[romanoderoma]

That's the problem, because their wealth is many times larger than the bottom 90%

The top 1% of the population in US owns 39% of the wealth, top 10% own 76% of the wealth, bottom 50% owns only 1% of it.

If the system was fair, bottom 50% of the population should pay no taxes, because they own too little to live.

BTW you are another of the wannabe rich I guess who drank the billionaires cool aid, the top 1% only pays a marginal amount of the taxes

"Zucman, as detailed in his new book, "The Triumph of Injustice," written with fellow University of California at Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, found that the 400 richest Americans now pay a total tax rate of about 23% — that's lower than the bottom half of U.S. households, who pay a rate of about 24%"

American Scholars and the FED are making these analyses, not some hippie socialist in a kibbutz

It's time you all wake up

[tekknik]

> BTW you are another of the wannabe rich I guess who drank the billionaires cool aid, the top 1% only pays a marginal amount of the taxes

This is a horrible excuse. Nobody has ever argued they want things to stay this way because one day they’ll be rich. How the liberals got this idea is a great question. The reason why people care is because this is a slippery slope. One side thinks you can’t pay enough taxes, and the other side wants their money to spend on themselves. It’s not “wannabe rich” so quit running around spouting that off out of ignorance. What we want is fairness and we happen to understand the rich people own the businesses. If you keep reaching into their pocket they will leave. Then what? Businesses and money will magically appear? I think it’s time you wake up, unless this is gonna be a typical liberal tantrum where we won’t hear the end of it until we submit to further taxation.

[romanoderoma]

To be clear, it is wrongful thinking because people cannot usually grasp the vastness of billions and make their idea around their thousands as of it was the same

It isn't

Consider this

If you had a billion today and paid 1% every year in 20 years you would pay 220 millions total

In those same 20 years if you invested in a conservative way, say 4% guaranteed, which is arguably easy if you have a billion, after 20 years you would have gained 1.2 billions

In other words a net positive of one billion

Talking about numbers helps because the ratio is the same if you apply them to 1 thousand dollars

220 dollars spent, 1.2 thousands gained, 1 thousand net positive

The only difference is that making 4% with a thousand dollars is harder than with a million times a thousand dollars

Simply put you have a million 1,000 dollars chances VS Just the one

Or put it another way you could spend 1k every day for a million days, which is approximately 2,740 years, it means you could spend 10k/day for 274 years or 100k/day for 27 years or a million every day for 3 years.

And the compound interest would keep the initial billion grow indefinitely.

It basically means you have infinite money.

And you are worried that taking 1% would be detrimental for billionaires?

> If you keep reaching into their pocket they will leave

Biases are so boring... (you used a mix of confirmation bias and ancoring bias)

We are not even reaching their pockets now, they are paying less than the poor

Wake up, or you end up living worse than rich people's dogs (you probably already are right now in US)

[tekknik]

> And you are worried that taking 1% would be detrimental for billionaires?

Yes, because again it’s not fair. I completely ignored the rest of what was above this because I’m not a child and am quite capable of understanding quite advanced math and how large a billion is. So to recap you’re saying it’s ok because they have a lot of money.

I’m actually living quite well in the US, despite coming from a very poor family with both parents getting cancer and having absolutely no money to put me through school. Instead of complaining or finding new inventive ways to take others money I taught myself skills worth a lot of money and now no longer have to worry about it.

As far as your paying less than the poor statement, let’s get some facts to back that up? Actual facts, not liberal news articles.

Also I see we’re taking the “we want more of your money” tantrum route.