I'm not sure how to understand the chart on the right. So it's kind of 'bad people' of all income brackets on the right? Be it white collar crime, blue collar crime, or just lazy freeloaders? Is that the point? The new data on diverging life expectancies in our country kind of suggests that the "chart" on the left carries weight at least for talking about the reality of someone's lifespan. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/health/disparity-in-life-spans-of-the-rich-and-the-poor-is-growing.html?_r=0
Ezra Pound agrees with the OP: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D3IpkOZjyVw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Nah, there's a ton of predators in the middle and lower classes. When someone is murdered, raped, or robbed at gunpoint, which group do you think the predator belongs to most likely?
Time and again, it's been made clear that the the evils that top 1% perform often are not prosecuted while us 99%ers have to actually abide by the law or suffer legitimate consequences instead of writing a check that doesn't even make a dent in our checking account. That's the difference. That top 1% of the top 1% know this and exploit this notion. It's not they are inherently 'evil'. If any of us were in that position, we too probably would exploit these advantages in the system.
The elite .01% have a choice. They can accept a Sanders type evolution and even the playing field somewhat or they can kick the can down the road and deal with a French type revolution.
you're not the brightest are you? You dont get wealthy by easily being backed into a corner. The wealthy will simply pack their cash up and take it somewhere else. Is that what you want?
Yeah you get rich because of things like inheritance and nepotism - definitely nothing involving corners. The rich are welcome to take their wealth to Europe and pay 60% taxes if they don't like to pay a bit more than they do now.
Are we talking about physical predators? I was assuming just economic. In which case it would lean heavily towards lenders.
Neither of those lines should be at 90 degree angles, should be some sort of parabola. Therefore, your charts are invalid.
The rich have their money in the most profitable places regardless of where they live (for the most part). Where they live will hardly have any effect on where they place their money. A billionaire doesn't keep his billion in the US if he has any idea how the system works - he keeps what he needs in the US, and the rest of it elsewhere. Them moving a part of their money to another country is inconsequential once you place much more appropriate taxes on sending money out and inheritance. If it's about spending, you would achieve a lot more by spreading a fraction of that money over a larger group of people. Rich people are hoarders, hence the lack of any wealth trickling down. Finally, "elsewhere" will eventually take rich people's cash too. Believe me if living elsewhere was an acceptable proposition to rich people, they would have done it already. They have tried and tested the best version of every country they've ever been to. Their cash would be less "safe" elsewhere. There is no better bodyguard for their money than the massive US institutions who are securing their assets globally. Maybe you're naive enough to think, for example, that coca cola would be as succesful as it is globally with or without the support of a government responsive to American citizens. That's simply not the case. It's the same reason why McDonald's attempted to open a branch in Iran several times but it got trashed every time. No protection from the US government over there. Would be the same in Saudi if not for US government's relationship with the Saudi government.
