20 ms·
Never mind the 1 percent: Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)
- supernova87a 5y agoIf this is the new age of robber barons, where is all the money going? Or being physically manifest? In the age of Rockerfeller, etc. they built mansions that other people could envy/detest and see the excesses. Where is all the money in this new class?
- aazaa 5y agoIn financial assets.
- newsclues 5y agohttps://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-buys-600-acres-on-kauai-in-53-million-deal-227124 https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-buys-...
- oblio 5y agoThere was a funny article a bit later after he bought that property, related to one of his comments. "Zuckerberg comments that people do not really need privacy anymore while buying himself a Fortress of Solitude" :-)
- dogsgobork 5y agoZuck's trying to catch up to Larry Ellison who owns nearly the entire island of Lanai in Hawaii.
- possibleworlds 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin%27s_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin%27s_Palace
- ip26 5y agoI’m always struck by how, apart from the desirable locales, the homes of the wealthy are pretty much the same as normal houses (just nicer/bigger). Mansion fit for a king… but the 2x4’s and wall sockets and vanity might have all come from Home Depot. Same cracking pavement, mold, drafts, etc. It’s all very nice of course. But here are the richest people on the planet, by grotesque margins, and all that gets is more square feet and a nice site?
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoThere's only so much home you can live in. Rather than giant castles, which in the past were necessary for protection, to house servants and your private army, the mega rich today rather have lots of properties around the world. Plus yachts, and private airplanes, etc... Take a look at this: https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farml... These people are basically our modern day version of the feudal lords of the past. Definitely not like normal people, despite the houses looking like that. They have a lot of power.
- newsclues 5y agoDidn’t Ellison have a house built in Japan, disassembled and rebuilt in America for him? Hardly Home Depot craftsmanship…
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- canadianfella 5y agoYou mean that?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- elliekelly 5y agoMars Missions are the new Newport Mansions.
- qntty 5y agoMostly equity is large corporates. In other words, power.
- cm2187 5y agoRocket programs.
- menzoic 5y agoPrivate Islands
- kokanator 5y agoConsolidation of finance is the consolidation of power. These two have always walked hand in hand with very few exceptions ( ie, Gahndi ). Currently, the consolidation is occurring in financial vehicles and global corporations. ( a new kind of colonialism )
- potatoman22 5y agoHow is that a kind of colonialism? In addition, what's your definition of colonialism?
- spoonjim 5y agoColonialism = guys with guns come from somewhere else, land in your backyard, and give you orders. The only difference now is that the guys have money instead.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoThat's... kind of always true though? If you want peoples' money, you have to give them what they want.
- Applejinx 5y agoPast a certain point what you want has nothing to do with it
- kokanator 5y ago>How is that a kind of colonialism? In addition, what's your definition of colonialism? It is a bit of a questionable correlation I would agree. Global corporations enter countries and begin to hold sway and control over the local governments. Though there is no settlements there is a strong financial force entering the countries. I know this isn't new but technology has compounded the effect. Think the Arab Spring ( a lot would agree this was a good thing, its just an example ). This effort was mobilized/made possible by technology firms that entered those countries allowing them to place large pressures on the systems and change them. Good or bad is not the argument the question is if the external corporations were able to sway the direction of the countries. In addition, I once heard a very famous investor from Omaha state they are able to sway the economic futures of countries. ( Hopefully they are benevolent in this )
- burkaman 5y agoI mean, they're still building enormous mansions. It might be less public now, because now they can afford to buy so much land around the mansions that nobody can see them. Also, since travel is so easy now, it might be more attractive to buy 100 luxury apartments around the world and a few private jets to get between them.
- Animats 5y agoGreen Gables, 74 acres in Woodside, CA, is for sale again, if anyone has US$135M. Who lives here? [1] [1] https://earth.google.com/web/@37.45398166,-122.30164715,204.31507696a,507.51993954d,35y,0h,0t,0r https://earth.google.com/web/@37.45398166,-122.30164715,204....
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nikanj 5y agoNobody lives in the luxury houses, they’re just a convenient way to stash away money.
- supernova87a 5y agoThat place is an overgrown mess! I wonder who would want to live there.
- Animats 5y agoLand. Bill Gates owns 242,000 acres of farmland. Jim Bezos owns 420,000 acres, mostly in Texas. John Malone owns 2.2 million acres. None of them made their money in land or farming.
- spoonjim 5y ago242,000 acres of farmland is very little.
- evdubs 5y agoIt's 378 square miles. For comparison, Rhode Island is 1,214 square miles.
- missedthecue 5y agoThere are 915 million acres of farmland in the USA
- ajmadesc 5y agoTo whom? 500 acres can earn a modest living for a family of four.
- LimaBearz 5y agoFarmland is also a loophole, not that I have any evidence that gates is skirting the law it’s not uncommon for the rich to get land, put a chicken coup on it with two chickens, and then claim it as farmland for a crazy property tax reduction.
- gre 5y agoBill Gates is the largest landowner according to some recent articles. So how much does he really own, or is only farmland considered?
- spoonjim 5y agoSame stuff: huge houses, harems of mistresses, private islands, luxury boats, private jets.
- IAmGraydon 5y agoAre you being serious? It doesn't take much searching to find many, many examples. Here's one. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-05-07/jeff-bezos-s-new-superyacht-heralds-roaring-market-for-big-boats https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-05-07/jeff-bezo...
- u678u 5y agohttps://www.superyachtfan.com/lists/biggest-yachts https://www.superyachtfan.com/lists/biggest-yachts https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/largest-yachts-2837827/ https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/largest-yachts-2837827/
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y agoHow about The Mountain of Beverly Hills worth $1Bn and The One (the 105,000 square foot home / airport terminal) which also started at $1Bn??
- adamcstephens 5y agoAt a certain point there’s nothing left to spend it on, and they use the money to make more money. In my opinion all billionaires are sociopaths. I think it’s necessary to be one in order to become one, and most definitely to stay one. If you think “yeah I am the best person to manage this wealth”, then you’re already putting yourself over society. That they can look at the state of the world, and double down on personal wealth, makes it even clearer.
- personjerry 5y ago"The 1%" was never a literal number. It's the idea that the top whatever percent of people have disproportionate wealth compared to the rest. I appreciate that this article wants to draw the line somewhere more precise, but for most purposes I don't think this changes anything.
- elliekelly 5y agoThis article is literally from “the Chicago School” famed for their free-markets solve-all economic philosophy. They have a long history of pushing economic theory and policy that disproportionately benefits the 1% and this article is no different. If anything I’m somewhat pleased to see the Chicago School has passed the denial stage and moved on to bargaining vis-à-vis inequality.
- burkaman 5y agoSeriously, this is so shameless. "Never mind the 1%" feels on par with "these aren't the droids you're looking for". "Sure the 1% make a lot, but if we make the graph go to FORTY MILLION, look how tiny it seems!"
- eloisant 5y agoI think the interesting point that the article is doing is that contrary to the common assumption the revenue of the 1% didn't grew that much in past decades, however the revenue of the 0.01% really exploded in the same period of time.
- Applejinx 5y agoThe interesting point is how fractal it is. You can keep going and the 0.00001% will be clobbering the rest of the 0.001%. It's a structural thing we're seeing. That means it'a a fair question, to ask 'is that useful in any sense?'. It's not 'points' we are awarding or measuring, this is the means by which humans interact and survive. It is more of a zero sum game when it's captured by individuals as a way of keeping score. That's non-optimal.
- xyst 5y agoAnybody else think of Mr. Robot as you were reading this?
- thrusong 5y agoI certainly did: "The top 1% of the top 1%, the men who play God without permission..."
- pvm3 5y ago(2017) Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21670462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21670462 (2019)
- rkk3 5y agoThe conflation between income and wealth in policy papers like this confuses me. Income is not the rate of change of wealth. Wealth can appreciate significantly without being reflected in taxable income.
- comboy 5y agoBut how would you measure it? The most objective way of measuring value when you are exchanging it to something else i.e. transaction, if you have real estate it can appreciate in value but if you sell it, or rent it, then you pay tax based on that transaction. It would be great if consumption and not income could be taxed though (not easy).
- rkk3 5y ago> But how would you measure it? Calculating wealth is hard, but they already do that. If you have numbers for wealth over time, take the rate of change.
- comboy 5y agoThey estimate that and wealthy know all about it. There is no equation for calculating value of a piece of art.
- dane-pgp 5y agoWhat would happen if a country decided to ban the sale of any piece of art for more than $1 million? An exception could perhaps be made for sale on the death of the registered owner, and sale to public galleries.
- comboy 5y agoSome real estate is no different than art. Such arbitrary limits only create loopholes for those with most expensive lawyers.
- 5y ago
- the_cat_kittles 5y agosince i dont see it here in the comments- my opinion is the marginal tax rate should be very high when you get to this point of income, and the money should be redistributed via services, credits and direct payments (maybe?) to poorer people, since its shown very clearly in the data to result in longer lifespans, better mental health, and an improvment in economic activity (though the last thing i dont care much about). curious what people who disagree with this general approach have to say about it.
- paulpauper 5y agoYou can do those things without having to tax the rich more. The treasury printed trillions in covid aid yet income taxes will not have to go up to pay for it. Inflation just budged a little. Bond market still holing well. Same for the US dollar.
- tastyfreeze 5y agoInflation takes years to fully emerge. And income taxes absolutely will have to go up to pay for it. It is not possible to print prosperity the same as it is not possible to tax our way to prosperity. Interestingly, printing money exacerbates wealth inequality. The people closest to the printer get to enjoy the fresh money before inflation hits the broader economy.
- ajmadesc 5y ago>Inflation takes years to fully emerge Evidence? >printing money exacerbates wealth inequality No, the method of distribution exacerbates inequality Important distinction.
- tastyfreeze 5y agoIt is called response lag and is a well studied phenomenon. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/inflation%20lags%20money%20supply.pdf https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/inflation%20lags%20m... Yes, distribution matters. Us common folk got a taste, with stimulus checks, of what has been happening for nearly a century at the top.
- danielodievich 5y agoI read The Economist which every year publishes their list of notable books. That is how I found Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is Conquering the World by Tom Burgis of The Financial Times. That book describes how the richest people get there (mostly through ill gotten means) and what they do to hide money (lots and lots of real estate) WaPo review https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-among-the-kleptocrats/2020/09/03/db0fef02-ed5d-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-among-the-klept... The Economist review https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/10/08/two-books-examine-the-global-role-of-corruption https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/10/08/two-book... (might require login) Small quote from The Economist that does a wonderful job summarizing why this book is very good: “Kleptopia” is wonderfully if grimly entertaining, replete with tales of Zimbabwean thugs, late Soviet gangsters and kgb officers-turned-entrepreneurs, as well as a Romeo-and-Juliet romance between the children of rival oligarchs. Mr Burgis’s depiction of the interlocking worlds of post-Soviet business and politics captures the way corruption binds together economic and political power. He meticulously demonstrates how, once overseas money enters Britain (attracted by the protections of its legal system), the associated power struggles and skulduggery follow. Except it is not just Britain, but also us here in USA - countries that he touches include USA, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Colombia, Congo, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, China and both Koreas. It was a fast and furious read that made me REALLY angry at times. It does not have a happy ending: America and Britain, he thinks, are ever-more like Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan: “Like a parasite altering a cell it invades, so kleptocratic power transforms its host.” Highly recommend as a serious, if depressing read.
- narrator 5y agoKleptocracy is more blatant in Russia. Many business owners are jailed once their business gets to a certain level of success and they don't sell to the local political/business mafia. This isn't really the case in western countries where the big players aren't sharing their profits with government officials and have plenty of money to buy companies at market rates. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-13546177 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-13546177
- 5y ago
- paulpauper 5y agoWhy stop at the top .01% , which is still only $19 million. How about the 10-50 richest people in the US if you want to get really granular.
- wangii 5y agoIt reminds me a sci-fi story in which the society reaches the final stage (ultra-capitalism) that the 1 person (the ultimate capitalist) owns 99.99% of the assets, and the rest lives in his mercy. Fun read, and our days are numbered!
- arrow7000 5y agoIt's a short story published in Cixin Liu's The Wandering Earth. It was a great read.
- usrusr 5y agoSeems like every system that achieves apparent stability but with a stable trend in only one direction will eventually reach a cathartic overturn. Population growth under absolute resource constraints, that interlocking network of pacts prior to ww1 that for a while looked like a mechanism for peace. And wealth concentration? What you need for stability beyond that horizon is some form of control valve. I've recently started diving into the "what if" of a hypothetical society that used some kind of "financial lynchmob ritual" as an institutionalised check to infinite wealth concentration: it would be limited in rate, e.g. one property nullification per year per 100 million inhabitants. It would be open nomination, secret vote, "winner" would get stripped of every property and contract, perhaps with some generous lifetime pension in return. It would basically be like an inverse bankruptcy, just concentrated on one creditor instead of one debtor. The rate-limit would make sure that it wouldn't devolve into an ever accelerating tall poppy hunt, but it would be enough to force a requirement to be not disliked too much on the 0.0001% rich. This could have massive benefits, way beyond the direct spoils of occasionally nationalizing some Oracle or Facebook or Aliex. What would be its unavoidable failure modes? Lots of mud-slinging between the super wealthy, that wouldn't be pretty. Lots of defecting into other countries, for sure, but let's assume some total hegemony for the sake of the mind experiment. Seclusion, most rich and powerful would be more invisible than they already are. Chances are you'd eventually have a caste of super rich that keep an extremely low profile. Perhaps even secretly pulling strings for some exceptionally visible and unlikeable dickheads to somehow stumble into wealth, as a caste of sacrificial decoy rich. And the success of those, until eventually stripped, would make others try to emulate them. Perhaps that would be the failure mode?
- fxtentacle 5y ago"Do we slow the 0.01 percent or lift the 99.99 percent, which could be a heavier and more complex assignment?" I always find it odd that these articles pretend that you can educate everyone well enough to earn a middle-class job. I believe it's more like a Red Queen race, meaning that as soon as you increase the average education of potential employees, companies will equally raise their requirements.
- missedthecue 5y agoIn the US at least, there is more that needs to be done than getting greater numbers of people through the degree mill. Some examples - - 50% of inner city school kids will not graduate high school. - 2/3 of the prison population is functionally illiterate. - 75% of the prison population did not finish high school. - 19% of the US population cannot read a newspaper. Nearly all of them earn incomes at or below the poverty level. The situation is the same in European countries as well. Italy has an extremely high rate of functional illiteracy. (Some estimates peg it at 47%) How can people be expected to live healthy productive lives when they cannot effectively communicate in written language?
- psychlops 5y ago50% of the population in the US is below average.
- OJFord 5y agoAnd you're happy with average being 'just barely literate'?
- psychlops 5y agoNot sure what 'just barely literate' means. The literacy rate in the the US is greater than 96% and is comparable to other first world countries. None of the statistical numbers above are surprising and, call me cynical but, I don't think there will be much change coming. I'd love to be proven wrong.
- gher-shyu3i 5y agoWhy is anyone surprised? This is the natural outcome of an economic system based on usury, gambling, fake money, and that has no built-in way of "trickle down" economics. Islam has solved this problem over 1400 years ago by having a proper foundation for economics, plus its Zakat laws. Keep this in mind next time you hear any politician pretending to offer a solution to the problems of student debt, mortgage crisis, inflation, etc. They will not offer real solutions, just fake ones to get votes.
- selimthegrim 5y agoYou've posted this like 15 times and yet have failed to define what this proper foundation is beyond ostensibly banning the time value of money.
- gher-shyu3i 5y agoIslam recognizes the time value of money, just do it in a proper manner. Invest in a business and get a return. Purchase property and rent it out and make a return. There are many ways to make money that do not involve usury or gambling.
- unmole 5y agoAs someone not born rich, how am I supposed to buy property without borrowing?
- gher-shyu3i 5y agoBorrowing is fine, just without interest. Suppliers already lend retailers and restaurants with no interest, and car dealerships offer 0% interest loans when they want to sell. It can be done.
- burkaman 5y agoIsn't the Saudi royal family among the richest on the planet?
- paulpauper 5y agoIf this is true, the 0.01 percent are most likely benefiting from what economists call “skill-biased technological change”—the increasing return on certain skills in an economy driven by technology and globalization. Under this well-established theory, a shortage of in-demand skills raises the value of those skills in rapidly expanding markets, and new technology helps some workers’ productivity grow much more than others’, exacerbating inequality. a net worth of $300+ million dollars is more than skills. I think skill is a necessary but insufficient condition.
- rkk3 5y agoAccounting for inheritance and divorce, it's not even a necessary condition.
- anigbrowl 5y agoFor sure, but if you own a skills-centric business and can capture more of the productivity gains than your employees then you can laugh most of the way to the bank.
- 3pt14159 5y agoRisk. Taking risk, usually with leverage, is almost always required. I predicted Bitcoin could hit $50k back before it was worth ten bucks. But I was off a failed startup at the time, so I only acquired 120 bitcoins, partially from some mild day trading to bring my dollar cost average to four bucks. I could have gone deep into debt. Risking the family money, but you know what? I didn't. Why? Because I didn't want my parents to lose $100k if I was wrong, and even though I thought it could 5000x, I was only about 20% sure. I'm fully out of crypto now, and I made a good return, but you know what? $300m? I could have been a billionaire, which I don't think would have been good for my soul, but still. The system that allocates capital selects people that don't make the same decision. Because so many of the gains of modern technology are exponential, the system rewards people that take risk even if there are downside consequences to other people and even if the likelihood of any one person taking such risks succeeding is low.
- nerdponx 5y ago
- ChrisArchitect 5y ago(2017) !
- paulpauper 5y agoeven way richer now ..look how much stocks have surged since covid
- anigbrowl 5y agoAlthough this looks like quite an interesting article, I gave up reading it because of the awful graphs. Surely people eager to analyse this issue can read a logarithmic scale, which would provide valuable clarity and context. I'm familiar with the issues in the article and understand the desire hook reader's attention by pointing out income disparities as dramatically as possible. Still, once a reader is engaged then a more technical presentation allows them to get more value from the article and better equips them to discuss or debate the issue.
- cjtrowbridge 5y agoThe blip or basis point.
- nradclif 5y ago“Never mind the 1%, let’s talk about the 0.01%” Sincerely, The 1%
- panny 5y agoHN spends a lot of time discussing under represented groups in tech. It would be interesting to apply that same logic here. I wonder what the demographic breakdown of the top 0.01% would look like.
- anm89 5y agoI always saw a lot of irony in the focus on the 1% when the occupy protests were happening because if you asked people to describe the 1% they would almost universally describe traits of the .01%. Private Jets, yachts, super cars, multiple mansions being C suite at a large company that are totally unattainable to the bulk of the 1%. The bulk of the 1% 10 years ago by number of members was probably mostly made up of doctors and lawyers although the wealth is disporportionately held by the top percentages of that range. Same is true today except add a major component of people in tech. But the 1% rhetoric never made any sense.
- 8note 5y agoA vast majority of people are poor enough to not tell the difference, or estimate the scales of wealth meaningfully. Its a strong argument that the 1% rhetoric makes great sense, even if they underestimate the scale of just how badly wealth is concentrated
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jhrmnn 5y agoI didn’t read the article. But seeing this kind of plots on a linear rather than log-scale is borderline misleading.
- croes 5y agoWhy? The linear plot makes it easier to see the inequality, log scale would obscure it, especially for people who aren't used to log scale. What do you think how many people think 20dB is half as loud as 40dB?
- rayiner 5y agoHow about we talk about the top 10% instead? These articles reduce to “look at how much money these people have!” Okay, but so what? How does that effect ordinary people? The bigger problem to me seems like the growing income disparities between the upper middle class and everyone else. When my family in Oregon complains about housing prices shooting up, I don’t think it’s Jeff Bezos that’s to blame, except insofar as he’s paying tons of money to knowledge workers who buy up housing in places like Bend. The stuff middle class people care about—skyrocketing costs of education, housing, health care, etc., seem mostly to be supply and demand problems where the upper middle class is both helping limit supply and inflating prices through demand. The really bizarre thing is that the top 10% doesn’t realize that it’s interests are highly aligned with the top 1% or top 0.01%. Globalism, intense focus on education, etc., make the top 0.01% richer but also accelerates the divergence between the top 10% and the bottom 90%.
- pydry 5y agoYou seriously think that hospitals charge $10 per aspirin because the upper middle classes are using more of it these days rather than because the upper upper classes are running a racket?
- rayiner 5y agoHospital operating margins are in the single digits: https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospital-margins-continue-fall-amid-rising-expenses https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospital-margins-.... Almost all of that $10 aspirin goes to paying doctors, administrators, nurses, rent, etc. All of those are in short supply and demand continues to grow. Why would you reflexively assume “the upper upper class” is involved? Billionaires tend to make things cheaper for consumers while gutting the upper class below them. Amazon wipes out owners of regional or local retail chains, but makes things cheaper for consumers. (That’s a big part of why the 0.01% is pulling away from the 1%. It’a billionaires eating the lunch of millionaires.) Contrast areas like education, where there are no “upper upper class” making profits. Tuitions continue to skyrocket due to growing expenses—in salaries, physical plant, etc. It’s a racket, but it’s a racket run by the upper middle class.
- boboche 5y agoThe 2017 chart showing the top 20 billionaires was only 4 yrs ago, kind of weird not seeing Musk in a billionaire top list. Time moves so fast.
- dav_Oz 5y agoIt is telling that one has to roughly estimate Trillions of Wealth in Thousand of Milions in Dollars the Top 0.01 or Top 400 Invidiuals have (is it one quarter or one third of the 0.01 percent?) but at the "Bottom" - say 90% - it is down to the decimal point (with some manageable variances). The basic message of the article is to give the impression that there are somehow two "equally weighted" positions: In short, there’s a split among economists. Some argue that income needs to be distributed more equitably, while others say governments should focus less on taking actions that could inhibit top earners and more on addressing the reasons others aren’t as successful. Do we slow the 0.01 percent or lift the 99.99 percent, which could be a heavier and more complex assignment? As the debate continues, members of the 0.01 percent continue on their course. A controversy on which policies should be implemented regarding income inequality. Having read the voluminous Piketty and now searching for the "underdog" Greg Kaplan (Co-Director of the Gary Becker Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics: basically the Chicago School of Economics in a new better empiricist's clothes), there is basically - in my quick search - nothing substantial about his arguments other than the good ol' tale: Do not "destroy" the wealth creating machine of the 0.01% instead let the other 99.99% adopt it. Like a cynic saying: Everyone can win the lottery. For anyone interested about the "real" consequences of the old Chicago School of Economics, there is a great documentary called "Chicago Boys" about the case study of Chile from '73 onwards. Anyone even bothering to look deeper into the history of inequality between "Stalinism" (Socialism) and "Thatcher-Reaganism" (Neoliberalism) there is for example FDR's "New Deal" which somehow is rarely brought up these days, the parallels (translating into our times) are striking. And many other examples of truly rich datasets to look into. Of course the datasets about the obscenely rich is very poor even nowadays in the "information age". One has to wonder is this "information distribution" not how real wealth can be defined, too?
- alisonkisk 5y agoThe rhetoric around 1 percent really means 0.01%, but people don't talk about numbers smaller than 1percent. Problem is there people take it too literally and then confusingly apply the rhetoric to the actual 1%, with the support of the 0.01% that hide in the shadows. This is most apparent in the US where "tax the rich" was implemented as a tax on people earning $250K+/yr, not $10M+/yr
- ericmcer 5y agoI liked Biden raising the highest tax bracket from ~200k to around ~400k if memory serves? But it really needs to be even higher. Our current system pits blue collar workers against white collar while our true overlords sit back and watch. A doctor who makes 500k is not the enemy of retail workers making 40k.
- amai 5y agoLet‘s talk about taxes: https://youtu.be/r5LtFnmPruU https://youtu.be/r5LtFnmPruU