Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals/Progressives are in a serious conundrum with this. The vast inequality is caused by globalization and that is the centerpiece of Progressivism. Liberals/Progressives support the very thing they supposedly hate.
I am a libertarian leaning middle of the road person, and I see a problem with the wealth gap. Of course I have a problem with it but my solution is very different from liberal's.
The short version of which is-give more money to the wealthy.
Its sometimes called trickle down economics, and I honestly wished it worked as described. If it did I would be all for it. The reality is that doing as you describe hasn't worked well at all. If so we would be even better off now because for the last 45 years the increases in wealth have all gone to the top %'iles.
So...nice story, reality has demonstrated it to be wrong. And I truly wish that was not the case.
Eliminate their pensions, then. No QE needed. Done. Fixed.
And the largest percentage of that 400 came from the lower- and middle class.
Cool, and?
No really. AND? Lets assume #1 that I think you are correct. Thats GREAT...if you are one of the 400. But thats not the topic here. Its the wealth gap.
No, based on the actual facts of the Top 400's beginnings/backgrounds. United for a Fair Economy researched that info, not Forbes. All Forbes provided was the 400 names.
Liberals/Progressives are in a serious conundrum with this. The vast inequality is caused by globalization and that is the centerpiece of Progressivism. Liberals/Progressives support the very thing they supposedly hate.
Like RCCCB said, they don't think things through. They legislate and build their policies around "feel good" concepts, and never consider the unintended consequences. Cause and effect: not something they are good at IMO.
No really. AND? Lets assume #1 that I think you are correct. Thats GREAT...if you are one of the 400. But thats not the topic here. Its the wealth gap.
Are you somehow under the impression that the Top 400 have no more wealth than anyone else?
The POINT is that people from very modest backgrounds CAN and DO earn and accumulate vast sums of wealth. They're the largest percentage of the Top 400. They were born in the "Batter's Box," from lower- and middle class beginnings, not even on First Base with some kind of minor advantage. Instead of tearing them down for their achievements, why not take a closer look at how they did it. Why not glean the lessons from their successes and spread that knowledge to the masses? Still won't result in wealth equality, though. You can lead a horse to water... and all that.
The short version of which is-give more money to the wealthy.
Its sometimes called trickle down economics, and I honestly wished it worked as described. If it did I would be all for it. The reality is that doing as you describe hasn't worked well at all. If so we would be even better off now because for the last 45 years the increases in wealth have all gone to the top %'iles.
So...nice story, reality has demonstrated it to be wrong. And I truly wish that was not the case.
If you think relaxing the costs and fees associated with starting and owning a small business is trickle down economics, than you need to get a refund for any economics classes you have ever taken.
Trickle down economics is based on the theory that you lower the taxes on upper income individuals and it will eventually flow down to the little guy. I am saying that we go back to more of a true capitalist society, you know like the one that built the greatest country and economy the world has ever seen, get the government and their feel good laws out of the way which do nothing to prevent crimes but sound good and costs small businesses their chance at becoming successful.
Are you somehow under the impression that the Top 400 have no more wealth than anyone else?
The POINT is that people from very modest backgrounds CAN and DO earn and accumulate vast sums of wealth. They're the largest percentage of the Top 400. They were born in the "Batter's Box," from lower- and middle class beginnings, not even on First Base with some kind of minor advantage. Instead of tearing them down for their achievements, why not take a closer look at how they did it. Why not glean the lessons from their successes and spread that knowledge to the masses? Still won't result in wealth equality, though. You can lead a horse to water... and all that.
The POINT is that these huge gaps are bad for society. In all honesty it doesnt matter if the entire 400 were from dirt poor folks selected by random lottery.
Additionally...no. the majority was not born in the batters box as you indicate.
IE im calling you out. You used the UFE as your source? Lets take a look at what they said (as described by another article):
Quote:
Just over 3 percent of the Forbes 400, United for a Fair Economy found, have left no good paper trail on their economic backgrounds. Of the over 60 percent remaining, all grew up in substantial privilege.
Those "born on first base" — in upper-class families, with inheritances up to $1 million — make up 22 percent of the 400. On "second base," from households wealthy enough to generate inheritances over $1 million, UFE found another 11.5 percent.
On "third base," with inherited wealth of more than $50 million, sits 7 percent of America's 400 richest. Last but not least, is the "born on home plate" crowd. These high-rollers, 21.25 percent of the total Forbes list, all inherited enough to "earn" their Forbes 400 status.
No I dont know about you but...
unknown-no paper trail 3%
1st-22%
2nd-11.5%
3rd-7%
home-21.25%
Hmmm....2/3 had money.....and you claim the majority started in the batters box.....
Meaning that you sir, are misinforming people.
Whats funny is you quote out of context from a group discussing inequality. And you lie about their message. Their data is based upon whats Forbes is providing, and to be honest I dont buy that one either, as they have odds ideas of what the batters box looks like. So that being said....even on the biased data the answer is not as you describe.
The POINT is that these huge gaps are bad for society.
Why? How is wealth creation a bad thing for society? You just don't like that some have more than others. Well, guess what? I don't like that sports stars have better athletic skills than do I. Boo hoo.
Quote:
Additionally...no. the majority was not born in the batters box as you indicate.
I said the largest percentage, and yes, according to UFE's own research, terminology, and baseball analogy designations they were born in the "Batter's Box." They're from the lower- and middle classes.
Quote:
IE im calling you out.
Is the problem that you don't know how to decipher a diagram? Look at UFE's diagram.
Are you somehow unaware that 35% is greater than 22%, 11.5%, 7%, or 21.25%?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
