Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesdon't lie. you DO.
the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.
which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)
You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.
One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?
Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?
Why does that make you uncomfortable?Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources.
It is affordable. It is available. It is portable. Duh.Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.
Only "modest" success? ROFL What would be great success in your mind? Free? ROFLBetter minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.
blah blah blah the sky is falling we are all gonna die of thirst... blah blah blahAs for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.
Huh? WTF Why should I provide you with free power? Are you some sort of Marxist?Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.
And? Please explain your alternative to working for someone, everyone for themselves? ROFL Ok by me. I don't need to work for the man.Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.
Yeah that's pretty much how nearly every single American lives. Everyone has a big screen TV, computers, video games, microwave ovens, nearly everyone in this country has a wireless phone. Even the "poor" folks are over weight because of this life of leisure and plenty. What did you think this life of leisure and plenty would include, that the poorest of this country do not have aplenty? Did you think money would grow on trees or would not be used any more like star trek?I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty.
I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesYou people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.
One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
Why does that make you uncomfortable?Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources.
It is affordable. It is available. It is portable. Duh.Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.
Only "modest" success? ROFL What would be great success in your mind? Free? ROFL
blah blah blah the sky is falling we are all gonna die of thirst... blah blah blah
Huh? WTF Why should I provide you with free power? Are you some sort of Marxist?
And? Please explain your alternative to working for someone, everyone for themselves? ROFL Ok by me. I don't need to work for the man.
Yeah that's pretty much how nearly every single American lives. Everyone has a big screen TV, computers, video games, microwave ovens, nearly everyone in this country has a wireless phone. Even the "poor" folks are over weight because of this life of leisure and plenty. What did you think this life of leisure and plenty would include, that the poorest of this country do not have aplenty? Did you think money would grow on trees or would not be used any more like star trek?I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty.
I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.
Bull shit. Paychecks for engineers sky rocketed during the dot com era. Now they have scaled back a bit, but it's still way over what it was pre dot com. What goes up comes down. Get over it. Or talk to your representatives about the offshoring and inshoring efforts they are allowing.
If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?
Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?
Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.
And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!
If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?
Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?
Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.
And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesYou people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.
One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesI am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.
What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.
Why?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.
Why?
Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.
Yeah, everybody has a lot of gadgets. Some of them are pretty cool and I'll take some credit for that since I work in consumer electronics. What people don't have (increasingly) are homes that they can own, good medical care, high quality food (no McDonald's doesn't count) and quality education for the kiddies.
Yeah, you want to discount that our economy is so fragile that $4 gas sent it over the tipping point a few years ago. Whatever. If you actually looked around, you'd see a ton of people working long hard hours with not much to show for it and neither time nor energy to change that very much.
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.
Why?
Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.
Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?
Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.
Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?
Free cars for everyone! Yeah that's it, a kia for everyone! And all the food you can eat and all the health care you want. And free houses. And free utilities. And free gas. And free college. And free smart phones. Literally millions of free dollars. Well, free everyone that doesn't pay AMT. And no one has to work if they don't want to! Screw the rich!
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.
Why?
Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.
Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?
Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.
Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?
The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
Yeah, everybody has a lot of gadgets. Some of them are pretty cool and I'll take some credit for that since I work in consumer electronics. What people don't have (increasingly) are homes that they can own, good medical care, high quality food (no McDonald's doesn't count) and quality education for the kiddies.
Yeah, you want to discount that our economy is so fragile that $4 gas sent it over the tipping point a few years ago. Whatever. If you actually looked around, you'd see a ton of people working long hard hours with not much to show for it and neither time nor energy to change that very much.
Home ownership is high for everyone that wants a home bad enough to work for it. Some people don't share in your desire to own a home. There's nothing wrong with renting.
Homes and Food are better today than they were decades back. As to medical care we have people running around these days who resemble the six-million dollar man. New knees, hips, organs... diseases left and right cured, you have got to kidding me.
You can't force people to learn. They have to want it themselves.
$4 gas is dirt cheap. Check the price of gas based on inflation. It's as cheap now as it has ever been. The dollar's value is lower and we get paid more. Duh. You want the price of gas to be what it was back in the 60s but you want your paycheck to be what it was at the peak of the dot com era. ROFL dude
... "people working long hard hours with not much to show for it"...
Blah blah ... What do you consider long and hard 50hrs a week? 80hrs? 120hrs?
Working hard isn't always smart. Esp. not if you have nothing to show for it.
Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?
The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.
The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.
Ok Mr. Independent, where do you think you'd be if the US government hadn't funded developments in VLSI and the internet?
ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.
Ok Mr. Independent, where do you think you'd be if the US government hadn't funded developments in VLSI and the internet?
Much further along than we are now. Govco spending almost always cripples progress. Global warming. ROFL But I'll give you that our war machines are really cool, and we would not have nearly as good a war machine without this war hawk government.
