3 ms·

Setting aside the gross misunderstanding of the actual article here, even if that were what the title said, you really don't understand wealth distribution in A

by feoren 5y ago

Setting aside the gross misunderstanding of the actual article here, even if that were what the title said, you really don't understand wealth distribution in America if you think that number would be too high. There's an estimated $150 trillion in total household wealth in the united states, and the 400 richest Americans own $3.2 trillion of that, or 2.1%. But also realize that the wealth of the super rich is growing faster than the wealth of the bottom 90%, meaning that the income difference is actually much larger than this. Even with a flat tax, the top 400 Americans should be paying at least 3.4% of all income taxes in America. But given that a flat tax is morally abhorrent (the next $10,000 in income is meaningless to the standard of living of a billionaire, but life-changing to someone in poverty), it should be more than that. You, like so many, vastly under-estimate how much richer the ultra-wealthy are than everyone else. Vastly. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> you really don't understand wealth distribution in America A false statement. I really do understand "wealth distribution in America". Using your terms. Although "distribution" there is a propaganda term. Wealth isn't distributed. >> the wealth of the super rich is growing faster than the wealth of the bottom 90% "Super rich" is another propaganda term. During stock market downturns your assertion is simply false. If the S&P falls by 50% will you say that the wealth of the "super rich" is collapsing so something needs to be done? No, no you will not. Because that would be ridiculous. >> Even with a flat tax, the top 400 Americans should be paying at least 3.4% of all income taxes in America Don't agree. When you tax something, you get less of it. Don't tax success, tax failure. >> But given that a flat tax is morally abhorrent Don't agree. >> You, like so many, vastly under-estimate how much richer the ultra-wealthy are than everyone else. Vastly. False.
- feoren 5y ago
  Really trying to avoid a personal attack here but you're really asking for one. I'm genuinely curious whether people like you actually think of themselves as a good person. Do you? You've certainly "picked a team", and you've picked team billionaire over team humanity. While morally bankrupt, such a choice might at least make a weird sort of short-sighted sense if you are currently a multi-billionaire. Are you? Otherwise you've picked the wrong team. Actually you've picked the wrong team even if you are a multi-billionaire. Would you rather be a stone-age emperor, or a space-age mere well-to-do? Making all of humanity better benefits the ultra-rich the most, since their boat is the biggest one floating on this ocean we all share. But I guess you often need that psychopathic mindset to get to the level of the top 400; they may be mentally incapable of helping others even when it benefits them. Help other people!? Who are not me!? Impossible. Again: a semi-sensible short-sighted sort of local minimum if you're already a billionaire. But you're not, are you?

by feoren 5y ago

rufus_foreman 5y ago

>> you really don't understand wealth distribution in America A false statement. I really do understand "wealth distribution in America". Using your terms. Although "distribution" there is a propaganda term. Wealth isn't distributed. >> the wealth of the super rich is growing faster than the wealth of the bottom 90% "Super rich" is another propaganda term. During stock market downturns your assertion is simply false. If the S&P falls by 50% will you say that the wealth of the "super rich" is collapsing so something needs to be done? No, no you will not. Because that would be ridiculous. >> Even with a flat tax, the top 400 Americans should be paying at least 3.4% of all income taxes in America Don't agree. When you tax something, you get less of it. Don't tax success, tax failure. >> But given that a flat tax is morally abhorrent Don't agree. >> You, like so many, vastly under-estimate how much richer the ultra-wealthy are than everyone else. Vastly. False.

feoren 5y ago
Really trying to avoid a personal attack here but you're really asking for one. I'm genuinely curious whether people like you actually think of themselves as a good person. Do you? You've certainly "picked a team", and you've picked team billionaire over team humanity. While morally bankrupt, such a choice might at least make a weird sort of short-sighted sense if you are currently a multi-billionaire. Are you? Otherwise you've picked the wrong team. Actually you've picked the wrong team even if you are a multi-billionaire. Would you rather be a stone-age emperor, or a space-age mere well-to-do? Making all of humanity better benefits the ultra-rich the most, since their boat is the biggest one floating on this ocean we all share. But I guess you often need that psychopathic mindset to get to the level of the top 400; they may be mentally incapable of helping others even when it benefits them. Help other people!? Who are not me!? Impossible. Again: a semi-sensible short-sighted sort of local minimum if you're already a billionaire. But you're not, are you?