Land of the free? More like land of the slave

Can we all admit that this is at least a TINY bit unfair?

Fuck you, commie.

Now show the map with how many leeches live off of the tax revenue from the 1%

Can we all admit that this is at least a TINY bit unfair?

>I support the 1%
>you know, the people who support
>third world immigration
>lower wages
>and feminism

You're the communist

>deflection

Sorry but this isn't tumblr

why are you posting here then?

Wealth is not divide or distributed. It is earned, managed and preserved through hard work, and making good financial decisions.

The idea that the country has a finite amount of wealth that is fought over or distributed is retarded.
In the US, you are given a ship and are made the captain, the name of the ship is opportunity. How you sail it is up to YOU.

Not an argument.

>The idea that the country has a finite amount of wealth that is fought over or distributed is retarded.

Then why are people getting poorer and why are wages going down?

Sorry, the people at the highest rungs got there by either directly (or indirectly through their ancestors) climbing up the ladder and then breaking the fucking rungs they just climbed over.

come up with a better system then
i wont hold my breath

>Then why are people getting poorer and why are wages going down?
Third world immigration

40% of people lack the agency to contribute anything.
The kicker is they not only are worthless but also shift the blame to everyone else
Sucks to suck

>Then why are people getting poorer and why are wages going down?

Because these days you consider yourself "poor" if you can't afford a fucking XBox.

Nice meme. Have you seen the poor parts of the USA?

who are you to decide how money is distributed, you commie nigger fuck?

>Third world immigration
THE 1% PUSH FOR THIRD WORLD IMMIGRATION

Life isn't fair.

Exactly. The reality is that the skillset to achieve wealth is increasingly growing along with global competition. When I think of my high school class I think maybe 1 out of 300 ever actually contributed something of meaning to the markets. The rest became wage slaves because they never occupied themselves with any sort of generative hobbies or interests. They enslaved themselves.

Like Soros cock?

"wealth" is a distorted concept.

If you made 500k per year, but you don't have any saving or personal assets you have "zero wealth".

You can liver in luxury and be counted as the bottom 10%

We're talking about the 1%.

Not your imaginary situation that has nothing to do with anything.

Life isn't fair.

I don't think the elite should be able to game the system though either.

I lived in Baltimore for over a year.
Those fuckers aren't poor. They're plain stupid and their idiocy is making their situation even worse.
I saw people complain about their situation and then brag about the one time they smoked grass behind the school building in the same sentence.

Wooooow... I sure wonder why these fuckers are in a bad situation. It's not even money, but they blow their cash on the most stupid shit. And why? Because they are idiots. Because they should have stayed in school and get a proper education. Now they are rioting and complaining? Well complain to yourself in the past motherfucker.

No user. Those fucks get no sympathy from me.

I wonder who the biggest pushers of 3rd world immigration are.... Hmmmm, I wonder.

It certainly is not the people getting fucked by that immigration. Other than the rich fucks that want to get richer by lowering wages, there are only a minority of "muh feels" retards on tumblr that ACTUALLY want to open the flood gates.

>The idea that the country has a finite amount of wealth that is fought over or distributed is retarded.

There are a finite amount of goods and resources.

Together they form the total amount of "wealth".
So "wealth" is also finite, although it can slowly grow over time.

I believe aristotle figured that in balanced society no man should be more than 20 times wealthier than the poorest

All im saying is we:

1. Abolish private property in land and apply all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy graduated income tax

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

4. Confiscation of all property of emigrants.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank

6. Centralize communication and transportation in the hands of the state

7. Encourage state-owned factories, the cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of soil

8. Equal obligation of all to work.

9. Abolition of the distinction between town and country.

10. Free education for all.

I'm just explaining why "40% has almost no wealth".

Those aren't people who live in poverty.
Those are people who have a bigger mortgage than they have savings.

>Have you seen the poor parts of the USA?

Almost all poor people are niggers who choose to nig instead of work.

20-80 rule.

The top 20% contribute 80%

You guys are reverse trolling when you post overly simplistic bullshit like this, right?

Yes and no amount of opportunity or (((assistance))) will help them. They are and will be stuck in perpetual poverty for the rest of their lives and occasionally a few might leave.

Fuck off commie scum. Centralized economies suck dong.

OP, let's follow your theory out to the end. Let's put everyone's "wealth" into a bucket and give every living human an equal share. Now we have absolutely no disparity.

Then people start wanting things they don't have. So they buy them. The person who they buy from gains cash, and they, in return, gain some tangible good.

As time passes, the same exchanges happen over and over, but the value of those goods and the value of the currency fluctuate. Some will make wise financial decisions, others will make unwise decisions.

And then things are unequal again, and eventually as unequal as they are now.

What have you accomplished?

No because it is fair

>20-80 rule.
>The top 20% contribute 80%
No they don't

Newborn A: Born into a family that already had wealth, raised in a nice gated community, goes to a private school without niggers, is all but guaranteed a debt free ride to college even if they can't get a scholarship.

Newborn B: Born in some multicult hellhole, parents have to both work jobs to pay the rent, and put food on the table. Goes to a school filled to the brim with niggers, isn't going to college unless they get a scholarship, or take on a massive amount of debt.

It's pretty obvious that newborn A is going to accumulate wealth rapidly, unless they are completely and utterly retarded. Care to explain how newborn B has anything but a marginal shot at accumulating wealth?

The most likely 'good' outcome, is that they take on debt to go to college to better themselves, go into a stem field thinking they'll be able to pay off the debt. Only to find out that newborn A's parents, or themselves, have lobbied to flood the market with more cheap poo in the loos to pad their giant pile of money even further.

If people would stop breeding, wages would rise.

Underrated post

>OP, let's follow your theory out to the end. Let's put everyone's "wealth" into a bucket and give every living human an equal share. Now we have absolutely no disparity.
IM GOING TO STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.

I never once said we should do that. Stop putting words in my mouth and get a real argument

>Can we all admit that this is at least a TINY bit unfair

Not in the sense you mean. It is unfair that the government got in there and subsidized laziness and pulled so many people permanently into dependence and permanent poverty. But as long as poor urban blacsk, in particular, vote slavishly to keep the Democrats oin power, Democrats will continue to make sure the Programs provide the barest subsistence for them to keep them locked in as voters.

If the 40 percent owned more land, they would just fuck it up anyway.

...

okay that's full blown communism. 100% chance it won't work

I consider myself alt right and a libertarian but I don't believe a lot of the elites got their money legitimately and there should be regulations to stop people from gaining as much power as they do. Maybe a hard cap on wealth at 1-10 million and the rest has to be donated to charity, or something to help people or maybe any money beyond that can only be spent on your business.

Individuals making good decisions and accumulating more wealth isn't really the problem. The problem is how rapidly wealth accumulates as it passes from one generation to the next.

No one should be able to pass on more than a million to their offspring, it's an obscenity that there are the equivalent of nobility who never have to work in this country but instead just have to not blow their huge interest earning portfolio from daddy and mommy on cocaine to live comfortably forever.

One more angle, just in case economics aren't your strong suit:

Do you define "fair" as equal compensation for equal input, or are you calling it "fair" to over-reward some who do less with more compensation?

Mfw the actually do, though. The top 1% pay something like 40% of the taxes in the country. The lower 19 pay something like 30 or 40%.

People also think "owning stuff" equates directly wealth because they're idiots. A company owner HAS to own "lots of stuff" to run their company.

But newborn A earned all their wealth, you fucking commie :^)

Because Obama either sucks as President, or he is very. very good at it and has understood that "the party of the poor" is more likely to remain in power if there are as many poor people as possible.

It's not deflection, it's a good point related to the theme.

So what are you proposing, if not a redistribution to make the map more "fair" in your way of thinking?

>family is 1%
>make ~1MM a year
>not enough to truly feel like a "1%er"
FeelsBad

>#
The pay more taxes because they have more money. It's not because they want to, it's the law.

If you were a billionaire you'd pay more taxes too.

I mean hey! Why not give all our money to the 1% so that they can pay all the taxes!

Since you're putting in an arbitrary limit that sounds like a lot of money to you, why $1 million? Why not $3 million, or $100,000?

Just trying to figure out what your "fair" line is.

Nope

>ave you seen the poor parts of the USA?

Have you seen the poor parts of anyplace else?

>being in denial

>there's no money in space so why do you need money on earth. Just imagine if you lived in space

Being completely unable to see how poor of an argument it was must be terrible

> unfair
> we should write policy based on material wealth and feelings not principle
> obesity is not the biggest problem amongst impoverished Americans
> more than 1/100,000 americans starves to death and its usually on purpose

WEW

dare i say you like "occupy democrats" on Facebook

The 1 percent practically funds the country faggot.

WEW

WAGE SLAVE: [weyj sleyv] noun

Derisive term to denote people making a living and striving for self-sufficiency, used by those who are not capable enough to do so.

>40% own 80%
No
did You ever realize only 40% have anything to offer besides hard labor?

>Merely having a lot of wealth is unfair
I do not follow.

literally says "1%"
literally thinks they are a group thats totally bad as opposed to every other group of humans which is mostly normal with a few evil outliers. you have demonstrated your issues to be with human nature, not america

Occupy democrats is the single most frustrating thing to see continuously pop up on my Facebook feed because I'm in college.

>There are a finite amount of goods and resources.
>Together they form the total amount of "wealth".

Wrong-o.

Protip -- it is possible through innovation, creativity and correctly-applied labor to transform goods and resources into things of greater value. This is seldom achieved by sitting on your ass and waiting for a hand-out, which is why many people have a difficult time acquiring wealth.

Someone who makes $40,000 and pays $5,000 in taxes should be equal and be able to afford as much land as someone who makes $350,000 and pays $40,000+ in taxes.

Really good argument mate. Now imagine how good America would be if the poor people were actually all concentrated right there.

Oh and they're happy to do it. Why do you think that is?

Surely they're doing it for you and me. Taking the load off our shoulders

Wealthy people are not wage slaves, most have salaries and can retire at any age. Wage slaves are lower/middle class.

Banning private schools, and forcing the wealthy's children to interact with the multicultural cess pit they've created would be a good start.

Tie maximum inheritance to the bottom 20%'s average yearly income. Say 30x? I think 30 years worth of the poor's income is more than generous. If the rich want more, they can start paying the poor more.

Like I said above I'm """"technically"""" in the 1% a lot of people confuse us with moguls that lobby for big government. Albeit, our friends circle continuously bitches about taxes and how much money we have to pay to our CPA's

> socialist propaganda

No, thanks

Not necessarily bad. Just too powerful

They are the ones responsible for third world immigration, feminism (lowering wages by bringing women into the workforce), and jobs going overseas.

God please don't make me think about that.

He who will not work, neither shall he eat.

AGAIN putting words in my mouth because you can't think.

>oh this guy must be a communist, he wants to take all the money, he wants everything to be equal.
You're an idiot for simplifying things to such a degree

your issue isnt with capitalism 8ts with crony capitalism and an income cap is retarded and another loophole where corruption and socisalism can slip in

No. It's fair.

>Forgetting Alaska and Hawaii

Anyways, it is completely fair. The majority of the wealth given to the 1% was from someone else for a variety of reasons, most of which are for good work ethics and smart planning.

Nobody cares. Fuck the North-West; it's a shithole.

1% income wise or 1% total wealth wise?

Yes, the only school anyone should be able to get is the worst variety of education. We're all equal at the bottom, right, you pig fucking commie? Or, better yet

>if the wealthy people have to take part in federally funded education, they'll be forced to invest in it instead of me, because that's MY money.

>Tie maximum inheritance to the bottom 20%'s average yearly income
You're a fucking joke.

your problem is with crony capitalism not capitalism

You just pulled this list right from your professor's PowerPoint presentation didn't you?

Wait til you get into the real world, kiddo. It's way different out here from the fantasy they try to pass off in your school.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Somebody having more than me doesn't mean that I am less free. You'll never find happiness with so much envy.

Accusing everyone of putting words in your mouth, yet when asked to clarify you're silent.

Pretty much leads one to think you have no thought beyond "this isn't fair!"

I'd say no more than 2-3 million in assets, so take that for what it's worth.

Doesn't this just show that the poor living in the USA have more living space than they deserve?

Because there aren't enough resources to make everyone successful and rich, you make everyone poor and dependent.

Nice theory.

Basically your argument is that life isn't fair.

Or wealth that was accumulated doing any number of things that are currently illegal.

Some families made their money bootlegging, some made it off child labor, off creative financial deals that would currently be illegal. My point is that very few of the 1% made their money "working hard".

They made the bed everyone else has to lay in, why shouldn't I expect them to come roll around in the shit too?

It definitely wasn't the fucking factory workers, farmers, or any other "working class" that were chanting for equal rights for minorities. They were not the ones opening the flood gates for cheap labor.

Force them to send their children to get fucked by Jamal, and be taught common core. I wouldn't be surprised to suddenly see a whole lot of lobbyists calling for segregation and deporting illegals.

I didn't call you a communist. This would've been much more unfair if the picture labeled the actual amount of people who control such a majority of the land. I'm sure the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Gates, Soros, etc. could own 5 states.


There is a 1% that are people who deserved it or got lucky who still contribute to society by paying taxes and are still human, then there is a one percent filled with government insiders and bankers who have only negatively effected society. They don't pay taxes and are probably from another dimension.

And we should simply sit back and not rectify that?

Nobody is happy at tax time. Way to make a straw man idiot.