4 ms·

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 entrepre

by 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.

by stvswn 11y ago

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.