Of the countries ranked highest in quality of life and happiness, many tend to have socialists policies.
83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
- Thread starter Debaser82
- Start date
Of the countries ranked highest in quality of life and happiness, many tend to have socialists policies.
Haven't they tried that sorta thing before? I seem to recall a minor event in a small country arnd 1917? What was it exactly?Quote from Debaser82:
Still, only 1%....
Why not seize all their assets and pay of the national debt?
At any rate, you can't seize assets, but you sure can impose higher taxes.
I am also not entirely sure what your point is. Is it the income inequality in the US? Lack of social mobility?
He has no point. He's an internet arsonist.
Let's say the gubmint went to the Gates, Ellisons, and Waltons and said "we will appropriate your wealth unless you sign this document which promises to reinvest 99.9% of profits back in the business. Your consumption can be no more than .01% per year of your total wealth."
.01*$1 billion is $10 million, which is probably much more than Buffett or Gates spends per year, even accounting for private jets.
In that case, what is the difference between gov't ownership and private ownership? In both cases, more than 99.9% of the profits are reinvested. Labor takes the same percentage of revenues in both cases, usually around 65%. The wealthy may own an enormous percentage of the wealth, but the vast majority of the benefit of that accumulated wealth accrues to labor. What matters is how the wealthy allocate the profits - that's how they earn their keep in society, so to speak. And as long as they don't blow it in casinos in Monaco, like the Saudi sheiks, they're doing their job.
.01*$1 billion is $10 million, which is probably much more than Buffett or Gates spends per year, even accounting for private jets.
In that case, what is the difference between gov't ownership and private ownership? In both cases, more than 99.9% of the profits are reinvested. Labor takes the same percentage of revenues in both cases, usually around 65%. The wealthy may own an enormous percentage of the wealth, but the vast majority of the benefit of that accumulated wealth accrues to labor. What matters is how the wealthy allocate the profits - that's how they earn their keep in society, so to speak. And as long as they don't blow it in casinos in Monaco, like the Saudi sheiks, they're doing their job.
I see that I confuse profits with total wealth. The point still stands.
Warren Buffett makes the same point:
http://www.valueinvesting.de/en/inflation-equity-investor-by-warren-buffett.htm
Investment income is a small portion of national income, and if per capita real income could grow at a healthy rate alongside zero real investment returns, social justice might well be advanced.
. . .
But the potential for real improvement in the welfare of workers at the expense of affluent stockholders is not significant. Employee compensation already totals twenty-eight times the amount paid out in dividends, and a lot of those dividends now go to pension funds, nonprofit institutions such as universities, and individual stockholders who are not affluent. Under these circumstances, if we now shifted all dividends of wealthy stockholders into wages - something we could do only once, like killing a cow (or, if you prefer, a pig) - we would increase real wages by less than we used to obtain from one year's growth of the economy.
http://www.valueinvesting.de/en/inflation-equity-investor-by-warren-buffett.htm
Investment income is a small portion of national income, and if per capita real income could grow at a healthy rate alongside zero real investment returns, social justice might well be advanced.
. . .
But the potential for real improvement in the welfare of workers at the expense of affluent stockholders is not significant. Employee compensation already totals twenty-eight times the amount paid out in dividends, and a lot of those dividends now go to pension funds, nonprofit institutions such as universities, and individual stockholders who are not affluent. Under these circumstances, if we now shifted all dividends of wealthy stockholders into wages - something we could do only once, like killing a cow (or, if you prefer, a pig) - we would increase real wages by less than we used to obtain from one year's growth of the economy.
Quote from Debaser82:
Still, only 1%....
Why not seize all their assets and pay of the national debt?
FU, you think I worked 70+hrs a week for 8yrs to give it to some pos that doesn't feel like working. No I don't have some expensive college education to be where im at today, it was hard work to be where I am. All the wealthy people I know worked their asses off for it.