3 ms·

But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution. "There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Amer

by stvswn 11y ago

But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution. "There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans." - Bernie Sanders (Also a really misleading stat. If you have a $1 net worth, you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.)

stvswn 11y ago
And I'd add -- the Waltons would be a weird example to key on if you were concerned mainly with punishing Wall St. speculators but keeping dynamism and entrepreneurship alive. Regardless of how you feel about WalMart, the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. Not sure why they're first among the villains for ol' Bernie.
- vinhboy 11y ago
  > the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. This is where we disagree. Yes, they have every right to be rich because of their business success. But their unequal wealth is a result of a broken system that allows for "income inequality". Some would go as far as saying their business success is a direct result of their ability to exploit "income inequality".
  - kamaal 11y ago
    You can't have merit and equality at the same time. You have to pick one. As long as you strive for merit, and the more you strive. The more inequality this leads to. Define the principles of the society you wish to build. If you wish to trade merit for equality, then you should also live by its consequences. Which is people going else where their hard work is better recognized. Free market economy is a direct result of learning to live by the consequences of your actions.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    They have the right to be rich, but there's an issue with their unequal wealth? I don't understand the difference between "being rich" and "having unequal wealth." Magnitude? What's broken with the system, in their case?
- redblacktree 11y ago
  Sam Walton built a business. His kids inherited a fortune.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    True, and I don't have an issue with inheritance. I'd prefer no estate tax. Whether zeroed-out grantor-retained annuity trusts should be a valid tax avoidance scheme is a valid question, if that's your point.
    - redblacktree 11y ago
      My point was that the Waltons existing today deserve no special credit for having created a business; they didn't. There is nothing dynamic or entrepreneurial about inheriting a fortune. It's dumb luck.
vinhboy 11y ago
First, my mistake, I mean to type "wealth redistribution". Second, no, that is not what he's talking about. He's pointing out a symptom of "income inequality" The solution is not "wealth redistribution", the solution is to be fair. Pay a fair wage, provide universal healthcare, reduce the cost of tuition, close tax loopholes, end corporate lobbying, etc...
- stvswn 11y ago
  You're playing with semantics. Every single one of the policies you describe are exactly wealth redistribution (except for corporate lobbying -- that's restriction on speech). You just perceive them as examples of good policies. You think they are particularly fair ways to redistribute wealth. Unless you think that when tuition is free, the cost isn't passed to anyone? Or if the minimum wage is raised, no one has to pay?

by stvswn 11y ago

stvswn 11y ago

And I'd add -- the Waltons would be a weird example to key on if you were concerned mainly with punishing Wall St. speculators but keeping dynamism and entrepreneurship alive. Regardless of how you feel about WalMart, the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. Not sure why they're first among the villains for ol' Bernie.

vinhboy 11y ago
> the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. This is where we disagree. Yes, they have every right to be rich because of their business success. But their unequal wealth is a result of a broken system that allows for "income inequality". Some would go as far as saying their business success is a direct result of their ability to exploit "income inequality".
- kamaal 11y ago
  You can't have merit and equality at the same time. You have to pick one. As long as you strive for merit, and the more you strive. The more inequality this leads to. Define the principles of the society you wish to build. If you wish to trade merit for equality, then you should also live by its consequences. Which is people going else where their hard work is better recognized. Free market economy is a direct result of learning to live by the consequences of your actions.
- stvswn 11y ago
  They have the right to be rich, but there's an issue with their unequal wealth? I don't understand the difference between "being rich" and "having unequal wealth." Magnitude? What's broken with the system, in their case?
redblacktree 11y ago
Sam Walton built a business. His kids inherited a fortune.
- stvswn 11y ago
  True, and I don't have an issue with inheritance. I'd prefer no estate tax. Whether zeroed-out grantor-retained annuity trusts should be a valid tax avoidance scheme is a valid question, if that's your point.
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    My point was that the Waltons existing today deserve no special credit for having created a business; they didn't. There is nothing dynamic or entrepreneurial about inheriting a fortune. It's dumb luck.

vinhboy 11y ago

First, my mistake, I mean to type "wealth redistribution". Second, no, that is not what he's talking about. He's pointing out a symptom of "income inequality" The solution is not "wealth redistribution", the solution is to be fair. Pay a fair wage, provide universal healthcare, reduce the cost of tuition, close tax loopholes, end corporate lobbying, etc...

stvswn 11y ago
You're playing with semantics. Every single one of the policies you describe are exactly wealth redistribution (except for corporate lobbying -- that's restriction on speech). You just perceive them as examples of good policies. You think they are particularly fair ways to redistribute wealth. Unless you think that when tuition is free, the cost isn't passed to anyone? Or if the minimum wage is raised, no one has to pay?