I don't see how anyone can argue with this, Ref. Even if lingling (or similar) is in the top 1% of the top 1% (where a huge portion of American wealth resides now, yes, in the top ten thousandth of our population), how can you argue it's a good system for future economic prosperity? As the system chokes most people off, the oligarchs eventually won't have any markets worth exploiting. SamFisher's rewrite above puts it well. Any notion that this is about charity or Robinhood nonsense is completely missing the point. If I want a healthy body, I want the blood flowing fairly freely throughout it, not pooled in one bloated finger.
I've shown that you can reduce the CEO pay to from $9M to $0, and that money would not be able to raise the front line's wage more than $.01 / hour.
What if wealthy people started having far more children and poor people started having far fewer children? What would this do to the distribution of wealth over time?
A frankly stupid strawman mathematical triviality distracting from the more interesting ideas being shared in the thread. But thank you for continuing to retype it.
There is a problem with wealth inequality. But taking wealth from one person and distribute to others will not fix it. If you take a $9M and distribute among 450K people, they net only $20 each for the year. There is an artificial cap on low wage earners that prevent them from moving up no matter their hourly wage. There is no cap on everyone else. As long as this exists, the wealth inequality will grow. That cap I'm talking about is government assistance. If someone gets more total benefits by making $15K than $16K, it will be hard for them to make the jump. The caps exists at $20K, $25K, etc...
A huge problem that has caused and helped to maintain the economic doldrums in which we find ourselves. This is at least the third time you have typed this incredibly stupid hypothetical straw man. Nobody is arguing to redistribute the CEOs pay to the line workers at McDonalds, but as a result of your intellectual dishonesty, you would rather argue against the straw man than address the actual arguments that posters like Major and Refman have ACTUALLY made. You're delusional. If you actually think that there are people who intentionally stay in poverty because of government benefits, you have chosen to believe liars over facts.
we can debate the finer points of equity crowdfunding somewhere else. However, I'd like to answer the rest of your points sufficiently: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729 using income tax is also very misleading as a tax guideline, as many of the poorest would pay more in sales tax and payroll tax, by design.
I don't think you get what is actually being discussed here and are making up silly examples that no one is arguing for. Why don't you address what Henry Paulson is saying about wealth inequality - why does he see it as a threat? Clearly you must know more than him, or are you running away from that because you know you have nothing?
I dream that both right-wing and left-wing citizens can agree that making education a number one priority will be a key remedy for this growing rut. A recruiter told me how graduates with STEM degrees are being hired left and right by Houston companies with $100k+/year salaries. The word isn't getting out, it seems. Growing income and wealth inequality can be mitigated. A good analogy from a Financial Times article on this subject: Statistics only capture one slice of the problem. But it is the renowned Harvard economist, Larry Katz, who offers the most compelling analogy. “Think of the American economy as a large apartment block,” says the softly spoken professor. “A century ago – even 30 years ago – it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed. The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most.” Excerpts: The main problem Possible causes A solution?
You actually thinks this shows something about economics for the society as a whole rather than the CEO's personal budget? If it makes you feel any smarter, I think you actually did the simple division of numbers correctly.
Gary knows how to play chess, but I wouldn't put too much weight into his "wisdom". This is the person that lost 10s of millions running a company.
Since when does being ridiculously good at chess means everyone should also listen to you about economics? Why not just get Dr. Dre's, Tommy Lee Jones, and Larry Bird's opinion as well?
What would happen if the lower class just disappeared? Who would clean your home, pick your fruit, stock your groceries, deliver your packages, stitch your clothes and on and on and on. Society would collapse as prices would sky rocke since the children of rich people wouldn't work for minimum wage, instead they would demand much higher wages to work those jobs, creating an inflationary spiral that would crush the economy.
The biggest misconception in the American economics dialogue is the seemingly foundational principle that a growing economy is a good thing. That the stock market growing to previously unfathomable levels is a good thing.
Not "wisdom" at all, he shows a fundamental lack of understanding of history and economics. ALL of the economic gains since the '70s have gone to the top. Median wages have been stagnant since then, even during the MASSIVE economic and productivity boom of the 1990s.
This post is just too stupid for words. It is economically and factually wrong on a number of levels. You are arguing that a worker making $15k a year working on the front line would turn down a management position that would pay $30k because the benefits would stop. That just isn't the case.
