Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
Most economic inequality in any system is the result of poor choices. Most. Yes, factories close and move away, and jobs become obsolete with technological improvements and changes in the marketplace. But new opportunities abound for those who look and make better choices. A friend of mine and his wife lost a business during the economic downturn and now earn $2500 per weekend driving for Uber while growing their new business. And both are in their 50's. For those willing to work, the opportunities are out there.
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
So you can't back up your mouth. Sweet Geezus do you have to be a Kunt in order to be a liberal? So the fact that Mark Zuckerberg is richer than me is bad but you can't say why. Got it.
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
Most economic inequality in any system is the result of poor choices. Most. Yes, factories close and move away, and jobs become obsolete with technological improvements and changes in the marketplace. But new opportunities abound for those who look and make better choices. A friend of mine and his wife lost a business during the economic downturn and now earn $2500 per weekend driving for Uber while growing their new business. And both are in their 50's. For those willing to work, the opportunities are out there.
Is economic inequality necessarily bad? I'd say yes if the the rich people have all the money. But even though the gap in wealth between myself and the top 1% has certainly grown over the past 20 years, I've done quite well for myself and I don't really give a fuck if some tech guy has made billions. He didn't steal that money from me and his wealth doesn't hurt me.
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
So you can't back up your mouth. Sweet Geezus do you have to be a Kunt in order to be a liberal? So the fact that Mark Zuckerberg is richer than me is bad but you can't say why. Got it.
There is no need for me to back something up that is universally accepted. Your unwillingness to spend five minutes on Google isn't my problem. Your love of literal ignorance explains a lot.
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
So you can't back up your mouth. Sweet Geezus do you have to be a Kunt in order to be a liberal? So the fact that Mark Zuckerberg is richer than me is bad but you can't say why. Got it.
There is no need for me to back something up that is universally accepted. Your unwillingness to spend five minutes on Google isn't my problem. Your love of literal ignorance explains a lot.
Lots of words to just say you can't back up your mouth. I love the "universally accepted" bullshit. That's all you need to make your argument. Just claim something is "universally accepted."
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
Most economic inequality in any system is the result of poor choices. Most. Yes, factories close and move away, and jobs become obsolete with technological improvements and changes in the marketplace. But new opportunities abound for those who look and make better choices. A friend of mine and his wife lost a business during the economic downturn and now earn $2500 per weekend driving for Uber while growing their new business. And both are in their 50's. For those willing to work, the opportunities are out there.
Is economic inequality necessarily bad? I'd say yes if the the rich people have all the money. But even though the gap in wealth between myself and the top 1% has certainly grown over the past 20 years, I've done quite well for myself and I don't really give a fuck if some tech guy has made billions. He didn't steal that money from me and his wealth doesn't hurt me.
Everything is cyclical, so in many cases no, it's not necessarily bad. But I get the point lefties make about how there's enough money to go around if people don't hoard it or divert it away from feeding, clothing, and housing everyone. And that's a nice idea in theory, but one that will never, ever work in practice.
The problem lefties refuse to address or understand is how small the output or yield is from government when you launder your money through that apparatus. Seattle and San Francisco, for example, have raised taxes enormously over the past decade, with nothing but shit and tent-covered sidewalks to show for it, virtually no police protection, crumbling roads, apathetic government agencies and a socialist/communist city council that would probably choose anarchy over getting off their asses and breaking a sweat. Enlarging government and handing it more money has not improved transportation, test scores in public schools, public health, maintenance of roads, sidewalks, parks, greenbelts and critical areas. The environment has gone to shit, the water is polluted as ever, and older folks can't afford to retire in the city anymore.
But the utterly dependent socialist mindset lives in denial of it all, and goes on believing the bad people are the ones who work hard enough or smart enough to get rich. Insanity, 101.
I love the title of this thread, because if poor people "rigged the system," there would be no system to speak of. Honestly, who do you want in charge? People who know how to operate the system? Or ideological neophytes who can't earn enough to provide for themselves? I'm going with the rich, 100 times out of 100.
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
Most economic inequality in any system is the result of poor choices. Most. Yes, factories close and move away, and jobs become obsolete with technological improvements and changes in the marketplace. But new opportunities abound for those who look and make better choices. A friend of mine and his wife lost a business during the economic downturn and now earn $2500 per weekend driving for Uber while growing their new business. And both are in their 50's. For those willing to work, the opportunities are out there.
Is economic inequality necessarily bad? I'd say yes if the the rich people have all the money. But even though the gap in wealth between myself and the top 1% has certainly grown over the past 20 years, I've done quite well for myself and I don't really give a fuck if some tech guy has made billions. He didn't steal that money from me and his wealth doesn't hurt me.
Everything is cyclical, so in many cases no, it's not necessarily bad. But I get the point lefties make about how there's enough money to go around if people don't hoard it or divert it away from feeding, clothing, and housing everyone. And that's a nice idea in theory, but one that will never, ever work in practice.
The problem lefties refuse to address or understand is how small the output or yield is from government when you launder your money through that apparatus. Seattle and San Francisco, for example, have raised taxes enormously over the past decade, with nothing but shit and tent-covered sidewalks to show for it, virtually no police protection, crumbling roads, apathetic government agencies and a socialist/communist city council that would probably choose anarchy over getting off their asses and breaking a sweat. Enlarging government and handing it more money has not improved transportation, test scores in public schools, public health, maintenance of roads, sidewalks, parks, greenbelts and critical areas. The environment has gone to shit, the water is polluted as ever, and older folks can't afford to retire in the city anymore.
But the utterly dependent socialist mindset lives in denial of it all, and goes on believing the bad people are the ones who work hard enough or smart enough to get rich. Insanity, 101.
Care to provide a link for that? I'm genuinely curious to see the education, crime, and pollution stats over the past 10 years in Seattle and San Fran. Comparing it to City expenditures would be awesome too.
Then why would you post a graph with the heading: Ultra-wealthy take more of the pie that makes no mention that the size of the pie is much greater today than it was in 1962?
How am I harmed by Zuckerberg's wealth? If the top 1% are taking a large share of the "pie" but the pie is far larger how am I hurt by that? Also, how much of the income taxes are paid by this 1%?
Rich people aren't getting richer by stealing money from poor people.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of economic inequality isn't my problem. There are countless papers published on the subject, feel free to educate yourself.
Most economic inequality in any system is the result of poor choices. Most. Yes, factories close and move away, and jobs become obsolete with technological improvements and changes in the marketplace. But new opportunities abound for those who look and make better choices. A friend of mine and his wife lost a business during the economic downturn and now earn $2500 per weekend driving for Uber while growing their new business. And both are in their 50's. For those willing to work, the opportunities are out there.
Is economic inequality necessarily bad? I'd say yes if the the rich people have all the money. But even though the gap in wealth between myself and the top 1% has certainly grown over the past 20 years, I've done quite well for myself and I don't really give a fuck if some tech guy has made billions. He didn't steal that money from me and his wealth doesn't hurt me.
Everything is cyclical, so in many cases no, it's not necessarily bad. But I get the point lefties make about how there's enough money to go around if people don't hoard it or divert it away from feeding, clothing, and housing everyone. And that's a nice idea in theory, but one that will never, ever work in practice.
The problem lefties refuse to address or understand is how small the output or yield is from government when you launder your money through that apparatus. Seattle and San Francisco, for example, have raised taxes enormously over the past decade, with nothing but shit and tent-covered sidewalks to show for it, virtually no police protection, crumbling roads, apathetic government agencies and a socialist/communist city council that would probably choose anarchy over getting off their asses and breaking a sweat. Enlarging government and handing it more money has not improved transportation, test scores in public schools, public health, maintenance of roads, sidewalks, parks, greenbelts and critical areas. The environment has gone to shit, the water is polluted as ever, and older folks can't afford to retire in the city anymore.
But the utterly dependent socialist mindset lives in denial of it all, and goes on believing the bad people are the ones who work hard enough or smart enough to get rich. Insanity, 101.
Good points up until the environment. Were you around in the 60’s and 70’s? We even had Indians crying on TV about it. Things are much better now in terms of air and water for the majority of the country.
Comments
The problem lefties refuse to address or understand is how small the output or yield is from government when you launder your money through that apparatus. Seattle and San Francisco, for example, have raised taxes enormously over the past decade, with nothing but shit and tent-covered sidewalks to show for it, virtually no police protection, crumbling roads, apathetic government agencies and a socialist/communist city council that would probably choose anarchy over getting off their asses and breaking a sweat. Enlarging government and handing it more money has not improved transportation, test scores in public schools, public health, maintenance of roads, sidewalks, parks, greenbelts and critical areas. The environment has gone to shit, the water is polluted as ever, and older folks can't afford to retire in the city anymore.
But the utterly dependent socialist mindset lives in denial of it all, and goes on believing the bad people are the ones who work hard enough or smart enough to get rich. Insanity, 101.