What difference does it make how rich the rich are?

It is theoretically possible but only if the rich person is mega-rich and derives the bulk of their income from capital gains. But you're right in that there have been no tax returns released so we could really see if it actually occurs.

 

Enjoyed economist Walter William's article this morning about wealth in a free society.

"In Free Society, Wealth’s A Sign You're Doing Something Right"

http://news.investors.com/Article/592742/201111231900/the-rich-make-everyone-richer.htm

From the article:

 

Well, it's not exactly rocket science. Using UK tax rates as my example, the higher corporate echelons with access to one of the Big Four accountancy firms in this country can easily put down large tranches of their income as capital gains (taxed at 18%) whereas the cleaner pays income tax at 20% plus National Insurance contributions at 12%, producing a total tax on her income of 32%. As I say, that's an example using the UK tax rates, but InTheLight's post suggests something similar would apply on your side of the Pond.

 

What do you think of Teddy Roosevelt and his administration?

 

I wasn't around to see it back then. :tongue3:

I presume you are referring to his opposition to trusts that controlled the steel and railroad industries (and others) and his desire to break up monopolies and regulate these industries.

How does that relate to the OP?

 

It relates because monopolies are now "persons." <G>

It relates to the price of gas and our rotten phone and cable service (compared to other nations).

 

>But Carnegie had amassed quite a fortune long before he built Carnegie Steel Co., and Gates had quite a fortune by 1990. Had they the mind of our president, we would have lost much of their contributions, because they had already "made enough money."


Compare these people with Bach and VanGough. Did they stop writing music and painting because no one bought their products and they they didn't get richer?

Why, then do billionaire bankers continue to work? Would the public be any worse off if they retired? By the way, Gates didn't write any code once MS got off the ground.

Carnegie may have been rich before he built the steel co. but he didn't hire an army to kill strikers until after the steel company had control of the industry.

 

I saw this article on another site.

It's denying a "pile of money", but still does not address the illusion of scarcity! ("pile" or no pile).

It also ignores all the strings those already up there can pull, such as overpricing. That they see people are willing to pay anything for their services, and then take advantage and jack up the prices, and people pay more, and then later wake up to find themselves struggling. Of course, this is usually blamed on the government for taxing and giving the money to those selfish lazy, or perhaps just ungifted (talentedly inferior) yet still undeserving people.
The system operates on a devaluing of everyone else’s work and service. It’s like if one is not a top entertainer or executive, they haven’t “earned” a decent living! We blame this on "the market". Then, we tell them “just work harder” or assume that the complaints are a coming from people who just want “govt. handouts”.