Fat cats out of control: 1% owns 82% of wealth

[Kaleredar]

I wish for once we talked about any good ideas coming out of this instead of tax the rich by 99%, they don't deserve that money anyway.

It's pretty easy.

Tax corporations and close tax evasion loopholes, then strictly redefine what it means to be a corporation that operates in the United States so that they can't claim it in name while sheltering a large amount of their capital elsewhere, and incentivize students from other countries traveling to the US to study to remain and give them an easy path to citizenship so that the academic capital stays in the US.

The middle class in the United States was the largest when the corporate tax rate was the highest. When was this time of terrible government overreach? Oh, right, the 1950s and 1960s, the supposed "halcyon days of the United States."

It's interesting; the republicans always want to seem to "return to the 1950s" without having any of the legislation and government climate that defined the "good" aspects of that era.

[Regalia]

1. Donald has nothing at all to do with this tread, his wealth is nothing compared to the really rich people.

Trump is still considered to be the 1%

You just took your opportunity to bash the cheeto lord just because you don't like him. Which is fine, just wish people would be more original when it comes to the most talked subject on this forum.

No, Trump considers himself a Philanthropist. I was using him as an example of a fake philanthropist.

Take a look at countries like Denmark/Netherlands/Sweden etc.
The only problem I can see is rolling that out for a country with 300 million people instead of the 20 million that live in the Netherlands.

Still works.

[Flarelaine]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42745853

Still waiting for jobs and cash to trickle down.

You have reading comprehension problems. The article does not say what you claim in the title.

[Deleted]

If you would take away all wealth and divide it up amongst everybody, it will eventually end up in the same pockets.

People that know how to make money will always make money. People that suck at it will lose it again soon enough.

[d00mGuArD]

That is not how wealth or economics work.

If someone got 80% and you got 20%, you were made poorer, compared to him, even if you have 20% more than before.

And here is your mistake.
If you get 20% more money, you should be happy. Instead you say "QQQ someone else got 80% more money"
Yes the gap between you two widened.
But if things for everyone improve (and they do, global poverty is indeed going down, and mankind has it best than ever)
why you care (except jealousy)? Really

[Regalia]

If you would take away all wealth and divide it up amongst everybody, it will eventually end up in the same pockets.

People that know how to make money will always make money. People that suck at it will lose it again soon enough.

Sensible Socialists don't advocate hardline Socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

But if things for everyone improve (and they do, global poverty is indeed going down, and mankind has it best than ever)
why you care (except jealousy)? Really

Except Jealousy?

Global Poverty is going down But so is the Middle Class.

Mankind has it best then ever? (so we should stop improving?)

[Ravenblade]

In my opinion it also boils down to people being too accepting of behaviours like tax evasion, tax gifts to the rich, tax havens and wage dumping. If people vote the same people into power then they are really the lambs who choose their own butchers.

[d00mGuArD]

Except Jealousy?

Global Poverty is going down But so is the Middle Class.

Middle class is going down maybe in your country. Global-wide middle class is going up. Countries like china and India are starting to have bigger middle class, is where the much of the new wealth is going. Remember this article and thread is about Global 1% (you may be in the global 1% also)

[HumbleDuck]

We could tax the rich and redistribute the wealth. But that would be commi cuckery I guess.

[Zig Zug]

The 1% are not fat cats.

They're people who own homes, invest money and make good decisions over long periods of time. Work hard in school, study something useful, develop sought-after skills, make good investment decisions et cetera.

Most millionaires own equity, and aren't throwing cash at stupid things.

If you're waiting for a job or cash to trickle down, please, by all means keep waiting, it's in my economic best interest.

[Aqua]

Still waiting for a solution to this problem instead of group cry circles.

Dunno, last I checked guillotines were still pretty viable. Unfortunately those 42 pay enough people infront of them to take the fall in exchange for what is essentially pocket change for them, so it might take some thinning of the actual 1% before we get to that blasted 0.0000001%.

I mean if they keep this up, that's where this is headed, nothing really else to say. Their mad dash to be the winner of monopoly is making western society crumble.

[Kokolums]

trickle down economics would work, in an environment that encourages business to exist. In America, it is cheaper to tear down your factory, rebuild it in a different country, pay those workers peanuts, and ship your product back to America. That means that business's jobs are gone from the country, and all those people either find a new job or go on financial assistance. The business owner becomes richer, and the poor become poorer. Business 101.

Historically, the human race seems to oscillate between periods of globalism and nationalism. I suspect its because extreme globalism leads to lack of jobs, and extreme nationalism leads to wars. So the human race keeps ping ponging between extremes in a reactionary way once things get out of control.

[Regalia]

Middle class is going down maybe in your country.

no it's going down in Russia, and the UK for many reasons among plenty of other countries.

Global-wide middle class is going up. Countries like china and India are starting to have bigger middle class, is where the much of the new wealth is going. Remember this article and thread is about Global 1% (you may be in the global 1% also)

Only in Third World countries, but even then the standards of Poverty in third world countries are entirely different then ours. Wealth inequality is still an issue in India as well as China.

- - - Updated - - -

Historically, the human race seems to oscillate between periods of globalism and nationalism. I suspect its because extreme globalism leads to lack of jobs, and extreme nationalism leads to wars. So the human race keeps ping ponging between extremes in a reactionary way once things get out of control.

Trickle Down only works when the companies want to, and they'll never want to out of the Goodness of there hearts.

It's not Extreme Globalism, it's Extreme Capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Proof that wealth inequality in a huge issue in China?
Proof that it happens in India

China’s dirty little secret: its growing wealth gap
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/econo...slice-pie-ever

India’s staggering wealth gap in five charts
http://www.thehindu.com/data/indias-...le10935670.ece

- - - Updated - - -

[Raakel]

Dividing all wealth up amongst everybody wouldn't make sense either. There are many parts of the world that won't be ready for this.

Wealth distribution in terms of $$$ is one thing but what I find a lot more interesting is energy distribution. What would happen if we'd develop a formular that would make energy free. Most processes are inherently connected to the need for energy...

[Regalia]

Dividing all wealth up amongst everybody wouldn't make sense either. There are many parts of the world that won't be ready for this.

Wealth distribution in terms of $$$ is one thing but what I find a lot more interesting is energy distribution. What would happen if we'd develop a formular that would make energy free. Most processes are inherently connected to the need for energy...

There's also no true Socialist or Communist country.

Many European countries use both Socialist and Capitalist ideologies.

[Tiwack]

We could tax the rich and redistribute the wealth. But that would be commi cuckery I guess.

Why don't you look up what communism is before making a fool of yourself?

[Corroc]

That is completely contradictory.

If they generated wealth for others, their own wouldn't be relatively increasing year after year. They are literally impoverishing everyone else in the world by making themselves wealthier.

Also I dread threads like these, because I'm honestly tired talking about it and only seeing it getting worse every year. It's honestly just a waiting game, waiting for dumb cunts who claim they're having "a good life" finally realizing they've been getting screwed over this entire time.

You do realise that they are not impoverishing everyone else when they are just taking advantage of more people entering to the world. For example you have 10 workers and you would gain 100 dollars every month from them. You get 10 more workers and you would benefit 200 dollars from it. You should prolly educate yourself more how economics work in the world. Biggest poverty problem in the world is people having children every year. The poor countries cant sustain the population growth and offer their citizens good work or living conditions. And this leads to even more poverty. Just one graphic example. http://rprogress.org/training_manual...ionPoverty.pdf

Blaming rich people is easy but faulty way of understanding poverty.

[Deletedaccount1]

These are the people who have been trusted to fix this.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas2/stat...456963/photo/1

[Deleted]

You do realise that they are not impoverishing everyone else when they are just taking advantage of more people entering to the world. For example you have 10 workers and you would gain 100 dollars every month from them. You get 10 more workers and you would benefit 200 dollars from it. You should prolly educate yourself more how economics work in the world. .

I suggest you follow your own advice.

The super-rich have been increasing in wealth despite any corresponding improvement in their own productivity. Workers have had their real wages flatline for four decades. There is no benefit to the economy from the super rich stealing the labour value of their workers, and a considerable downside.

As for the ugly Malthusian dog whistle stuff, that was debunked two hundred years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

The 1% are not fat cats.

They're people who own homes, invest money and make good decisions over long periods of time. Work hard in school, study something useful, develop sought-after skills, make good investment decisions et cetera.

There is nothing particulary special about the super rich. The defining characteristic is that they tended to be born at certain specific dates in history and had access to technology or markets no one else did-Bill Gates for examples booked thousands of hours in a computer club near his home he hacked into to use for free (they were very expensive), whilst most people in the country had never even seen a computer.

These people aren't particulary hardworking or intelligent, at least no more so than most professionals. They were just lucky. People tend to fetishize billionaires as being special when they aren't for no reason: it is similar to the "divine right of kings". I suspect the people who do this have distant relationships with their parents , and like to fetishize people they see as powerful as some kind of father surrogate.

[ddsad2212]

I think people love the idea of distributing the wealth before they realize they're likely in the top 5%. I make a starter wage in Ireland of €24,000 , that's not considered rich in any ones books but my income is 25 times the global average and I am in the top 2-3% of earners. A lot of people here who are in the later stages of their careers are likely in the top 1% and don't realize it