What a load of rationalizing, self-contradicting garbage that shows you don't understand the first thing about economics.
You don't appear to understand the issue with wealth inequality. The problem isn't that there are rich people. The problem is that there are fewer opportunities for common folks to get good-paying jobs that gave them a middle-class lifestyle....$2.5 million isn't really a lot esp. if you count real estate. It's from real estate, investments, government pensions and earnings from three books. I'm surprised he has so little money at his age.
LOL! Sander built his career railing against "millionaires". There is no "wealth equality" if millionaires exist. Most of the population will never be close to that level regardless of what system you have, especially if it's socialism, which destroys wealth. What makes his hypocrisy even worse is that he got rich almost entirely through a political career. From the Politico article above:
"Sanders also used his meager means to buttress his political aims, wielding it almost as a kind of authenticator for the crux of his lodestar view of the haves and have-nots. He lambasted “a United States Congress composed of millionaires.” He said again and again that it wasn’t right that their elected representatives appeared in his estimation to disproportionately serve “the interests of corporations and big business—their fellow millionaires.”...
“He became the very thing he criticized others for becoming and at the same time didn’t fix any of the problems he’s been railing about that got him to this point,” Boston-based Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh told me.
“He almost at times sounds like he thinks it’s inherently evil to be well-off,” veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum said in an interview."
Now he defensively says things like “If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too” and “You know, I have a college degree,” that show how out of touch he is. That’s almost “Let them eat cake”ish; not like the real Marie Antoinette, but the propaganda caricature of her.
He needs to fly in order to campaign. What does it matter if he uses a commercial jet or a private jet? Same difference.
Wow. So much for that global warming crap, I guess. As I cited above, even other Democrats were grumbling about his excessive private jet use and trying to persuade him to fly commercial more often to no avail.
The problem is that there are fewer opportunities for common folks to get good-paying jobs that gave them a middle-class lifestyle. Too many people are struggling financially and living paycheck to paycheck with no savings. It causes problems like political instability, crime, hopelessness, depression and suicides, etc.
There are a lot more of those job opportunities in America than in socialist countries, which is why the USA is the world’s #1 desired immigration destination by far. There are also more opportunities to become rich in America like Bernie Sanders did. He ironically lived the American Dream he seeks to deny others.
Also, Reagan's huge tax cuts for the rich allowed them to keep more income and the common folks kept less. Bush and Trump continued the tax cuts for the rich. Now middle-income people pay more in taxes than billionaires which mean more struggling.
That’s insanely wrong and makes no logical sense. First, middle class people don’t pay anywhere near the tax rate that high income people do. US taxation is so progressive that the top 10% of earners pay
most federal income taxes, way more than their income share. The bottom 50% of earners pay almost none of the revenue pie. Second, Reagan and Trump both cut taxes across the board. Reagan even ended inflationary bracket creep that had been acting as an automatic tax hike for middle class families for years, tying the tax brackets to inflation for the first time. Both presidents’ policies, especially Reagan’s, facilitated strong economic growth. The 1980s Reagan boom featured explosive GDP growth hitting 8% and over a million net jobs created in one month alone in September 1983. Jobs were created so fast those years that the high unemployment rate he inherited sank fast despite millions of new people entering the work force. A majority of women became employed for the first in history in the 80s. The US middle class saw a huge improvement in standard of living, including in those well compensated jobs you were talking about.
Socialism doesn’t do that. Freedom does.
reply
share
Keelai (31779)
4 years ago
Look up the definition of wealth inequality (not equality). It basically means that the rich are controlling a greater percentage of society's wealth. The top 1% has 90% of U.S. wealth which has created the Second Gilded Age. That leads to anger because everyone else becomes poorer and struggles financially leading to political instability. Similar situation is happening in countries around the world which is why there are mass demonstrations in the street and populist leaders taking advantage of the anger and resentment.
Growing inequality chart
https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-wealth-inequality-chart.jpg
There are many reasons for this. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich is one. He bragged about lowering Federal taxes, but states and localities had to raise their taxes since less federal dollars were coming in therefore the middle-class paid the same. He also introduced the sin tax which was more taxes for the middle-class. Quality of life went down because of closings and fewer services. My mother was laid-off and I know children died in my area because of his policies. When he was shot, people in my area cheered because of the harm he did.
Top 1% control 90% of wealth but pay only 37.3% percentage of taxes which means they're not paying their fair share. The rich tax rate went from 90% in the 1950s to 37% now, but they pay much less (even none) since their income isn't from a salary.
There's nothing wrong with making money. Just pay your fair share of taxes and don't exploit your employees.
"There are a lot more of those job opportunities in America than in socialist countries, which is why the USA is the world’s #1 desired immigration destination by far."
Non sequitor. The reality is that many Americans are struggling with debt, housing payments and health costs as well as working two or three low-paying jobs. My coworker is working two full-time jobs. That's insanity!
reply
share
Keelai (31779)
4 years ago
I find it odd that conservatives are anti-education and science. Rep. Governors like Scott Walker have defunded schools which destroy opportunities for children to find good-paying jobs.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
4 years ago
Look up the definition of wealth inequality (not equality). It basically means that the rich are controlling a greater percentage of society's wealth. The top 1% has 90% of U.S. wealth which has created the Second Gilded Age.
I said "wealth equality" on purpose which is obvious from the context of my sentence, even the first "Gilded Age" was a propagandistic misnomer, and it's getting old to be repeatedly told I somehow don't "understand" this or need to "look up" that by someone with a double digit IQ who clearly has no grasp of any of these issues. Just make your damn argument if you can find one.
That leads to anger because everyone else becomes poorer and struggles financially leading to political instability. Similar situation is happening in countries around the world which is why there are mass demonstrations in the street and populist leaders taking advantage of the anger and resentment.
Hogwash. Economics isn't a zero sum game. Just because some become rich doesn't mean others become poorer. In fact in free countries it tends to be the opposite. Usually economic booms see an increase in inequality. As long as all segments are going up that's a good thing. Sometimes you also see growing inequality in economic downturns though.
Your chart compares 1998, the height of a boom, to 2013, the middle of the Obama stagnation. Inequality increased under Obama for the wrong reasons, because his fed artificially propped up the stock market (causing the top 1%'s wealth to surge) while his leftist policies hurt overall economic growth and depressed median income.
Populist unrest is due to a combination of factors, but mostly excessive immigration and globalization, not economic inequality per se. People like living in countries with distinct cultures and identities.
They see an out of touch ruling establishment class that decided to radically change the world without asking them and that disregards their interests. While economic unrest plays a part, because the middle class feels squeezed, they’ve also seen the failures of socialism, which is why right leaning populism has more traction than left leaning populism.
That’s especially true in countries like the US and UK, where modern leftists have also taken to catering to boutique fringe PC interests like gay/transgendered stuff or “climate change” while routinely attacking the bulk of regular people in the heart of the middle class as “racist” when they’re not and making their day to day lives worse with their policies. They’re sick of it. Trump won where Bernie lost, and Brits moved to the right of the Conservative Party on some issues like Brexit, leaving the Labour Party a shrinking afterthought.
There are many reasons for this. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich is one. He bragged about lowering Federal taxes, but states and localities had to raise their taxes since less federal dollars were coming in therefore the middle-class paid the same.
False. Overall taxation declined under Reagan, and state/local taxes varied widely as they do now, with many states (like Texas) not even having an income tax. The middle class improved mightily under Reagan.
I know children died in my area because of his policies. When he was shot, people in my area cheered because of the harm he did.
Reagan was shot in 1981 and his economic policies hadn’t even had time to have much effect. Complete BS on the children dying because of his policies lie. If people in your neighborhood really did cheer him being shot, that’s disgusting and says far more about them than Reagan.
Fortunately almost everyone else in the country disagreed, since Reagan won the biggest landslide in modern history in his 1984 reelection, taking 49 states and almost winning his opponent’s home state of Minnesota.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
4 years ago
Top 1% control 90% of wealth but pay only 37.3% percentage of taxes which means they're not paying their fair share. The rich tax rate went from 90% in the 1950s to 37% now, but they pay much less (even none) since their income isn't from a salary.
Category error. You’re equating wealth with income, not the same thing. We don’t have a “wealth tax” in this country. We tax things like income.
2016, IRS
Top 1%
Share of Adjusted Gross Income – 19.72%
Share of Federal Income Taxes – 37.32%
Top 10%
Share of Adjusted Gross Income – 46.56%
Share of Federal Income Taxes – 69.47%
Bottom 50%
Share of Adjusted Gross Income – 11.59%
Share of Federal Income Taxes – 3.04%
https://files.taxfoundation.org/20181113134559/Summary-of-the-Latest-Federal-Income-Tax-Data-2018-Update-FF-622.pdf
Inequality isn’t caused by the US tax structure, which is among the most progressive in the developed world with the top 10% paying 70% of the federal income tax burden. Unless you argue that the inefficiency caused by that progressive structure has hurt the economy which hurts low income people the most. A truly fair tax system would be flat, with everyone charged the same rate. Fortunately the US tax burden is light enough compared to other countries’ that it mitigates the damage of its progressive nature.
And virtually no one paid the 90% rate in the 1950s because it only applied to a tiny percentage and there were so many deductions even most of them could avoid it. But with the aforementioned bracket creep it was imposing a heavy burden on the economy by the early 1960s because it punished and disincentivized success, so JFK enacted proto-supply side tax cuts, taking the top marginal rate down to 70%, defending the cuts against liberal critics with his “a rising tide floats all boats” speech, and the economy boomed that decade. But the TMR was still high and becoming an increasing drag on the economy by the late 1970s, contributing to Carter era “malaise”. Because of that, exploding regulatory burdens, and bad Keynesian monetary policy, America was becoming stifled and felt less free. Reagan changed that and saved the US economy.
Nobody should have to pay 90%(!) of what they earn to the government.
That’s unfair and un-American.
"There are a lot more of those job opportunities in America than in socialist countries, which is why the USA is the world’s #1 desired immigration destination by far."
Non sequitor.
No it’s not. Greater American freedom and opportunity is why people flee more socialist countries to get there. The US has problems, but they aren't going to be solved by ignoring global and historical empirical evidence and making things worse.
The reality is that many Americans are struggling with debt, housing payments and health costs as well as working two or three low-paying jobs. My coworker is working two full-time jobs.
Explain how crippling the economy by taxing employers more will improve rather than worsen your alleged friend's life. Right now, for the first time on record, there are more job openings than Americans looking for employment. It’s a worker’s market. Wages are growing faster than they have in over a decade.
I find it odd that conservatives are anti-education and science. Rep. Governors like Scott Walker have defunded schools which destroy opportunities for children to find good-paying jobs.
More hogwash. Liberals are “anti-science” if either side is. They reject biological gender realities, they’re often Luddites fearful of technology who oppose things like fracking and nuclear power, some openly want to rollback or end human civilization to appease their earth worship cult, and they’re far less supportive of the space program than conservatives are, as we’ve even seen on this board.
The left is also anti-education in that leftists have wrecked the education system. They viewed it as a weapon they could use to brainwash children so they seized control of it from the moderates and conservatives who mostly ran it back when it worked. While many private schools are high quality, K-12 government schools rank low among developed nations in part because of the corrupt stranglehold the teachers’ unions have, and their power to block needed reforms. Walker defeated those unions in part to help improve education quality. Schools should exist for the sake of students, not teachers. And we've seen what a sad scam the university system has become, from snowflakes to entrenching identity politics (including racial bigotry) to spiraling tuition due to government involvement. It's about ideological indoctrination now more than true education.
reply
share