What the 1% don’t want you to know

Christ was that serious? It's all good. Those abundant istances in history where rulers of large populations came out and gave all their subjects work free welfare of course.
The only societies that have lasted long have been ones with high death rates and the occ. On purpose kill back.

 

How many persons (tax returns) paid tax at the highest marginal tax rate, and how many dollars were collected at those rates each year when it was much higher than today?

Most billionaires wealth is NOT a result of having received large sums of taxable income, and can increase (or decrease) dramatically from one year to the next without incurring any additional tax liability.

 

That, an 80% population reduction, would put an end to the unemployment problem and make global warming a non-issue once again.

 

<< The rate of population growth is falling...due to birth control.>>

? Maybe on your planet. Here the only thing slowing anything down is fixing them so they can't even have right babies anymore, starvation and spaying stray alley cats. You give new def to "rose colored glasses".
Birth control didn't start "magically" working overnight after 40 years of being only partially effective for non-trash people.
Or has obammy declared genocide is now called birth control and anybody who says different is just plain racist? I always considered politically correct about two rungs up the human ladder from sex-based identity/rhetoric so I never know what's "in" currently with the bullshitters ~ or up at Berkely

 

Certainly true.

Wondering if we have passed the period of Peak Wealth.

The late Victorian period saw railroad magnates, steel & oil barrons.

There remains plenty of wealth, insulated by political cover.

 

Can anybody else make any sense of this faux conservative meandering rhetoric?
I am at a loss.

 

It would be nice if we didn't get bogged down with 'tax' or murdering 5-6 billion people :/
I would like to have some e.g's of those on the pyramid of so-called power, lets say those earning (or with capital) above 5 million, Kings and Queens, billionaires and ok 'bankers' that have a detrimental effect on society (not historically speaking).
Perhaps this is more a moral issue rather than an economic or genocidal issue - not all 'rich' people are 'bad' and not all 'poor' people' are 'good'.
I have been watching lots of debates around this, and it always seems to get bogged down to 'tax'.
Is there ant debates out there that focus on real life rather than some vague notions of 'inequality' (and not just focused on America)?

 

It is global. It is only about money. The meat doesn't mean anything in the equation because on your pyramid, the lowest two levels are ten times under scale. That's about as simple as it gets, but does not serve the apparent need to "discuss" emptily and worthlessly.

 

How 'global' is: 'obammy declared genocide is now called birth control and anybody who says different is just plain racist? '?

The pyramid does not have to mean anything.
(for e.g in most countries the military isn't near the top of the food chain).
There are those above and below me In the grand scheme of things, but how do they effect me on a day to day basis?
It was just thrown out there.

The Queen of England has what 'power' exactly and what detriment to me exactly?

 

Odin, an unfair socioeconomical society negatively affects anyone who is not wealthy.

 

It's with an 'o'

How? (including what I have mentioned earlier)

 

By ensuring that the unwealthy remain slaves to a demeaning workforce whereby climbing the socioeconomical ladder is basically an impossible task. The wealthy have the poor thinking that they should be grateful and comfortable with their lowly roles in life.

 

ow 'global' is: 'obammy declared genocide is now called birth control and anybody who says
different is just plain racist? '?

India, africa, the eu and uk as far as it looks to me. The uk and us have not caught up to the others but well enough on the way.

<<The pyramid does not have to mean anything.>>

Still made a good illustrating point - but in our countries, they are pretty far up there.

<<(For e.g in most countries the military isn't near the top of the food chain).

Maybe not in egypt, just for illus., but they do the messy work as agents of the higher

<<There are those above and below me In the grand scheme of things, but how do they effect me on a
day to day basis?>>

I am not sure about there. The precise mechanism as it were, by which social programs go down while need goes up. That is a dynamic of a "boil out and kill back" though both don't always go together.
Here, first jobs went to shit. Then jobless people were demonized to justify cuttng off our version of the dole or pip or whatever your version is. According to mrfrankenstein's posting, it looks like people are directed to all these "job clubs" for a term, but rather meaninglessly as there aren't realistically jobs in existence for most of them. I call that "cattle milling" instead of chuting, because they are just kept going in circles.

It was just thrown out there.

<<The Queen of England has what 'power' exactly and what detriment to me exactly>>

If it goes by her word there, which I think not, then the power is to determine what jobs and income will be. We have congress, you do parlaiment - same deal. The upper money tree creates the financial and work reality which is what "trickles" down instead of the money here.

Here they call it "unemployment extension" which they keep having to "extend" just barely each time, yet there are less jobs available and more unemployed than they say in their "stats" which at least here, are pretty bogus.

That's pretty much what I meant. A "boil off" is when you cause people to imitate in a way that ends badly for them but with a kill back added, it just goes farther to where someone that does have a job commits a "pre crime, thought crime, hate crime" and ends up displaced because of an effort, but not theirs.

 

Imho, there are societal tiers, and most people do not concern themselves with the other tiers.
My dad was a fire-fighter (now retired).
Did he concern himself with trying to be the CEO of ICI? No.
Did he want to be a Lord or a Sir? No.
Are those that are ALL morally bankrupt? No.
He wanted the best life (in his job).
He did not have a 'lowly life'.
It is quite disrespectful to say the majority of people have a 'lowly life'.
'wealth' is, obviously, subjective and does not mean anything with regards to the type of person you are.
My brother earns £30k as a manager, and others earn £15k working below him.
Do you think he is a worse person because he worked his way up to that level from their level?

So, is it possible to answer the question where it actually means something?

 

Twinkies dont last as long as youd think. Spread the word. Viva la revolution

 

I do not have a complaint against societal tiers as far as labels are concerned. Usually, there is always someone in charge. Should those higher up make more money than those on lower tiers? No. Everyone should be economically secure, and to ensure that no one should be paid more money than anyone else. No one should be socioeconomically complacent for the comfort and ego of those on higher tiers.