[microcolonel]

> If we pillaged the top 1% and distributed their wealth evenly the entire rest of the population would get close to a 100% raise. That's how filthy rich the top 1% are.

The problem with this, of course, is that the rich would simply leave. They are the most attractive to rob, and the best prepared to escape.

In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it.

[s_kilk]

> In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it.

You can't be serious. Social mobility (to the extent it ever existed) is way down over the past 40 years, and there's no sign of that trend reversing.

[stephenbez]

I assume you meant the top 10%. In the US 56% of people will spend a year or more in the top 10%. 12% of people will spend a year or more in the top 1%.

http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-in...

[slackingoff2017]

I had no idea that 12% of the population makes top one percent income for at least a year of their life. What causes so many of these people to fail?

How could there possibly be so many jobs that offer that kind of income. Or maybe it's that most jobs offering high income have short tenure..

[danielvf]

The 1% for the most part aren't billionaires. Last year in the US, the threshold was just under $285,000. Ignoring professionals, plenty of small business owners can hit that on a lucky year. (And get hammered other years). There are a lot of jobs in the US with companies with fewer than 50 people.

Confiscating the assets of the 1% to create economic prosperity has been tried a few times before, and usually turns out horribly in ten years. You've removed the people who risk their own money from society, and replaced it with only assest allocation by bureaucrats.

Plus, as soon as you removed the one percent, then you have a new one percent.

See Dekulakization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

[kuschku]

The solution isn't in removing them, but in going back to the top tax rates of the 1950s/1960s/1970s, which were around 70% for the top bracket.

With that, you can then reduce the taxes for the lower economic classes, and fund better infrastructure and education.

[slackingoff2017]

As much as I like the idea of wealth redistribution I have the same doubts it will work. A similar phenomenon happened in South Africa when it was tried. The initial wealth distribution worked okay but it got rid of owners that knew how to run a business and replaced them with corrupt politicians.

As much as many of the 1% don't deserve it... A lot of them have that much money for a reason. The ones I knew, the "new money", were generally extremely intelligent and hard working before they made their millions. A lot of them are on permanent vacation now but if all of us had that much brains, charm, and grit it would be a lot easier to get rich.

[arvinsim]

> A lot of them are on permanent vacation now but if all of us had that much brains, charm, and grit it would be a lot easier to get rich.

Don't forget that sometimes luck is a big part of the reason why some of those people are successful.

[Unkechaug]

Are they counting income from inheritance, selling assets (houses), etc? I wouldn't be surprised in that case.

[stephenbez]

Short answer, not really.

It looks like this is the source for the claims: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

This is what the paper says: "Total family income is the measuring stick used to determine levels of affluence achieved. This is defined as taxable income of head of household and spouse, taxable income of other family members of the household, and transfer income of head, spouse, and others."

Based on what I know about US tax, you don't have to pay taxes on the first $500k in gains for your primary house (if married), and inheritances usually aren't considered taxable income.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/capital-gains-and-your... https://www.hrblock.com/get-answers/taxes/income/is-your-inh...

[icebraining]

The problem with this, of course, is that the rich would simply leave.

The rich can leave, but the profits their companies generate locally can still be taxed. And they can be taxed more when the money gets sent to wherever those rich people went to.

[lovich]

That's a pretty bold claim about people's chance to enter and leave the 1%. Additionally there are only so many places to run to and its not like peoples money is all tied up in gold that can be smuggled out of the country anymore. It's pretty easy for governments to just put a block on their accounts if for some reason the wealthy decided they could make all of their money off of a society and then bounce when it came time to share in that same society

[wott]

> most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life

I beg your pardon?