The top 20% should hold X% of the nation's wealth - Page 2

Most countries "leech" on the few rich corporate for development and for money. But if a nation as such has too much dependency on the top 20%, the government is a failure / it is a one-trick pony.

You people who are voting 30% are deluded. I don't think you would really like such a system.

20% is pure communism. Communism simply does not work unless it's 100% voluntary. And it never will be outside of small communities, due to human nature.

The truth isn't an ad-hom. It's hilarious you discuss forum guidelines in the same post in which you tell someone to "stick them up your fucking anus." The level of delusion here is quite funny.


The language use there is quite interesting. It reflects complete fatalism. You are not who you choose to be, but where you were born. Your parents aren't who they chose to be either. They were just in political causes "they couldn't escape." I find it fascinating that you excuse your own behavior as nothing more than fate. I guess it explains why after multiple bans, you still engage in it and also why you continue to levy the claims and hold the beliefs you do. They aren't connected to reality, but they are just your "fate."


I don't need it spelt out for me, but what you need spelt out for you is a circle of understanding that goes a little wider and a little deeper. The facts you claim also need to survive outside of your limited perspective. Why was colonialism so bad for Africa but yet so good for Europe? Those of us who don't limit our circle of understand to the perimeters or race understand that England for example was conquered in a multitude of ways for centuries longer than it ever held colonies and this is true of much of Europe, yet you don't write them off or lower your expectations for those countries.

Please explain that to me MJ. How is that what we call England today could be overrun by the Romans, the Saxons, etc. for a thousand years and yet it hasn't become the deplorable shithole that you keep noting Africa to be. You keep noting that "the West" screwed up and screwed over Africa by making them colonies and so now of course it is only "the West" that can fix Africa. They couldn't possible lift themselves up at all. Of course not because in your view, whitey always has the answer, even if the first answer was what caused the problem, and now even after that, he still has the answer again.


It's rather sad that those in Europe hold to such an antiquated version of racism. The whole continent is famous for it though. I mean if there were ever a place where you were going to be killed for your blood origin, it is Europe.


Well I'm not inclined to let your racism just lie there. Anyone who notes that the 85% white places are utopia, and the 85% black places are hell holes needs to be called out. This becomes doubly true when they just make up bullshit and lie outright. See when whitey is pumping dirty energy from the ground, at least he is building utopia with it. There's no poor and no homeless. Those claims were completely bogus bullshit. Why would anyone submit such easily disprovable claims in the face of the facts, racism plain and simple.


How convenient it is that you excuse your racism when called on it by feigning ignorance. Before this though you had just the solution for America, a place that you now plead complete and total cluelessness about. I guess you can chastize Camp David about his lack of imagination because that is the location from where all your "facts" have been fabricated.


How can utopia have racism? How can it be the solution for other places when racism is embedded into their culture to such a degree that it made you leave?


Leave your love life with the fiance out of this oh and congrats. I'm pretty sure the fiance thing is new.

I think we all get the point. What you don't understand is the false choice you're asking us to make. What is the end result, IDK. What should be the end result, IDK. What would be the ideal result, IDK. What's the most fair result, IDK.


Economics is organic.

Trumptman inserted racism into this thread. Racism is not a factor as to why economically, anywhere in Denmark is a better place than anywhere in the US for the great majority of people. Can we get back on subject please?

If everyone had equal opportunity, then those with traits like skill, intelligence, creativity, perseverance, vision, etc. would be better off than those without. As it stands, those who start with an economic advantage are better off, regardless of any of those traits.

This.

Yes I've noticed it crops up in his posts frequently and it is offensive. He should try just staying off of that subject.

Amazing how all the people how claim they are so tolerant move away from all the people they claim to tolerate and move to places that are largely homogenous. You live in a country that is 95% Chinese.

I've never posted anything racist on these boards. I believe I could find some very inflammatory posts by you though. I don't even have to consult imaginary and edited posts on other forums. You've used it just because 'you're allowed' due to your imaginary and self-perceived 'tolerance'.

Just like how MJ is "allowed" to knock down Africa, and recommend Denmark while chastizing others about their lack of imagination related to made up facts. It's all racist and he admits he knows nothing about the places. The places he has encountered in person, he has declared racist and yet they are the answer.

What sort of person takes a homogenous country of five million people filled with racism, by his own admission and recommends it to a country of 330 million filled with all manner of people and cultures? An idiotic racist, that's who. Also who defends such actions with completely made up nonsense that is easily disproven, a racist because only a belief in racial superiority would allow such a suspension of belief over the facts.


I'm not the one recommending places with imaginary facts and then noting in reality that the solution is unworkable on a large scale.

I noted Tonton that Denmark wouldn't be larger than a decent size county in California.

So let's move Denmark to California.

The rest of the state has their present demographics including 42% white and 40% Hispanic. The "county" of Denmark is 86% white, well educated, and just so happens to sit on some massive oil reserves that they use to pump out wealth and sustain their lifestyle. They aren't required to share their reserves with all the other counties. They get to keep it themselves.

If I suggested that all the other counties in California need only do what the county of "Denmark" is doing, that would be considered a racially insensitive suggestion. They would note the income differences, the differences in geography and resources available and they would note the array of cultures, languages and other disadvantages that the "poorer" counties have to pay to service that the "county" of Denmark does not have to pay to service.

It would be considered profoundly racist to suggest the other counties in California just do or become what the "county" of Denmark has become. Mandate a uni-culture, do everything in one official language, no outreach, no diversity programs. No one questions or even is concerned with the homogenous environment solution. It's racist.

Keep digging yourself into a hole.

Keep making strange suggestions that suggest you have some sort of leverage or power rather than addressing what was presented.

Of course there is no way to address it.

Tonton, are you working to overcome the clearly racist immigration policy that keeps Hong Kong 95% Chinese? If you aren't then you are racist. If you are not advocating for massive immigration from non-Chinese countries to offset the dominate and majority culture, then you are part of the problem. If the majority and dominate culture isn't spending and redistributing all their wealth in efforts to build this diversity and you aren't demanding massive and radical change, then you are fine with the status quo, and by definition then that is racist.

Keep digging...

Yes, I have volunteered for years for local human rights issues, among which are many issues related to race. I think by now you should be well aware of my human rights activism. Now, I'd like to know exactly what you've done about race issues in California.

Meanwhile, you do know that Hong Kong can be 90% Chinese for a reason that has nothing at all to do with policy, right? You do know that, right?

Once again you're linking an issue that has nothing to do with race to racism, simply because, you look at things from a racist perspective.

Everyone looks at things from a racist perspective, and it does not matter anyway. All that matters is weather or not what he said is true.

Does Denmark have an easier time than we do, due to natural resources and a homogeneous racial mix? I think that the answer is probably yes.

Why would I be aware of your claimed activism? As for myself at a minimum you should remember that I did not support Prop 8 and I do endorse the Dream Act. That along with the fact that education is a large part of social justice should be plenty.


Most Asian cultures are racist on a level more profound than Americans can even begin to imagine. I'm trying to awaken your own lack of understanding in this area. I live in a country where people will bus kids around just so schools have a certain racial make up. You live in a country where the prevailing attitude is so stridently racist and xenophobic that no one would dare come in to even create a racial make up to distribute.


I showed precisely how the assumptions of yourself and MJ were profoundly racist. You won't touch them because the reasoning is unassailable.


The most offensive thing about their reasoning is that they would so easily understand how bad it was if the source weren't Nordic. Oil wealth is like inherited wealth. You don't gain it because of what you do. You gain it because of where you happen to be. If I said see how smart George Bush or Paris Hilton happens to be and noted how others should emulate them so they can somehow gain the same financial advantages, they would laugh it off as ridiculous bullcrap in about 2 seconds.

The same is true of Denmark.

Dear Trumptman.

Please learn some fucking history. You are a teacher? Then learn some fucking history.

The Romans left Britain in about 400 AD, I think. I can't be arsed to find the exact date.

And then there was a period called 'The Dark Ages', you dumbass.

Buildings fell down, all the tribes kicked the shit out of each other until the Angles and the Jutes waltzed in, there was no central government and people starved. It wasn't until the Vikings colonised central Anglia that there was anything approaching a united kingdom.

It took nearly three centuries.

And who put England on the path to Empire? Oh yeah. It was the Danes. Not once, but three times. Because William the Conqueror was a Viking settler. The Normans were NORSE-MEN.

Going to patronise me about the bigger picture? Get a fucking clue first. Thx.

You totally fail to see the picture.

The Roman's never came back and cleaned up their mess. Thus England should be a giant shithole forever.

They were never made whole.

Also as you declare, rather stridently I might add, it took another set of empire builders to come in and impose progress on them. It's pretty clear you think this is what ought to happen in Africa as well. If they would just bow down to their Nordic lords and learn their proper place, then the continent could make some progress.

You shouldn't work so hard to prove my point for me. How very...European of you.

Trump, please posts some thoughts in the comically named "strictly European" thread. It needs some US juice.

Thanks!

edit . . .

deleted my post because engaging with the charge i'm suggesting that the Danes invade Africa because white people are superior is insane

I notice that none of the voters in this poll voted 90%. It's odd that you are voting for a choice that is more socialist, or in other words, income is more redistributed than the current situation in the US.

And this is my point. Every single one of the right wingers and Libertarians who voted in this thread picked a number that was more socialist than the actual situation. Yet they keep supporting measures that will WIDEN the gap even further. Dumbasses.

Denmark?

How many people are legally/illegally lining up to get into/sneak into Denmark versus the United States? Immigration is a great testimonial to the inherent value of a nation; at 5,493,621 (2008) Denmark can't really compare itself to 307,006,550 (2008) the United States. We probably had five million people sneak into the United States last year! So how are you saying that Denmark is a better place for a great majority when its entire population doesn't even equal the population trying to immigrate here?

This is taken directly from Communism.The sickle with the worker.Are you one?

I didn't vote in this ridiculous poll. I explained why.

So let me get this reasoning straight because it's laughable. Americans mis-estimate the income disparity. This is proof of....

They want an income distribution similar to Sweden, even though no evidence is provided for Americans have a knowledge of Sweden, the lifestyle that said income distribution provides, the comparability of that lifestyle to the current lifestyle, the trade-offs associated from one to the other, etc.

That entire conclusion is based off the fact that a NUMBER is the same. Nothing more, a number.

It has to be the largest logical leap I've ever possibly read. It's about as silly as saying "American's mis-estimate life expectancy, and thus are demanding death squads to kill off the elderly five years prematurely."

Talk about out of touch.... really. Think about what you just said because it is embarrassing. It amounts to, Americans picked a number. This other country has that number and no other context is provided for it, THUS our country wants all that countries policies.

This is incredibly embarrassing for you. Why would you link to such stupidity? I guess it is like the racism, when you find some little bit of ignorance to help support your own continued ignorance, you just spout it without any thought.


Perhaps the average American doesn't understand income versus wealth. Perhaps they already feel wealthy because they have a decent standard of living regardless of what the wealth disparity happens to be. Perhaps the wealth gap doesn't measure what is claimed since the folks picking the number appear not to draw the conclusions about their supposedly miserable lives that the study suggests they should.

When reality doesn't match up to the conclusions, you don't try to change the reality, you change the conclusions. The conclusion is that Americans should be completely miserable given their wealth disparity. They should be able to easily understand and estimate how much richer the rich are due to their own miserable, wretched state being so bad in comparison. So they are asked about it and surprise, don't feel that poor and don't feel like the rich are that rich.

I guess the claims about how poor and wretched they are then are pure bullshit.


MJ liked it so much he fled the country. He fled utopia but recommends other adopt it as the model. When we question such a statement, he thinks we are all the idiots and he is the enlightened one. Why would we adopt what you just fled?


Nor did I. It's not a serious question even.

Denmark's neighbours are Norway, which is the richest nation in the world, and Sweden and Germany. All of these nations have a better standard of living than the United States of America. If you live there, you're not going to jump the border to Denmark. Are you.

America's neighbours are Canada and Mexico.

Denmark is not America. Not every nation in the world has a border on Mexico. Get a fucking passport. You will see this for yourself.

And your figures are totally made up. "We probably had five million people sneak into the United States last year." This figure. Use your brain. This figure is impossible. You have made it up.

He spoke French as his primary language, which is why we have so many French words in English now, how exactly was he Norse?

"William was born in either 1027 or 1028 in Château de Falaise in Falaise, Normandy, France, and more likely in the autumn of the later year.[1][notes 1] William was the only son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, as well as the grandnephew of the English Queen, Emma of Normandy, wife of King Ethelred the Unready and then of King Canute the Great.[3] Though illegitimate, his father named him as heir to Normandy. His mother, Herleva, who later married and bore two sons to Herluin de Conteville, was the daughter of Fulbert of Falaise. In addition to his two half-brothers, Odo of Bayeux and Robert, Count of Mortain, William also had a sister, Adelaide of Normandy, another child of Robert."

Don't see anything about him being a Viking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

What a bizarre measure of the quality of a country.

More people shoplift from WalMart than Gucci. So WalMart must be a better store.

I don't think it all that bizarre at all. I would say that immigration/emigration patterns might tell us something about where people want to live all other economic, "standard of living", tax, welfare and "quality of life" statistics aside. In fact I know of one successful business/technology person who has said that he specifically moved from Denmark to the US because trying to start, run and manage a business in Denmark was a pain in the ass compared to the US. So I don't think looking at which way people are flowing is bizarre at all. Now I would agree that it might not be the only thing you should look at, but it might be telling us something.

i think if CD compared Europe to the US instead of just Denmark he would find that Europe has more immigrants each year than the US does. Therefore Europe is better.

Think how much more money we'd have! 30% might not seem much but remember your average Jo would be loaded and any more than that would be like triple cream.

You'd probably need to look at net migration patterns. Even sources. Point is, I still think it's not an entirely bizarre metric to look at.

Don't bet on it.

Ye of little faith.

I will say though I wouldn't be for mandating 30% but if it could happen freely it could be ideal.

Of course it's not, but I think CD was using it as a "get out of jail free card", though he wouldn't be the first person from the US to do that.

If it happened freely, then you're probably right. If it happened as a result of forcible re-distribution then not so much.

What do you mean?

I don't think so. I think 30% would be is far beyond where the theories of the free market bunch would actually start to take effect and wipe out entrepreneurism and hard work. Productivity would halt and the whole nation would be poor. This is exactly how communists systems have always failed. Due to human nature, we do not work our asses off for the better good as long as doing so won't make us any better off than the next guy. We need a good amount of capitalism to keep us productive.

The difference between me and Jazzy and MJ1970 is exactly how much capitalism is best. They believe in 100% capitalism (or 90%) and I think that's just as disastrous as 100% Communism. What we need is middle ground. We need to give entrepreneurs the opportunity to build the Ikeas and the Nokias and the Siemenses and the wind turbine companies to maintain the level of economic progress. And we need to give the Average Joe the feeling that their hard work is making them happy. AND we need to give the less fortunate a tolerable basic standard of living so that they don't have to worry about how to pay for the doctor if they get the flu or whether they will have to eat from a garbage can again next week.

What income disparity does is it makes the goal of wealth impossible for most people to attain, so they give up. It's simply not worth working 120 hours a week when your boss works 50 and has 100x more money.

Do you or anyone else have any good examples of it happening freely outside of taxation?