Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y.
It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%
It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%
There's a sizeable group of people that just cannot stand someone working hard and reaping the fruits. Again I'm not talking about Lambo-driving, yacht owners but an average doctor, small business owner or an engineer for that matter.
Per the old meme, success breeds jealousy, but unfortunately recently it breeds hate and violence.
Critiques of the merely well-off can sometimes be more indicative of the major problems facing America, since there are so many more in this category. For example, by critiquing this 1% class you also get into very interesting questions about land use in California.
At some point very early on, your money starts making money and you cease to do "work" to make that number grow. It seems inappropriate to equivocate capital gains with gainful employment.
From a material perspective, it makes sense that they behave this way (the ultrawealthy are more likely to sign their paychecks and they’re less exposed to many of the harms present further down the income chain), but does allow for a politics of resentment to develop around the position they occupy in society. Most working class people are unlikely to encounter a billionaire in their lifetimes, but will come across many upper income individuals who will tell them (either directly or indirectly) that they deserve their low station or that nothing can really be done to improve their material standing.
[0] https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/on-the-origi...
Of course once you are so wealthy that the majority of your income is passive income from e.g. stock market gains, the capital gains tax is at 25%.
The situation is so bad that in relation to what your employer pays for you (Arbeitgeberbrutto), you get much less than 50%.
The wealthiest make a lot of money, but it's nothing compared to the aggregate of millions of Americans making upper middle class wages.
Taxing the super rich is a great idea, but at the end of the day the govt just needs to spend less money on programs that don’t work or aren’t needed.
Translation:
>You could recover some of the wealth that is systemically siphoned (by inflation)/withheld (via wage suppression) from everyone, but you really should look at that whole wealth redistribution mechanism working against centralization of capital in private hands. That's the problem.
Not really buying it. The fact you're pushing these systems off as not working leads me to conclude you've not met the level of understanding to safely do away with Chesterton's fence. There is tons of room for improvement in the execution of these safety nets; but the Market doesn't want people feeling safe. Risk aversion from guaranteed stability makes exploitative employment/compensation schemes more difficult to sustain.
That's pretty much already solved with 401ks and IRAs which are retirement investment accounts with tax advantages.
It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth.
What's the value of the delivery guy's network? The CEO's presumably lets him achieve results that others can't. He can broker better deals, hire better talent, push for more favorable laws. That's value to the firm, to shareholders, hence better pay.
The reason why CEOs get paid so much is not because of how hard they work, it is because the effect of their actions is massive, and eaking out that extra 1% is worth it.