The leftist claims that conservatives want decisions made by an elite are laughable, as that is the desire of the left, not the right.
Conservatives believe thecbestvdecisions are made by large numbers of individuals acting in their own interest in a market economy. Leftists want those decisions to be made by a relatively small elite in a central government.
No, you do:You fail at math.
BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!If the lowest 20% see a growth in income, they are no longer the lowest 20%, are they, genius?
Yes, they probably are, Einstein. Consider if everyone's income doubles. The lowest 20% are still the lowest 20%.
Nope. Guess who's "Not As Smart As a Fifth Grader."They would then be represented by other quintiles, wouldn't they?
You are just adding to your humiliation, now.There would then be new "lowest quintile members" to take their place, wouldn't there, Einstein?
Wrong and idiotic.That's true of every quintile represented in your pithy chart. Except the top one. The top one will always show an incredibly squiggly line, won't it? Why? BECAUSE THE TOP WILL ALWAYS BE THE TOP, and WEALTH HAS AN EASIER TIME CREATING MORE WEALTH THAN NO WEALTH DOES.
Wrong. The world's most prosperous economies generally have low income inequality, while the least prosperous ones typically have high income inequality.Because you do not understand economics in the slightest, you don't understand that it doesn't help anyone else that the wealthiest people make less; if anything, it hurts.
You continue to humiliate yourself.
If English is not your first language, you are excused.You are ignorant to economics.
Please explain how a landowner, for example, earns the money he charges for what government, the community and nature provide.Wealth is not something to be distributed; it is something to be earned.
No, the wealth the landowner takes out of production in return for contributing nothing TO production is truly recognized as real.Only through earning something is wealth truly recognized in an economy as real.
That's plainly a bald falsehood. You know absolutely nothing about economics or economic history. Nothing.I'll go one further: you cannot find any evidence IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that would be reflected differently in that chart. That chart represents the cold fiscal reality of all people in all time periods. But you have no ability to understand why.
LOL! You obviously know no math or economics.Defendable? Nevermind defense, buttercup, I'm on offense here, and I take offense to incredibly stupid posts by posters ignorant of economics and math.
No, it is not. It is an artifact of a plutistic system.You get bent out of shape about the "rich get richer" as though that is some sort of quantifiable injustice, when it is perfectly NATURAL and EXPECTED for that to happen.
It is my business if people get rich by the uncompensated violation of others' rights, which almost all the rich did:The wealthy are such by circumstantial family planning (none of your business if someone's grandfather became wealthy building a railroad, for instance, and left their heirs a fortune); by ingenuity (none of your business that Mark Zuckerberg did something you didn't have the brains to do); by hard work (none of your business if someone worked 18 hour days to build a company that was then sold for 20 million dollars), or by luck (none of your business if someone won the lottery).
"Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac
Wrong. The relevant FACT -- not "presumption" -- is that most of the wealthy have obtained most of their wealth unjustly, through privilege, not production, and society cannot heal this injury until it requires them to repay what they have taken.What we see from you is the presumption that because someone is wealthy, they need to pay more. Sorry, sunshine, that ain't gonna fly.
More absurd garbage with no basis in fact. Read and learn:They have the American Dream here, and not only paid many taxes on the way to that dream, but risked more than you'll ever risk, worked harder than you'll ever work, and likely sacrificed more than you'll ever sacrifice.
Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
Little of the super-duper uber-rich's wealth is earned by actual
productive contributions. It is obtained by making oneself the
beneficiary of unjust privileges, mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating
and dealing in these privileges.
I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."
2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges
3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources
4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges
5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!
6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources
7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!
8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!
9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...
11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"
12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."
13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership
14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege
15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!
16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege
17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege
18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive
19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)
20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege
21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges
Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made"
billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) could actually have made
the bulk of their money through actual productive contributions. The
rest were all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The
productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of
whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.
No, YOU fail. You have FAILED. You are a FAILURE.Your chart does not demonstrate any need to raise taxes. You fail.
Another absurd lie. Government produces valuable services and infrastructure. It is rich, greedy takers like landowners, banksters and IP monopolists who are non-wealth producers.An economy would do better if less money was taken out of it and controlled by a non-wealth producer like Government.
The money is being created by rich, greedy banksters, not printed by government.just what the hell did you EXPECT to take place as money keeps being printed??
Utter economic ignorance.Like I said: you're ignorant to economics, and the damage Keynesian monetary policy has on the very things about which you bleat. You want to 'fix' the wealth gap? Stop relying on printing currency with increasing numbers of zeroes on it.
It clearly IS happening, as the mushrooming homelessness problem proves.The only real gap that matters is if the lowest is going backwards in standards of living as the highest go forward - but that's not happening.
They provably are not. There are far more homeless now than there were 30 years ago. You are just spewing a tsunami of stupid lies.The poorest in this country are FAR better off than they were 30 years ago.
Objectively false.If everyone's income tripled, YOU WOULD BE IN THE EXACT SAME ECONOMIC CONDITION THAT YOU ARE NOW.
You FAIL. You have FAILED. You are a FAILURE.You lose.