4 ms·
That's not an especially compelling argument. The Top 10% hold more than 77% of the wealth in the United States [1, 2]. And are much more efficient at convertin
by gerbal 12y ago
That's not an especially compelling argument. The Top 10% hold more than 77% of the wealth in the United States [1, 2]. And are much more efficient at converting short-term income into long term wealth than the lower 90% [2].
[1] http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
[2] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf
- thatswrong0 12y agoI don't see how that's a rebuttal to his actual point: > What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged. His point: the top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. That's a lot of money that could be used to improve the lives of the 90%, but it's being mismanaged by the government. He's saying, instead of increasing the amount of money that is going to be mismanaged by the government at the expense of the 10%, why not do more with what we already have?
- cpursley 12y agoExactly. I don't understand why we apply different rules to government. They are just a large human institution. If the Red Cross was struggling and asking for additional money when they already took in more than competing institutions, would we not look at their books and operations first before sending them more money?