Does making less money than a billionaire somehow absolve you of this disconnect? You can make 50k a year and still be a complete dick to people.
I get what you're saying in some sense. The gorilla in the room is the fact that the true rich are taxed totally differently (and mostly unfairly). But also pointing to richer people and saying "they are the problem" is part of the problem. We're all voters and we all vote. If we want to, we could absolutely change the system and make it fairer. As much as it is the billionaire's "fault", it is also our responsibility to make the right choices, politically and socially.
But as long as we keep fighting each other and calling people absurd names like "Marxist", nothing will change.
When you talk to the people flipping burgers in America, youll see a whole spectrum. And when you see these people earning a minimum wage and waste their life smoking weed, modifying their cars with shit they can't afford and playing video games all day, I have zero empathy for them. There are people that want to improve and I've had several conversations how they can't afford education or vocational school or any sort of apprentice practice. I have a lot of empathy for them.
Surprise surprise, the person who claims they "understand" or "empathize" for the poor actually has no empathy or understanding at all! Really just confirming my original point. HN users have no idea what is going on.
Nope. Sorry (she/he/they) dude. You don’t get to point up the ladder and say “i’m not rich, but that guy is”. Reminds me people who define someone with an alcohol problem as a person “who has one more drink a day then I do”.
If you’re an engineer at Google and making $450k you are wealthy, you are a part of the “rich getting richer” and yes, if you want to solve inequality you’re going to have to contribute in a big way.
Edit: And no, your original post said “go after the billionaires”, not the engineers. Sorry, just because billionaires have more money than you doesn’t mean you’re not rich. Sure, the engineers making $50k get a pass. But over $100k? That’s double the median salary in the US. Time to pony up.
The point is that it's the ultra-wealthy you need to be concerned with.
This isn't just an issue like bribery it's more insidious then that: when your political leaders spend most of their "leisure" time in the company of these people, they adopt their values, listen to their thoughts and give everything a favorable view - more of hearing then you and I will ever get.
After all it's hard to be down on a guy who's put you up for the afternoon at his mansion, and even though you know it's a bad look to take him up on it it sure is nice he keeps offering the master guest suite if you want to stay the night.
We won’t solve inequality by taxing the billionaires it’ll be from taxing the upper-middle class. Just like the states with more equality in Europe do.
If you’re in the top 25% of income you’ll need to make some sacrifices if you want to solve the problem.
Just by taxing that top 10% (roughly people who earn over 200k/yr), the government would get access to 85% of all the nation's wealth.
What is "55%" if not "most of the wealth"?
I forget the exact statistic, but did you know that something like 70% of those on the Forbes 400 Richest list are entirely self made? Did you know that the vast majority of millionaires in the US received $0 in inheritance, and far more received less than $10k? The rich, by and large, made their wealth in their lifetime with their own means.
I say this because we need to make better arguments and be more honest with the situation. No, we aren’t entitled to the money of the rich just because “they have too much” or something. Redistribution is desireable because the economics are fundamentally changing with winner take all economies, regulatory capture, the ability to influence government policy with wealth, and the massive increase in the general welfare achieveable with stronger redistribution.
Getting mad at rich people because they have bigger numbers in their bank account is a weak argument, disingenuous, and immoral. The truth is much simpler: redistribution results in a more successful society.
Also, please don't assume my gender.
Edit: Pony up for what? It's not a zero sum game.
Edit: Lol, I am a "He dude". :)
We need to have a society that pays well for high demand jobs. Please don't shit on Engineers. There are millions of people out there that are sitting on real estate old money, rich families, etc. They're not doing shit. They're not building the world around you. One mega billionare would dwarf a crowd of Engineers.
I want to live in a society where science and technology jobs are paid well and even fine with absurdly well. Same with doctors.
I also want to live in a society where shitty jobs such as cleaning gutters and driving a trash truck around should also be paid well because no one wants to do those. If you're stuck flipping burgers, you have the onus to do something that's worth while and in high demand. We need to make sure we give access to those people who want to learn and get educated.
Google's employee base making $450k/year is a miniscule part of software engineers. My guess would be US-wide, the average software engineer earns less than six figures or very close to it. Not "Rich" by any means.
I am tired of the marxist bs. I barely make six figures and that's after years of toiling through shitty code bases and mentally exhausted everyday and raising a family. I do boring software and anything that's thrown at me. Not what you have in mind as "Rich". Rich is relative.
Leave engineers alone, bang on billionaire's door. I've added more value to the society and I demand an equivalent pay. The real disconnect is with the mega billionaires playing golf at the Hamptons. Anyone with a salary is by definition unleveraged and not "Rich" in my view.