Let's start

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, Pete has been on a rampage lately against income inequality, but here you are defending the obamas right to become
billionaires.

Can we establish some consistent rules in when it’s ok to be wealthy, and when it’s not? It seems to me, that it’s totally fine for liberals to be wealthy, but sinister when anyone else gets wealthy. Is that what the rule
is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My rampage as you call it and one in which I have some very wealthy compatriots, has not been about Income inequality, but about Wealth inequality. They are different. And Wealth inequality has grown in the last 30 years, but like Global warming some choose not to believe in it.
Here's a simple example and why as an old Wealthy man told me once: "Never touch the principal"
Joe and Sam both have an income of $25,000 per year. But Joe has a net worth of $1 million, and Sam has a net worth of $0. Here we have no income inequality, and yet Joe flourishes, while Sam struggles to survive. This is a very simple illustration of why wealth is what really matters, rather than income.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My rampage as you call it and one in which I have some very wealthy compatriots, has not been about Income inequality, but about Wealth inequality. They are different. And Wealth inequality has grown in the last 30 years, but like Global warming some choose not to believe in it.
Here's a simple example and why as an old Wealthy man told me once: "Never touch the principal"
Joe and Sam both have an income of $25,000 per year. But Joe has a net worth of $1 million, and Sam has a net worth of $0. Here we have no income inequality, and yet Joe flourishes, while Sam struggles to survive. This is a very simple illustration of why wealth is what really matters, rather than income.

so when is it acceptable to you, for someone to accumulate massive wealth, thus contributing to wealth inequality? Are the Clintons evil
for doing so? Are the Obamas evil for doing so?

Wealth inequality wil
always increase as the economy grows, because wealthy people
have more to invest. Pete, would
you support a law, which tells
people that after their wealth surpasses a certain amount, that they are no longer allowed to work or to invest?

All of the bitching about wealth equality, is based on the demonstrably false
assumption, that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty, as if the economy is some
kind of see saw. One side goes up, the other must go down. It doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so when is it acceptable to you, for someone to accumulate massive wealth, thus contributing to wealth inequality? Are the Clintons evil
for doing so? Are the Obamas evil for doing so?

Wealth inequality wil
always increase as the economy grows, because wealthy people
have more to invest. Pete, would
you support a law, which tells
people that after their wealth surpasses a certain amount, that they are no longer allowed to work or to invest?

All of the bitching about wealth equality, is based on the demonstrably false
assumption, that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty, as if the economy is some
kind of see saw. One side goes up, the other must go down. It doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, there are not just 2 people on the see saw.
There are people spread out all over it.
And in the last 30 years there are fewer on the wealthy side and the ones in the middle are moving ever closer to the poor side.
I guess I should just realize that middle america is lazy, ignorant and makes poor choices and that is why it is shrinking.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim, there are not just 2 people on the see saw.
There are people spread out all over it.
And in the last 30 years there are fewer on the wealthy side and the ones in the middle are moving ever closer to the poor side.
I guess I should just realize that middle america is lazy, ignorant and makes poor choices and that is why it is shrinking.

i know how many people are on the see saw. The fact that it’s more than two doesn’t matter.

Pete, consider this example. You have a wealthy guy with a billion dollars in a savings account, earning 10 million a year in interest. Let’s say he’s upset about wealth inequality, so he takes his billion dollars out of the bank, and puts it in his mattress. He no longer has any income, so his wealth will never increase. Thus, wealth inequality is less than it would
be, if he kept earning 10 million a year in interest.

He has helped to reduce wealth inequality. BUT HOW IS ANYONE BETTER OFF? WHO HAS HE HELPED?

Let me ask the same question from another angle. If he left his money in the bank and earned another ten million, wealth inequality has increased. BUT WHO HAS HE HURT? at a minimum, he pays federal income tax on that 10m, which helps the feds fund the programs that you and i both like.

If he earns more income, he isnt hurting anybody - nobody. If he forgoes the income, he isn’t helping anybody - nobody.

I can’t put it any simpler than that, if i put it that way to my dog, he would see that i’m right, and he’s not even smart as dogs go. The man isn’t taking that 10m away from anyone else. no one is better off if he chooses not to pursue the additional income.

Your argument is based on the idea that if he doesn’t accept that 10 million, it’s then available to give to the poor. Not true. Either he gets it, or no one does. His act if putting money in the bank isn’t taking wealth away from anyone. It’s creating wealth that won’t exist unless he acts to create it.

Why do you give a damn if he keeps his money in the bank and earns 10 million a year? Why does it concern you?

How do you not see this? How?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device