I've never asked anyone on Lit to watch a video. But I'll ask you watch this one.

[mercury14]

I thought I knew something about this topic. I was wrong.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10...rong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=2&c=bl3

9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

This pretty much speaks for itself. At 1:05, I get a rude awakening. At 1:41, he starts talking about you. At 2:24, he says a "bad" word. At 3:50, he kind of breaks my brain. At 4:50, he lets you know how broke you really are. At 5:20, he rubs it in. And at 5:50, he points out that reality isn't close to what we think it is.

 

[Tryharder62]

So what do you propose?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I already posted that, Dummy

 

[CHNOPS]

He spent a lot of time saying something he could have been done with in a sentence.

It's not shocking or mind-blowing.

TED Talks have turned everyone into lecturers.

 

[Squibbs]

If the poor didn't want to be poor they should have been born into a middle class or wealthy family.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

*watches video* "That man earns in an minute, what I earn in a month. I should help his fundraising effort."

/end sarcasm

(How did the 1% ever convince anyone, into thinking in this way ? There are so many more of "us.")

 

[kbate]

So what do you propose?

Taxes and a lot of them.

A vastly more progressive tax schedule such as:

0 to 24000 = negative taxation to bring them to 24001
24001 to 40,000 = 3% marginal
40001 to 80,000 = 7% marginal
80001 to 200,000 = 15% marginal
200,001 to 1,000,000 = 40% marginal
1,000,001 and over = 90% marginal rate.


Plus, the Fica cap must be eliminated. The poor pay 15.3%, the rich should pay 15.3%

I'd add a national 2% sales tax and a financial transaction tax of 0.1% of every dollar that transfers (even if it is retaxation).

I'd kill ALL deductions except for dependents.

If the rich won't share . . . fuck them, just take it and create federal jobs building infrastructure and buying weapons.

 

[CHNOPS]

Taxes and a lot of them.

A vastly more progressive tax schedule such as:

0 to 24000 = negative taxation to bring them to 24001
24001 to 40,000 = 3% marginal
40001 to 80,000 = 7% marginal
80001 to 200,000 = 15% marginal
200,001 to 1,000,000 = 40% marginal
1,000,001 and over = 90% marginal rate.


Plus, the Fica cap must be eliminated. The poor pay 15.3%, the rich should pay 15.3%

I'd add a national 2% sales tax and a financial transaction tax of 0.1% of every dollar that transfers (even if it is retaxation).

I'd kill ALL deductions except for dependents.

If the rich won't share . . . fuck them, just take it and create federal jobs building infrastructure and buying weapons.

I like where this is heading.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's an excellent video. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's an excellent video. Thank you for sharing it.

I posted it yesterday. Why didn't you thank me? Are you an Italianphobe?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Taxes and a lot of them.

A vastly more progressive tax schedule such as:

0 to 24000 = negative taxation to bring them to 24001
24001 to 40,000 = 3% marginal
40001 to 80,000 = 7% marginal
80001 to 200,000 = 15% marginal
200,001 to 1,000,000 = 40% marginal
1,000,001 and over = 90% marginal rate.


Plus, the Fica cap must be eliminated. The poor pay 15.3%, the rich should pay 15.3%

I'd add a national 2% sales tax and a financial transaction tax of 0.1% of every dollar that transfers (even if it is retaxation).

I'd kill ALL deductions except for dependents.

If the rich won't share . . . fuck them, just take it and create federal jobs building infrastructure and buying weapons.

Agreed....but we also have to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates.

 

[mercury14]

I posted it yesterday. Why didn't you thank me? Are you an Italianphobe?

Quiet you.

Agreed....but we also have to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates.

Amen.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So what do you propose?

Obviously we need a stronger federal government that is far more effective at robbing the 1% of their (presumably) legally accumulated wealth and redistributing it among the most impoverished members of society.

That's why the film was made. And since it would appear that most of us agree on what the "ideal" distribution should be, then it only takes a moderately creative person to advance the argument that we, as a majority, have a right to affect such an idyllic social state by any means necessary -- certainly by punitive taxation and regulation of the top 1%.

According to Forbes magazine, these are the top 10 wealthiest Americans (I have aggregated the four members of the Walton family who are normally listed as individuals and occupy positions six through nine of the top 10).

1. The Walton Family (Four individuals totaling $107.1 billion)
2. Bill Gates ($66 billion)
3. Warren Buffet ($46 billion)
4. Charles Koch ($31 billion)
4. David Koch ($31 billion)
6. Michael Bloomberg ($25 billion)

Four of these same top 10 are also among America's 10 most generous philanthropists (just an "oh-by-the-way").

With the exception of the Koch brothers whose father owned an oil company, none of the 10 wealthiest came from families of substantial wealth. Obviously, the Waltons were heirs to the family patriarch Sam Walton, but the point is that Sam himself, like most of the other top 10, amassed his fortune solely within the 20th century by offering unique and modest products, services or innovative management principles.

Almost all of this wealth was "new" money generated by a handful of business people few of whom were likely to have been voted "Most Likely to Succeed."

These are the modern day "fat cats" whose pockets today's socialists believe you should be able to pick until all wealth has been "equitably distributed."

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Taxes and a lot of them.

A vastly more progressive tax schedule such as:

0 to 24000 = negative taxation to bring them to 24001
24001 to 40,000 = 3% marginal
40001 to 80,000 = 7% marginal
80001 to 200,000 = 15% marginal
200,001 to 1,000,000 = 40% marginal
1,000,001 and over = 90% marginal rate.


Plus, the Fica cap must be eliminated. The poor pay 15.3%, the rich should pay 15.3%

I'd add a national 2% sales tax and a financial transaction tax of 0.1% of every dollar that transfers (even if it is retaxation).

I'd kill ALL deductions except for dependents.

If the rich won't share . . . fuck them, just take it and create federal jobs building infrastructure and buying weapons.

I am pretty sure you get that this would result in less revenue for the federal government than today once the exodus of millionaires left the country?

But little place like Costa Rica would thank you immensely!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

He spent a lot of time saying something he could have been done with in a sentence.

It's not shocking or mind-blowing.

TED Talks have turned everyone into lecturers.

Don't be smarmy. It were gud.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Obviously we need a stronger federal government that is far more effective at robbing the 1% of their (presumably) legally accumulated wealth and redistributing it among the most impoverished members of society.

That's why the film was made. And since it would appear that most of us agree on what the "ideal" distribution should be, then it only takes a moderately creative person to advance the argument that we, as a majority, have a right to affect such an idyllic social state by any means necessary -- certainly by punitive taxation and regulation of the top 1%.

According to Forbes magazine, these are the top 10 wealthiest Americans (I have aggregated the four members of the Walton family who are normally listed as individuals and occupy positions six through nine of the top 10).

1. The Walton Family (Four individuals totaling $107.1 billion)
2. Bill Gates ($66 billion)
3. Warren Buffet ($46 billion)
4. Charles Koch ($31 billion)
4. David Koch ($31 billion)
6. Michael Bloomberg ($25 billion)

Four of these same top 10 are also among America's 10 most generous philanthropists (just an "oh-by-the-way").

With the exception of the Koch brothers whose father owned an oil company, none of the 10 wealthiest came from families of substantial wealth. Obviously, the Waltons were heirs to the family patriarch Sam Walton, but the point is that Sam himself, like most of the other top 10, amassed his fortune solely within the 20th century by offering unique and modest products, services or innovative management principles.

Almost all of this wealth was "new" money generated by a handful of business people few of whom were likely to have been voted "Most Likely to Succeed."

These are the modern day "fat cats" whose pockets today's socialists believe you should be able to pick until all wealth has been "equitably distributed."

Well, I wondered who was going to bring home the derp.

Colonel Hogan serves up a steaming helping of the usual intellectually bankrupt and philosophically weaksauce conservative talking points (I can haz load language too, Colonel!).

Typical of his class-warfare promotin' brethren, our Colonel indulges mightily in the fallacy of the small sample. Yeah, the richest one percent of the United States is about 3 million or so folks, so let's cherry-pick the top ten or so and call it a valid sample. Derp!

Most studies have shown that fully 40% to 50% of the accumulated wealth in America comes from, gasp, inherited wealth. Silver spoons!

But Hogan the Storyteller regales us with the quintessential American rags-to-riches feel-good stories, and oh yeah, they is good people who contribute to charity! CHARITY!

Now the mean ole Federal government wants these folks who have benefited mightily from tax breaks and such to start paying their fair share.....it's worth noting that the truly self-made folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have no problem with this, but the perfumed princes such as the Koch brothers are spending millions of dollars trying to portray themselves as "victims".

They're VICTIMS, DAMMIT!

The Koch brothers know that they can't do it alone so they count on low-information parrots such as Colonel Hogan to make their case for them.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If I may interject:

The movie was about net worth, not income.


A discussion about the tax code is interesting, but not really relevant.

A discussion focusing on the elimination of upward mobility in the United States is more appropriate.

 

[KyleW]

I'm surprised someone didn't post this before.

 

[koalabear]

*views thread*

George Soros. roflmao

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yeah, the richest one percent of the United States is about 3 million or so folks, so let's cherry-pick the top ten or so and call it a valid sample. Derp!

Most studies have shown that fully 40% to 50% of the accumulated wealth in America comes from, gasp, inherited wealth. Silver spoons!

Please show me at what point I suggested that the top ten wealthiest people were a "valid sample" of the rest of the 1% of privately held wealth.

I just thought it was interesting that the majority of the top ten's wealth was generated within the past 50 years or so.

As for those who have inherited their wealth, would you please tell me what moral value is betrayed by that process? I happen to believe that once people have paid their fair share of the tax burden (whatever that happens to be), they should be allowed to dispose of their assets in any manner they choose.

Even if your family chose to squander it by leaving it to the likes of you.

 

[RoryN]

Sorry - I haven't yet clicked on a single "this one trick / weird tip / weird fact / 9 out of 10 are unaware / doctors hate him / they don't want you to know" hook on any web site since they started appearing circa 2005. I'm not breaking that record.

Sounds interesting, though. I'll wait for a proper summary on NPR.