Pops wrote: the already rich don't need to spend their income
the rich don't work, they gamble.
we're at peak economy and yet we keep shoveling money upwards hoping the Great Job Creators will save us.
mousepad wrote:I'm wondering. If they don't spend their money, they effectively take it out of circulation. They create deflation which increases the value of your and my money.
How many rich are there? And how much does their lifestyle cost per year?
If we assume they don't work, but mooch 100% then that's the cost other people (working people) have to carry. Kind of like some royalty. How much is that? Do we have a number?
All the accumulated stock and money in the bank is just fluff.
Wiki wrote:As of Q3 2019, the top 10% of households held 70% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2%
Guardian wrote:World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
Save us from what?
It's high time to embrace LESS, for the sake of all of us and for the sake of the future.
LESS production, LESS consumption, LESS work, LESS waste.
Pops wrote:mousepad wrote:I'm wondering. If they don't spend their money, they effectively take it out of circulation. They create deflation which increases the value of your and my money.
Except they don't sit on it, they gamble with it,
Here is income, and why the top owns so much more now:
Wiki wrote:As of Q3 2019, the top 10% of households held 70% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2%
Guardian wrote:World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
Why did we just give even greater tax breaks to the wealthy and corporate owners when they've been eating our lunch for the fifty years since reagan?
Truth be told the republicans in congress are captured by the owners.
mousepad wrote:I fail to understand why it matters. Please explain.
At what point does wealth become a problem?
I'm pretty sure non of the super rich got super rich because of high income. They got super rich because of stock of compony they founded increased in value.
Even if you're in the 1% of earners, your income ain't that high.
The rising gap in income (not wealth!) has much more to do with job demands. Highly skilled high tech workers can demand a high salary, uneducated easily replaced laborers cannot. Maybe shipping jobs overseas while importing unskilled and uneducated workers ain't the best idea for boosting the value of a simple worker?
At a certain point the wealth inequality certainly becomes a problem. If an ever smaller pleb population must feed and cloth mooching interest earners. Is that point reached? I'm not sure.
Currently the rich serve mostly as the politically correct scape goat for all of societies ills. Especially in the eyes of the Ds.
Because the world is global. There's a reason why the canton of Zug in Switzerland with it's extremely low taxes is home to a ridiculous numbers of big corps. Corps and people can and do move.
Instead of redistribution (taxing), what about some other ideas?
1. at a certain size, company must issue shares to all employees
2. the bigger the company the less a single owner can own shares of
3. no holding companies, all shares must be owned by individuals
4. hefty import duties. If it's consumed in America it's made in America!
5. reduce import of unskilled, uneducated workers. Boost the value of our own workers.
6. reduce inheritance to break intergenerational wealth. You start with a blank slate.
Pops wrote:1. at a certain size, company must issue shares to all employees
Ideologically I'm a syndicalist, basically worker owned business, so some of that sounds OK. The problem is everyone has different talents and not everyone is owner material.
mousepad wrote:I know you're in love with taxing.
Pops wrote:I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries.
But inequality is really damaging us.
Simply paying an equitable wage is all that's required, which they seem too greedy to do without coercion.
mousepad wrote:During the pandemic, a lot of people spent time and money doing home remodeling. Including myself.
The carpenter I hired cost double what it would have cost me 2 years earlier, simply because of shortage. That's the way to go. Make low level labor valuable and good salaries will follow.
mousepad wrote:Pops wrote:I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries.
Maybe. But what other options are there?
AdamB wrote:So what is your plan for keeping low level labor valuable, without it being an artificial construct?
Plantagenet wrote:mousepad wrote:Pops wrote:I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries.
Maybe. But what other options are there?
How about actually BUYING shares of the corporations?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests