4 ms·

Idk. It's about time rich people got to pay for the wealth they enjoy on the back of the USA. It's not free to send multiple carrier groups into the south chi

Idk. It's about time rich people got to pay for the wealth they enjoy on the back of the USA. It's not free to send multiple carrier groups into the south china sea/SE asia region when we're forcing TikTok to sell itself to us you know? And we've also seen a complete and utter reduction of the middle class over the last 40 years, resulting in a much richer 1% and poorer 50% https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-th... The other aspect here is that the people with wealth have seen it increase at a fairly linear rate. They can handle a small tax on it just fine. and it's about time they start directly paying for a service that the rest of us have.

andrewtbham 6y ago
The irony is poor people will never be wealthy till that start investing in assets and understand the compounding nature of wealth. It's that same lack of understand of compounding that contributes to the argument for a wealth tax. It's true. US inequality is rising as you stated, but global inequality is down. So you don't have the moral high ground. You have a false sense of entitlement and want to profit on the backs of the rest of the world instead of the people who invest their time and money into those assets. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-of-population-poverty-thresholds?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-of-populatio...
- catears 6y ago
  Would you mind stop telling everyone that they don't understand compounding interest? I've read a lot of comments and your replies and I have noticed a disturbing amount of normal comments being greyed out while you explain to them that they don't understand compounding, because if they did understand it they would be against any form of wealth tax. Pretty much everyone who owns stocks or invest money, which quite a lot of people do, understand the effects of compounding interest.
  - andrewtbham 6y ago
    > The other aspect here is that the people with wealth have seen it increase at a fairly linear rate. Do you think this guy understands compounding growth? It would actually help his argument if replaced the word linear with exponential, which is more accurate. Compounding growth is exponential, not linear.
    - virtue3 6y ago
      If you read what I posted you would understand that I know what compounding growth is instead of making ad-hominem attacks at me without reading anything I posted. I was refering to the linear growth of the the 1% controlling more of the TOTAL wealth of the USA. Which is, yes, most likely a result of compound growth of assets. Which is wealth management 101. Stop assuming I don't (or other people) know something that basic.
- virtue3 6y ago
  I expect people to pay for services they utilize to get wealthier. I am not including myself as any sort of beneficiary in this. Most likely I would be taxed more. So keep your comments about my supposed sense of entitlement to yourself. In fact, my entire support of a wealth tax IS TO REWARD THE PEOPLE THAT DIDNT GET PAID OUT FOR SAID WEALTH GENERATION. But sure, compound interest for people that live hand to mouth is a valid strategy. Better than trickle down economics at least.

andrewtbham 6y ago

The irony is poor people will never be wealthy till that start investing in assets and understand the compounding nature of wealth. It's that same lack of understand of compounding that contributes to the argument for a wealth tax. It's true. US inequality is rising as you stated, but global inequality is down. So you don't have the moral high ground. You have a false sense of entitlement and want to profit on the backs of the rest of the world instead of the people who invest their time and money into those assets. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-of-population-poverty-thresholds?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-of-populatio...

catears 6y ago
Would you mind stop telling everyone that they don't understand compounding interest? I've read a lot of comments and your replies and I have noticed a disturbing amount of normal comments being greyed out while you explain to them that they don't understand compounding, because if they did understand it they would be against any form of wealth tax. Pretty much everyone who owns stocks or invest money, which quite a lot of people do, understand the effects of compounding interest.
- andrewtbham 6y ago
  > The other aspect here is that the people with wealth have seen it increase at a fairly linear rate. Do you think this guy understands compounding growth? It would actually help his argument if replaced the word linear with exponential, which is more accurate. Compounding growth is exponential, not linear.
  - virtue3 6y ago
    If you read what I posted you would understand that I know what compounding growth is instead of making ad-hominem attacks at me without reading anything I posted. I was refering to the linear growth of the the 1% controlling more of the TOTAL wealth of the USA. Which is, yes, most likely a result of compound growth of assets. Which is wealth management 101. Stop assuming I don't (or other people) know something that basic.
virtue3 6y ago
I expect people to pay for services they utilize to get wealthier. I am not including myself as any sort of beneficiary in this. Most likely I would be taxed more. So keep your comments about my supposed sense of entitlement to yourself. In fact, my entire support of a wealth tax IS TO REWARD THE PEOPLE THAT DIDNT GET PAID OUT FOR SAID WEALTH GENERATION. But sure, compound interest for people that live hand to mouth is a valid strategy. Better than trickle down economics at least.