@Baldimo,
Quote Blickers:
Quote:Political power is largely derived from economic power, if one small group has almost all the wealth they will have almost all the political power as well. And you are pretending not to see it.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:You keep saying this but if it were true, then Hillary would have been President.
Hillary did not represent the 1%, though they found her husband so competent in running the economy that they can live with her. Trump was more of a maverick than many conservatives like, but take a look at what he's done-go after Obamacare, put forward a tax bill which immensely favors the wealthy. And the white nationalist, anti-minority themes that Trump rode to victory on were stoked by the mainstream conservatives in previous years as well. Trump just took them to a higher level than they wanted.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:There has been no math presented except for your and Cy's attempt to show the "1%" wasn't a tax bracket but yet a measure of population, which I was able to prove wrong with math.
??? The 1%
isn't a tax bracket, it's the 1% of households with the most wealth, as defined by Zucman. This is yet another example of you trying to sound erudite about something you know nothing about and then declaring victory for yourself without even recognizing the question. And while we are at it, it does not matter how many individual people were in the top 1% in 1980 versus 2012, the important thing is that the wealthiest 1% of the households in 2012 had a much larger share of the wealth in 2012 than the top 1% of the households had in 1980. And the percentage the 1% has is headed up, up, up. Even a middle school student understands the difference between percentages and head counts, but you don't.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:You really need to step away from that lame ass 1 vs 99 mentality. Have you checked with the people in the other tax brackets and found out how they feel about the economic position?
A. The 1% isn't a tax bracket.
B. It doesn't matter how the population "feels" about it, the chart merely mentions what percentage of the total wealth of the country goes to the wealthiest 1%. That share is increasing. You have tried every conceivable method of changing the subject to some irrelevancy, from what a tax bracket is to how the population emotionally feels about something, because you are desperate to avoid the simple truth the chart shows: The wealthiest 1% of the households have gone from owning less than a quarter of the country's total wealth in 1980 to owning nearly half of the country's total wealth in 2012. At this rate, in forty years 1% of the households in the country will own 99% of the wealth of the country. And you'll be posting so what, the 1% work hard for their wealth, they deserve to own 99% of everything, and everybody who disagrees with you is a Marxist.
Check the chart:
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:You have utterly failed to prove how the "1%" got to where they are by any means other than work.
That's because I didn't try. How the wealthiest 1% came into their wealth is irrelevant, the important thing is that they used to own less than a quarter of the wealth in 1980, they own nearly half now and in forty years they will own 99% of the wealth unless we
DO something to prevent it happening. Which you and people like you will try to prevent happening, because your favorite radio show keeps telling you how intrinsically virtuous the 1% are and how much they are to be admired, and you believe it.
