Redistribution of American Wealth

Did Michelle buy a new penis with her money?

 

I believe Pelosi’s 120 million came from her husband’s real estate dealings. Obama’s money came from the lecture circuit I think.

 

Taking Africa?

 

What faulty assumption - shoot your arrows straight - are ye drunken ?

 

~ Send all money over $300,000. per year to me @JamesCalifornia for fair and equitable distribution to those of lesser means.

 

That because I believe there are no simple solutions we should just give up. What I do believe is that nation building in Africa will be every bit as fruitless as it has been every where else and equally problematic as to results. We can offer what aid we can but in the end the peoples of Africa are going to have to figure out what works for their individual countries. And the chief crime if the colonial period was it delayed the start of those necessary experiments in governance by about 100 years and dismantled the nascent political states that were around at the time.

 

Nice chart, now compare that with the income percentiles...

You just proved my point, thanks.

 

You seem to be confused about the nature of the discussions about wealth disparity (as you put it) which are really about income disparity. The solutions I've heard involve raising the income of low wage workers, reducing the unconscionable salaries of top executives, adjusting the tax code to stop advantaging the rich, etc. Where have you heard about confiscating money from the wealthy? Or is this..........."If so, how much should be taken away?".............just another wildly false assertion like Dems are going to confiscate your guns?

 

"Ok explain the distinction."

You want me to explain the distinction between income and wealth? Surely you don't need me to explain something so elemental.

 

Ok then you have evaded every point.

But I will start with this and you can try again.

How much income should one be allowed to have?

How much wealth should one be allowed to have?

And how should this be enforced?

Then you can deal with my other points?

 

That's it? That's pretty lame, you spew out a few names with no facts to explain your position? Sad.

 

Read the chart.

 

It's a simple question.

Mr Jones is out there turning the soil early in spring, blending in fertilizer, then carefully planting, watering, weeding and caring for his garden all summer long, and produces a great crop.
Mr Smith, the guy next door took the seeds his neighbor Jones gave him and threw them into the wind, assuming nature would do the rest. His "garden" produced- weeds.
How much of Mr Jones crop is Mr Smith entitled to?

Wealth is not so much the money itself- it is the ability to produce money. When you give people unearned money, they only see something "free" to party with until they burn through it- never an opportunity to invest, cultivate and grow it. Thus, no matter how much you "help" them, they never become self-sufficient, independent, or contribute to society... and they will never gain the ability to control their own destiny's. Giving people the knowledge of how to make money is easy. Giving them the motivation to go do it- impossible. And not within the power of any other person to change; it must come from the individual. It is wrong to stand in their way and prevent them from trying. It is wrong to allow them to take what they have not earned from those who have accomplished, so they don't have to try.

What you do accomplish by giving them what they have not earned is their assurance in their belief that they are entitled to what other have, because others have.
You promote and justify dependence, you punish productivity and reward sloth.... and you don't really help anybody, because soon there will be no real gardners, people making the wealth grow instead of just using it up.

You can't do this "just some" and have that effect not occur. IF it occurs at all- it proves the assumption of entitlement, and the obligation of society to provide you a good life and happiness- which of course, neither will ever happen, leading to endless cries of injustice.

Nature simply says- "If you don't hunt..... you don't eat". Natures rules are very simple, and there are just a few. No governments, no shrinks or politicians or religions. However, the natural system has allowed millions of species to thrive for millions of years, without poisoning the planet or using up all the natural resources or destroying other species in the process. Now a thinking man might be tempted to ask how nature accomplishes this with ease and a minimal of rules, when we can't come close devoting about a third of our productivity into trying to control ourselves- with very little success.

Maybe, perhaps..... Nature, and every living thing on the face of the earth except us, knows something we don't?
Are we capable of learning idea we didn't invent in our own minds, and respecting them because they work and ours don't?
By ignoring natures rules, are we not instead generating the very means to create our own problems, our own crop of nasty weeds, pretend they are valuable and subsidize them?

 

As far as I am aware, no one is suggesting (including me) that income (or wealth) be statutorily limited. Is that clear enough for you or are you still confused?

 

If one is going to complain about wealth disparity then one should have a practical solution for dealing with it. The only way to deal with it is to pass legislation that would effectively limit it or confiscate excess wealth for redistribution. If you have an alternative plan I’d love to hear it.

 

Allow me to reiterate.........."The solutions I've heard involve raising the income of low wage workers, reducing the unconscionable salaries of top executives, adjusting the tax code to stop advantaging the rich, etc."

In principle, do you think the obscene wealth/income disparity around the world is a problem in need of solving?

 

I do not and stand by my flat tax solution.
You have presented a critical problem in your opinion but have proposed nothing practical to solve it.

 

You don't think wealth disparity is a problem but offer a flat tax as a solution? Hmmmmmm. I'm not sure how what is essentially a regressive tax system solves anything. It may actually exacerbate the problem you say doesn't exist.

Here are a few ideas...........

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/5-ways-to-fight-wealth-inequality.html

https://www.thebalance.com/income-inequality-in-america-3306190

 

In your own words please and I guarantee you that a flat tax would garner more money from the super wealthy than they are paying presently.

The fact that the super wealthy so vehemently oppose it speaks volumes.

 

Who's talking "Nation Building" ? - I was talking population control - and keeping industrialization in Check.

 

Communists never outright state their intentions. If they did it would be rejected.

 

Now there's an intelligent response. You have me stumped. No pun intended.

 

Oh, but influence peddling is illegal, it's called 18 U.S. Code § 201 Bribery of public officials and witnesses And the Hobbs Act, etc.,
However, Under McDonnell v US The ruling narrowed the legal definition of public corruption and made it harder for prosecutors to prove that a political official engaged in bribery
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-474_ljgm.PDF
Commentary
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/0...influence-peddling-mcdonnell-v-united-states/
So, with that ruling, with a bit of cleverness, someone can bribe a public official in such a way to get around the new narrow definition.
The point is, Congress has already made influence peddling illegal though proving it now made harder under McDonnell V US. So, you ought to do your homework before you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

Industrialization is what eventually brings about population control because industrialization is what gets people away from subsistence farming, produces the sort of advanced medical care That means 90 to 95% of your children live past 5 years, and adults routinely live to see 80. And more importantly that children are an economic burden rather than extra field hands. India is where the US was in the 1930's.