I've seen data which varies between 25-50% of wealth in the hands of 1% of the population. I'd call 1% "very few". I agree that 50% is not yet “bulk” but give it another couple of decades and see.
I very much doubt that 50% of the wealth would be held by the richest 1% in another few decades. I agree that its hard to anticipate what will happen in the future. Its possible it could happen, but the very fact that its hard to anticipate so far in to the future would keep me from basing arguments as to the what we should do now, on such a scenario for the future.
Something on the order of 35-40% of the population owns only 1% of the nations wealth. I'd call 35-40% a significant fraction and it is growing.
I have my doubts about the accuracy of that statement.
I wouldn't define poverty based on a percentage of a nations wealth. I just don't think that's the right way to measure.
And if you did want to measure it that way I'm not so sure that I would consider 1% of the nations wealth divided that way to be "very poor".
Also I wouldn't call someone very poor just from lack of assets, I would also require lack of income. The poorest 40% have a lot more than 1% of the personal income in the US, and total income for people other than just the wealthy is growing.
You might consider that the tax code is much more inclined to tax income than assets or even asset appreciation in many cases.
Which I consider a good thing. Taxing consumption might be even better, but I oppose a wealth tax.
In any case assets are taxed, not as much as income but they are taxed.
And it was founded without all the class warfare and socialism lite of today. It was founded with freedom being a higher priority than it is today.
Yes, under the mistaken idea that somehow this alone would ensure a good outcome. I completely fail to understand how anyone can assume that an ideal of any sort MUST work indefinitely into the future without any refinement which new data might suggest is useful. Wishes are not horses...
You where the one who started to talk about how the founders started things. I just pointed out how if you are going to look to the founders their example doesn't support your argument. I didn't assert that how they did things (either in general or in ways relevant to our current discussion) was inevitably correct or would automatically continue to be correct for all time. Your attacking a straw man.
Clearly the USA has been a shining example of the virtues of their ideals, but surprise, ideology by itself does not ensure the desired outcome.
Of course not, but its a big part of it.
If it did, Iraq would now be Paradise.
Iraq has not consistently, and does not currently, follow their example very well.
It may well be the case that the freedom of laissez faire capitalism with protection from redistribution of wealth, just like barbaric totalitarianism produce somewhat similar results in this regard
Capitalism and personal freedom have fairly consistently produced better results than "barbarian totalitarianism", or even socialism. There is no divine guarantee that this will continue to be the case, but there is no solid reason to think it won't be.
If you remove all the government assistance they get at the expense of the more well off, they would qualify as very poor.
Not a significant and ever increasing fraction. And you can't reasonably just subtract the government assistance and assume no other changes will be made. The government assistance is not just being given to people who are utterly incapable of achieving any other income, or any other income beyond the "very poor" level.
To avoid any future straw man attack, on this issue - There is nothing in the above paragraph that says "we should eliminate all forms of government assistance"
No it isn't. Flat taxes, a national sales tax, or lower taxes, don't amount to "a John Gault world".
What in your opinion does amount to a John Gault world? Only no taxes qualify?
Either no taxes or very minimal taxes. Most likely no government spending for poverty alleviation and social spending. Rand was a rather extreme libertarian at least in these matters (even if she rejected the label), more so then I am and far more so then the typical Republican.
Nonsense. They do nothing of the sort.
Well, consider estate tax repeal as an example of such effort.
It might be a step in that direction, but its like one step in a journey of a thousand miles. Bush is no Randian, he isn't even remotely close to being one. |
