wealth distribution in america

[diamenz]

...in an easy to interpret video. you probably had no idea that it was this bad, did you? i didn't.

it would make more sense if those tax cuts were focused on the middle class first, as opposed to instead making the gap even larger and hoping for the best kind of trickle down effect. mind you this was over a decade ago, before the fauci virus, so it's obviously only gotten worse.



or for those that don't want to bother watching the video here's a snapshot. although the video goes into more revealing detail.

[Baller234]

"Income inequality" is one of those things that just doesn't bother me. That is one of the consequences of living in a free country. You are going to have highly exceptional people who do better than others. Granted that doesn't mean I think wealthy elites should be getting away with highway robbery, but I don't think that's the biggest contributing factor.

The tax cuts in the bill do help the middle class. It lowers the tax rate across the board, increases the standard deduction, increases the state and local deduction, raises the child tax credit, plus less taxes on tips and overtime.

Don't get me wrong I hate having to pay taxes, but no one in this country is poor because of an unfair tax system. Waving a magic wand and forcing wealthier people to pay more taxes isn't going to trickle down to anyone either. Money we give the government never trickles down.

[Bill Gates]

Wow I remember that video from eons ago.

Sadly, it is actually MUCH MUCH worse than what you are showing here. Like 4X worse. Covid inflation made the gap so much bigger. Billionaires saw their wealth grow exponentially.


Money actually "trickles up" to the rich. If you give the poor a bunch of money, they will spend it, and it then goes straight to the wealthy. HOWEVER, this is still much better than giving it directly to the wealthy in hopes that it will trickle down, because the poor still get fed in the process. The correct way to do things, is to heavy tax the elite wealthy regularly, and cycle it to the bottom. (what most people think socialism is, but it isn't)

Around $1 Billion in wealth, quality of living basically flatlines. You can buy whatever you want. Retire on a private island, whatever. No reason to have more than that.

[Baller234]

Bill Gates why stop at a billion? You could retire on a lot less than a billion.

Devon Booker just signed $145m over 2 years. Even after taxes he could retire and never have to work again while living a life of extreme luxury. If he plays his cards right and doesn't frivolously blow away his fortune, his family will be wealthy elites for generations. Should we put a cap on his income too?

I'm curious why you would stop at a billion when half a billion or even a quarter billion is roughly the same thing. Anyone who is worth a quarter billion dollars is probably in the top .001% and doesn't have to work again a day in their life.

[Bill Gates]

Bill Gates why stop at a billion? You could retire on a lot less than a billion.

Devon Booker just signed $145m over 2 years. Even after taxes he could retire and never have to work again while living a life of extreme luxury. If he plays his cards right and doesn't frivolously blow away his fortune, his family will be wealthy elites for generations. Should we put a cap on his income too?

I'm curious why you would stop at a billion when half a billion or even a quarter billion is roughly the same thing. Anyone who is worth a quarter billion dollars is probably in the top .001% and doesn't have to work again a day in their life.

It was just an obligatory resonse. However there are homes and yachts that are ~$100m. You can retire on pennies. I am just saying that "standard of living" flatlines at some point. Where you can't even out purchase someone else. Having $1B you are basically living no different than me, or Elon. Although you still wouldn't be able to purchase Twitter.

IMO the way it should work is that the taxes should increase exponentially. Right now it maxes at 37% if you make like $600k, and everyone after that pays the same amount. It needs to keep going up, forever. Certain things can be protected like stocks holdings. No one should be forced to sell their company.

But people like Bezos and Elon? Who cashed in billions of their stock? Should be taxed to holy hell.

[Baller234]

It was just an obligatory resonse. However there are homes and yachts that are ~$100m. You can retire on pennies. I am just saying that "standard of living" flatlines at some point. Where you can't even out purchase someone else. Having $1B you are basically living no different than me, or Elon. Although you still wouldn't be able to purchase Twitter.

IMO the way it should work is that the taxes should increase exponentially. Right now it maxes at 37% if you make like $600k, and everyone after that pays the same amount. It needs to keep going up, forever. Certain things can be protected like stocks holdings. No one should be forced to sell their company.

But people like Bezos and Elon? Who cashed in billions of their stock? Should be taxed to holy hell.

This sounds like nothing but jealousy though. Who are you to determine that someone's lifestyle is too much? Do you understand how privileged you are? There are millions of people around the globe who have a fraction of what you do. The gap between you and some poor child in Africa is way more vast than the gap between you and Jeff Bezos. Even a modest single family home in the midwest would be akin to a royal palace for some people.

People like you keep insisting that Bezos shouldn't have all this money, but there's only one problem. He created a company that generates $600 billion in annual revenue. Every time you order a product from Amazon, you're giving Jeff Bezos more money. He hasn't stolen that money from you, you gave it to him voluntarily. I'm curious, do you make a habit of turning down money when someone is gladly giving it to you?

When someone creates a company like that and they're the primary shareholder, why wouldn't they be entitled to those returns? Who should get it instead? The government? Why, so they can steal it and funnel it to god knows what? Jeff Bezos and Amazon has improved the quality of life for more people than any modern government program.

It really just sounds like you're fueled by jealousy.

[Bill Gates]

This sounds like nothing but jealousy though. Who are you to determine that someone's lifestyle is too much? Do you understand how privileged you are? There are millions of people around the globe who have a fraction of what you do. The gap between you and some poor child in Africa is way more vast than the gap between you and Jeff Bezos. Even a modest single family home in the midwest would be akin to a royal palace for some people.

People like you keep insisting that Bezos shouldn't have all this money, but there's only one problem. He created a company that generates $600 billion in annual revenue. Every time you order a product from Amazon, you're giving Jeff Bezos more money. He hasn't stolen that money from you, you gave it to him voluntarily. I'm curious, do you make a habit of turning down money when someone is gladly giving it to you?

When someone creates a company like that and they're the primary shareholder, why wouldn't they be entitled to those returns? Who should get it instead? The government? Why, so they can steal it and funnel it to god knows what? Jeff Bezos and Amazon has improved the quality of life for more people than any modern government program.

It really just sounds like you're fueled by jealousy.

It is a solution the problem outlined in the OP. Do you have a solution that does not redistribute wealth from the top earners, where all our wealth is, to the other 90% of the country? Or do you just want to defend the problem and safe guard the wealth of people who do not need it at the cost of your own wealth?

If you sense jealousy from any of that? That is a projection. We can't have a real a debate about how to better the situation as long as you are fighting for them and not yourself.

Funny enough, most of the 1% agree with me on this. You are fighting for the wealth of people who understand it's an issue.

[rmt]

Seems to me that those complaining most about wealth inequality are those who (more likely) advocate for open borders - inviting in more people who will tip the scale even further.

[Bill Gates]

Seems to me that those complaining most about wealth inequality are those who (more likely) advocate for open borders - inviting in more people who will tip the scale even further.

Not if the country of Mexico is included in the scale.

[rmt]

Not if the country of Mexico is included in the scale.

Huh? Are you saying that Mexicans are included in "America"? I thought the video made it pretty clear it was about the USA.

[Bill Gates]

Huh? Are you saying that Mexicans are included in "America"? I thought the video made it pretty clear it was about the USA.

I'm just saying that from the liberal standpoint, helping those at the bottom doesn't really include borders. Humans are humans. It would be hypocritical to say "we should keep those ultra-poor struggling people out so that the wealth gap within our own borders looks better!".

[rmt]

I'm just saying that from the liberal standpoint, helping those at the bottom doesn't really include borders. Humans are humans. It would be hypocritical to say "we should keep those ultra-poor struggling people out so that the wealth gap within our own borders looks better!".

I'm not the one complaining about wealth distribution in America. I think it's great that Bezos, a local Miami Palmetto Sr High (the field that my church group plays frisbee on) alumni can rise to a billionaire or that any of the basketball players who we watch can make more money than most people can dream of - only in America.

Pretty sure that if you include/invite the whole world (as some of you advocate), the imbalance becomes even worse. Is that hypocritical if YOUR (liberal) AIM is to improve wealth distribution in America - seems pretty clear cut to me.

[rmt]

I'm just saying that from the liberal standpoint, helping those at the bottom doesn't really include borders. Humans are humans. It would be hypocritical to say "we should keep those ultra-poor struggling people out so that the wealth gap within our own borders looks better!".

I'm not the one complaining about wealth distribution in America. I think it's great that Bezos, a local Miami Palmetto Sr High (the field that my church group plays frisbee on) alumni can rise to a billionaire or that any of the basketball players who we watch can make more money than most people can dream of - only in America.

Pretty sure that if you include/invite the whole world (as some of you advocate), the imbalance becomes even worse. Is that hypocritical if YOUR (liberal) AIM is to improve wealth distribution in America - seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Bill Gates]

Again, it is more of a right wing take to help only those within the US borders. Yes many want to help the poor and middle classes here in the US, but also in Mexico as well where they are struggling even more.

[Bill Gates]

If you don't think wealth distribution is an issue here, you should look into countries like Australia or Belgium that have much better distribution.

The middle class in Australia is much bigger than the US (per capita) and they are worth 2X as much as the middle class here.

The average middle class citizen the US is worth ~$190k. The average middle class citizen in Australia is worth ~$380k. Those countries report more happiness, have better longevity, etc.