It's completely illogical

I just don't understand how pol can defend this...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YRLAKD-Vuvk#t=11m30s
mises.org/library/capitalism-treatise-economics
twitter.com/AnonBabble

most of pol isn't american

What is there to defend you fucking idiot

We goyim will always be at the bottom nothing will change

Wait for it to trickle down...

Who's defending it?
(Other than the Jews in here)

I don't defend it. I hate it.

and it's gotten worse since clinton due to democrat policies, which allegedly tackled this exact issue

Is this saved wealth (assets), or income? If it's income then the whole question is deceptive.

PEOPLE ON POL DEFEND THE RICH ALL THE TIME!

Not an argument.

pareto principle motherfucker
Canada is probably nearly the same

dont worry, the jews telling you we need to eliminate taxes on all corporations, end all regulations and import millions of immigrant workers while also outsourcing jobs, that will fix everything, should be here any second now

I can't even read this graph

I assume it's trying to say 80% of the wealth is in 20% of the people's hands?

That or it's a pollen index and we're in the red zone (a fact I've known for YEARS!)

I wasn't arguing anything

IT IS A GOD DAMN FACT. what are you a new fag, a dumbass?

>I can't even read this graph
Are you blind, Jesus dude kys
>Canada is probably nearly the same
SO???

Its a fucking retarded graph. I still don't see the problem though.

>Its a fucking retarded graph. I still don't see the problem though.
Lol. You really don't see a problem?

This is why whites will die.

Even the le "red pilled" faggots LOVE being slaves

Somewhere between the actual distribution and the top one looks alright to me, the socialist snownigger.

People's "ideal" wealth distribution is true communism wealth distribution. For the top 20% to only have 30% of the wealth, there would have to have nearly equal wealth distribution. It would literally be impossible to get ahead through hard work. So the lazy have just as much chance of being in the top 20% as the bottom 20%. Well, I'm pretty lazy myself. But I've worked hard to get myself into the top 20% so I can retire early. And I guarantee I can find a way to work less than all you stupid fucks, and still be in the top 20% in this "ideal" wealth distribution model. The only difference is if we had the "ideal" wealth distribution, I'd be living in the same run down shack as all the stupid losers. Those dumbasses would have a far lower standard of living than they do now, but they'd be more content because I didn't have the opportunity to do better than them in overall wealth.

it's endemic to all economic systems
Sweden, UK, Venezuela, US, in just about all countries the top fifth richest own probably within the 75%-85% range of wealth
if any place is more equal than this, it's very likely that the place is just very poor or insignificant

Why do you care if somebody makes more money? Is it jealously? I don't give a shit, rich people don't ruin my day.

You said
>I just don't understand how pol can defend this...
I said
>Who's defending it?
THEN YOU SAID
>PEOPLE ON POL DEFEND THE RICH ALL THE TIME!

How the fuck is wealth distribution in America and the Third Rich related in any way?


kys

oh fuck me...

I agree with both of you.

The part I don't like is that the top 1% has pretty much half of the top 20% (pic related)

I think higher taxes on inheritance would help with this... Maybe 80% for the highest 1% and go lower from there. There would be the same incentive for people to work hard to make it into the top 1%, but people who don't do a damn thing to earn it wouldn't benefit so much.

For instance, if I hire my son to work for me, he would pay his 20% tax rare. But if I give him $5000 under current rules, he wouldn't pay anything. How is that fair? Of course there are loopholes to avoid this, but it's much harder to hide a billion $ inheritance that the top 1% would be leaving after their death. It would help lower taxes on people like me who earns a good living, but is paying too much in tax.

How is it illogical? Why would poor people living paycheck to paycheck have any wealth? It makes sense if you've taken a survey course in economics or spend more than 5 seconds actually thinking about it.

IMHO what makes capitalism dangerous isn't the unequal distribution, it's the fact that it requires constant growth to be sustainable. Once the growth stagnates or reverses, the market ceases to function.

Most Americans can't do basic math, more news at 10.

I don't think you understand how wealth accumulation works and how the rich have gotten richer.

>how
this thread was never about how

Oh come on what for.
What wealth does a middle class family want beyond a paid house and some savings?

>I think higher taxes on inheritance would help with this... Maybe 80% for the highest 1% and go lower from there.
lul no.
If you amassed considerable wealth you are pretty much playing god mode. If somebody tries to chimp out on you and steal 80% you have plenty of ways to avoid this.

youtube.com/watch?v=YRLAKD-Vuvk#t=11m30s

We only do that when communism is presented as an answer to solving those inequalities (it doesn't) and commie shitlords think that people with wealth don't deserve rights ("hurrr make them pay 99% taxes they have money to spare")

WEALTH IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME, RETARD

Without the wealthy top 20%, we'd just be 60%-80% poorer with no one left to invest in the jobs that are created for the bottom 80%.

>.
The middle class is having a hard time supporting more than one or two kids.

You know, the white middle class? The thing that's been shrinking for years?

Your argument is childlike. "What more does the middle class want?". Hmmmm let's think...

Not 80% of their total wealth you moron. Do you know how taxes work?

>motherjones is the source

OK

Most Americans are lazy shits, who cares

That's more concerned with income distribution though, not wealth distribution.
Although wealth does produce income, I don't think everyone in the 50s was leasing apartments to make half their living.

>Without the wealthy top 20%, we'd just be 60%-80% poorer

Wow this would really make me think if I was 15 years old

because the rich people earned it :/ i guess

Winners aren't losers. Nobody likes losers.

Why are they in the "top 20%"? Why haven't they advanced to 4th highest or middle? We are not living in a genuine free market libertarian society, that's why. We are keeping subhuman trailer trash/niggers on life support with checks. In a Traditionalist Libertarian society these vermin wouldn't survive.

These leftists advocate for a Marxist society where wealth is forcibly redistributed to the subhumans, and those subhumans thus have more resources to irresponsibly breed, eventually impoverishing everyone since more wealth has to be evenly distributed. After the tipping point is reached, the society will be in mass chaos and everyone has to fend for themselves in a very impoverished free market society. 80% of the population will perish.

Or you picked up an economics textbook?

mises.org/library/capitalism-treatise-economics

Truth

(((OY VEY!!!)))

>In a Traditionalist Libertarian society these vermin wouldn't survive.
>people would just lie down and die

So how were your grades in 10th school year? Are fractions giving you a hardtime?

communist bait.

"equality" is impossible.

People are stupid, who knew?

The money is fake. What they do at the top doesn't affect me.
When they and the government stops investing, that's when the shtf.

>Traditionalist Libertarian society

Since the rich people have decided to replace us with violent murderous terrorists I dont think it will be long before they are plucked from their homes by an angry mob. Unless they flee to china or brazil I guess.

The "What Americans think it is" is actually pretty much exactly what Australias distribution looks like.

(((the 1%)))

> give people money they don't deserve

>implying wealth is finite
>not understanding what the stock market is
>actually suggesting that it's hard to succeed when you can make a living selling dildos these days

>inequality is bad
>prosperity is the default human condition, not the exception

Wew

>smartest people get the most money
>dumbest get the least

What's not to understand?

>people would just lie down and die

The current "top 20%" either start putting in effort and abandon the checks OR starve and wither away while expecting someone to provide for them. Of course this will cause mass unrest, but this phase can be survived.

Practically minarchy imposed onto a society where everyone has traditional moral values. A step up from the usual "weed lmao" libertarianism where small government/minarchy/ancap is applied to a society in Kali Yuga.

>What they do at the top doesn't affect me

AHA AHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Wow! Your argument was way shittier than you thought it would be

That's so passive aggressive that I can't stand it. If his argument is bad then tell him why. The only reason that you wouldn't immediately do so is that you can't.

Pompous swine.

>Of course this will cause mass unrest, but this phase can be survived

This phase can also be the downfall of a country. Even if you can defend yourself from the hordes, then you have to worry about outside intervention from other countries.

>guys let's just tax all the rich people what could possibly go wrong

This thread baka

>Of course this will cause mass unrest
>starving people would cause "masss unrest"

holy fuck, i thought you were baiting for replies, but Jesus, that is one retarded comment

>Practically minarchy imposed onto a society where everyone has traditional moral values. A step up from the usual "weed lmao" libertarianism where small government/minarchy/ancap is applied to a society in Kali Yuga.

So only a ideology?

>Not 80% of their total wealth you moron. Do you know how taxes work?
Yo fatburger. You know how INHERITANCE tax works?
It takes a percentage of your total wealth. Even in Nigerica.

why don't the poor buy some money and then buy some stocks or funds?

Because under these circumstances natural behavior or base human living is irrelevant.

We don't live like that anymore and we haven't for generations and generations.

Wealth is not... The stuff you own entirely. Once you get rich enough, it's mostly investments. Wealth is control of money more than spending of money on yourself. So the top 1% controls investment of all that money. It's not like they are literally taking 20% of the countries resources and personally using it so it's not available to anyone else. They are controlling what it's invested to and that's good because these are the people who have shown themselves to be able to invest money practically.

no, it's not literally this thread. Low IQ ?

>Baww it's the current year, why isn't everyone prosperous and happy?

>starving people would cause mass unrest.
How is that retarded? It's logical that once people are starving they start chimping out.

>So an ideology?

Yes.

You're contradicting yourself. Your data shows wealth inequality, yet you're trying to argue that inequality isn't natural? Yet you're trying to argue that we need governmental regulation to curb it?

You're a big ball of hypocrisy. It's to mankind's shame that you came here with such an ego.

>survey of 5,000
Where did they survey this?

because that is what I'm saying? Nope not at all.

You yourself sound like a liberal. But go ahead keep making that straw man. It's all your mind is capable of

>people who are successful with their money having more to invest
>illogical

Spotted the retard

The system rewards those who invest in sound businesses by giving them more to invest in other sound businesses. Makes perfect sense to anyone who isn't a 19 year old college aged socialist.

>they start chimping out.

Chimping out is what niggers do when police kills a nigger.

What would happen if people starved while seing the rich living so well and amassing each time more wealth is a wholly different level. But a autist couldn't comprehend this.

Why are the 80% so greedy? Most of them perfectly happy lives, but they still want more and want to take it from wealthier people.

Really, when did I say government regulation was the answer? Where did I say that?

ALSO, I never said it wasn't natural. I was making the argument that whether somthing is natural or not is irrelevant in this circumstance.

It's natural for men to rape and kill other "tribes" constantly.

>Makes perfect sense to anyone who isn't a 19 year old college aged socialist.
And everyone with more then 17 years old know that the wrld does not work like you pointed out

>defend
It doesn't need to be defended, you don't have a right to have the same amount of money as everyone else. life isn't fair, some get born into starving shitholes, some get born into billionaire families. Deal with what you are handed and make the best of the life you have. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND HAVING MONEY ISN'T ONE OF THEM

What's wrong with having a lot of money?

>YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED

>no one is entitled to anything
>b b but except the people I say

>you don't have a right to have the same amount of money as everyone else.
And who is advocating that?

>YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND HAVING MONEY ISN'T ONE OF THEM
>Yes good goy, receive your crumbs and be satisfied with them.

>I am entitled to wealth because u r jew if u say otherwise

How well off are long term unemployed people in the US compared to people in third world countries working over 60 hours/week in sweatshops in third world countries?

>Rich are entitled to wealth becasue they are sons of other rich people

>How well off are long term unemployed people in the US compared to people in third world

Not an argument. Want to compare blades of grass to a giant tree next?

>poor are entitled to other peoples wealth because of my feelings

>needs to compare themselves to third world countries to appear good

How low has america fallen...

Also we are not talking about the poor so why do you try and divert the conversation

>born into a wealthy family should have no right to the family wealth
How fucking stupid are you? If I make it big and leave my fortune to my kids, it is MY fortune to leave to WHOEVER I WANT

Poor are entitled to have the same starting point as rich people.

lol no

Found the rich white guy's 15 year old son

>momentarily embarrassed future billionaire

>I have not logical argument so I'll just discount you as (INSERT GROUP YOU WISH TO RIDICULE HERE)
top kek
you lose
Rich people have the right to do what they wish with their money, and you don't have to be rich to know that. I'm probably poorer than you, but I work hard and won't be poor forever.

Because I'm rich and fuck you.

It's rather bad form to suggest that the status quo should be usurped when you can't even imagine a better one. Considering that wealth inequality is a natural thing, only government intervention could curb it. This much is obvious. Hence that it is also quite relevant as to whether wealth inequality is natural or unnatural: It dictates whether it is government that would stop it. Common sense. You propped up an argument and then tried to play dumb in order to get out of liability.

The only people who give a shit are poor and they could cast themselves of a bridge tomorrow and nobody would miss them

>I'm probably poorer than you, but I work hard and won't be poor forever.
Kek
Found the brainswashed jew slave

>50% of the population doesnt pay federal taxes.
>Of the people that do pay federal taxes, the bottom 50% collectively pay 30 billion dollars in taxes every year.
>Over 1 trillion dollars in tax dollars is used every year in free programs for low income household's
waah waah the rich arent pay in their fair share