). As for the final thrust of this response, on how Koch helped sto…
> it's likely nothing nefarious It's legal because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but I hope that, before the Koch brothers pass away, we'll see a constitutional amendment overturning this egregious decision. The idea that money = speech is toxic to democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?
Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four? In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.
Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four? In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.
Some of these people would've called it quits a long time ago though, if not for the ability of their offspring to have it (much) better than they do. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either. Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?
Generally the tax is not supposed to be on inheritance but on unreasonably frozen money. Inheritance tax is a work around.
Skills when applied are supposed to be net positive for society.
Additionally with money comes influence, media and politics. Stagnation in those areas is risky too.