[goldmouth]

>contemporaries drank alcohol, smoked marijuana, traveled extensively, spent rather than saved, and otherwise wasted their gifts

The point most people are bringing up in this thread is that the children of the upperclass do that all the time and still inherit enough wealth and property to earn more than you.

[assblaster]

>The point most people are bringing up in this thread is that the children of the upperclass do that all the time and still inherit enough wealth and property to earn more than you.

The point is that the top 1% defined by the article is based on wages, not wealth. Why isn't the discussion focused on taking wealth away from the super wealthy and redistributing it?

For instance, if you have a net worth of $50 million, then 10% has to be liquidated and given to the government. Would this be fair?

[nerdponx]

Not just given "to the government", but spent on public works, social safet nets, and other forms of productive redistribution.

And yes, I think 10% off of $50 million is plenty fair. Yes, you earned that money, and I bet you would use it productively instead of blowing it on a yacht. But there are homeless people freezing to death on the streets of New York today. Don't you think you can spare a little?

Fundamentally, like I said, I agree that the top 1% by wealth is different than the top 1% by income. Perhaps we should tax income using tax brackets that scale with net worth.