Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race

[Xzi]

Thank god this communist globalist dropped out. Trump 2020

"Thank god the communist globalist dropped out. Vote fascist globalist 2020! Gotta love Israel and Saudi Arabia pulling America's strings!"

 

[morvoran]

Here is a bit of a piece of advice. If you're ever running for any office, never ever ever ever let anyone in the audience or in public high jack your microphone during a speech. It makes you look very very weak.

Just imagine how he'd handle China and Russia. President Xi and Putin would just take over the US as he steps to the side and let's it happen. Weak old socialist POS Bernie wouldn't stand a chance against them. We'd all have to learn Mandarin and/or russian.

 

[Foxi4]

You're under the mistaken impression that he spends it at all instead of hoarding it in various offshore bank accounts and tax havens. Thus there is no debate that the working class would spend it "better," they have to spend it in order to procure the necessities, which in turn ends up supporting businesses both large and small. Bezos couldn't spend all his money in one hundred lifetimes if he tried, and he's not trying.

His net worth was below 1 million before he released his book, and writing said book was more work than 95% of American CEOs have done in their entire lifetime. Trump is a prime example, having never once faced the consequences of his actions and managing to fail his way to the very top every step of the way. Average Americans don't get billion-dollar credit lines from foreign banks that they can simply refuse to pay back because of how much influence their daddies hold.

Again this argument is disingenuous anyway, since if Bernie was destitute and leaving nothing for his family you'd leap at the chance to attack him for that. Not to mention Bernie never once stated he wouldn't be paying the same tax rate he planned to impose on other millionaires. I can only wager a guess that you assume every politician on Earth is a hypocrite because all the politicians you've thrown your support behind have proven themselves as such.

Which is a meaningless generalization with no evidence to back it. A lot of Bernie supporters are on the younger side and will be voting for the first time in this election. If it only took 18 years to radicalize every single one of them, then America is far more fucked up than Bernie gives it credit for.

To some extent this is true, but death and taxes are both inevitable anyway. The working class may as well get something back for the taxes they put in, rather than continuing to give all of their taxes to corporations.

Bezos *most definitely* doesn't "hide his billions" in off-shore bank accounts, he has it invested in the stock market, among other things. The reason why rich people stay rich is because they put their money to work - by investing a significant portion of their money into stock they both stimulate economic growth *and* benefit long-term. Whatever money he has that's not in the stock market is probably invested in other things, like real estate. You and other Berners have to get the idea that people have pillows filled with dollar bills and swimming pools full of freshly-minted gold coins out of your heads, that is not how this works. The majority of Bezos' wealth is not immediately available to him - he can't go to Target and spend his Apple stock on a new TV. How does that stack up to "give it to the working class so that they can buy bread, eat it and... and then what?" - your plan is short-lived. I don't know why you wouldn't cut out the middle man and simply abolish the profit motive while you're at it, you're one step removed from an actual commune and this way you're making your vision more complicated than it needs to be.

This, along with a myriad of other reasons, is precisely why the "wealth tax" doesn't work - in order for the federal government to tax someone like that based on their overall accumulated wealth, that person would *have* to liquidate their investments - I very much doubt that he has a couple million dollars of disposable income annually to just drop into the pot because Sanders says so. Now, apply that to the entire nation and you have a perfect recipe for a financial crisis, not because the market is doing poorly, but because the fed has created conditions wherein investors *have* to pull their money out of the stock market in order to pay their excessive tax burden. It also creates a domino effect where all of a sudden people are selling stock, but nobody's buying it, so it gets progressively devalued until the stock that people *do* hold on to is worth nothing. If I was taxed 1% on my wealth tomorrow, I would have to scramble to pay that, and I don't know if I'd be able to at the drop of a hat. I own property, for starters. Add savings to that, and whatever else they consider to be "wealth", and even 1% ends up being a good couple k's. I can't magic that money into existence, I would have to liquidate assets. This problem doesn't just affect you or me, it scales upwards - the more "wealth" you own the more daunting that percentage is. Sanders' tax proposals simply do not account for what is and is not disposable income, and that's a problem.

To clarify, I don't think Bernie is necessarily a hypocrite, I think he's a talented evangelist, and his religion is socialism. This isn't a new thing either - after rejecting God most Marxists fill the hole it leaves behind with government, everyone is compelled to worship something. Sanders charms his droves of young followers by being the loving old grandpa who will wag his fingers at the bad corporations that are oppressing everyone, apparently. He's going to take away all their money and give it to you, his follower. You needn't worry about food, or lodge, or your healthcare, or education, or any future prospect because Papa Government, with Grandpa Sanders at the helm, will make sure that you live a good life. This works because young people feel cheated in the current system, and in many ways they were cheated out of prosperity, he's just wrong about the root cause. He sells escape from responsibility, and perhaps he even believes his vision himself... or he's a good conman - only he knows the answer. Either way, he's made a good living out of it, I hope he keeps on selling books, since he's obviously not giving them away for free - if you want *that* kind of education, you'll have to pay up.

It wasn't a "disingenuous argument" so much as an attempt to figure out how much, in your mind, is too much. To me, no amount is too much, but you obviously have a number in mind and I would love to know what it is. I've had this conversation with a number of socialists in the past and besides the typical buzzword of "1%" which doesn't mean anything since it's such a broad spectrum, they can't come up with one. If you "have a number, but can't put your finger on it", consider the following - if dealing with money was simple, everyone would be a millionaire. This isn't a "but they're hoarding all the capital" problem, this is a "some people come up with great ideas, find investors, capitalise on them and become rich, and other people just don't" problem. I will happily err on the side of innovation rather than redistribution - I am perfectly happy and comfortable with people keeping what belongs to them, no matter how large the sum is. It's not my money, but it *could be* if I manage to offer attractive goods and services on the marketplace.

 

[Xzi]

You and other Berners have to get the idea that people have pillows filled with dollar bills and swimming pools full of freshly-minted gold coins out of your heads, that is not how this works.

Awfully naive of you. No, it's not like the cartoons, but his money does just sit in accounts where it collects interest. No billionaire with a corporation's full resources at his disposal exposes his own money to the risks of the stock market. He just "invests" Amazon's money in that type of thing instead, including buying back their own stock.

It wasn't a "disingenuous argument" so much as an attempt to figure out how much, in your mind, is too much.

It's not about "having too much," or I'd insist that all gains past a certain amount be taxed at 100%. It's about contributing too little relative to income to consider yourself a citizen of this country and continue enjoying the privileges that brings with it. Let alone the moral and ethical implications of allowing children and veterans to starve on the streets in the richest nation on Earth. Most cities in the US haven't had their infrastructure updated since the "greed is good" era of the1980s, and thus they're becoming harder and harder to distinguish from cities in third-world countries. The problem with worshiping the "free market" is that it ties the amount of freedom an individual has to the amount of zeroes in their bank account, and/or their parents' bank account. Nowhere is this more evident than with the US' long history of slave labor, culminating with American prisoners becoming the modern-day slaves. Which is perhaps fine by miserable dusty cunts like Ayn Rand who slowly drive everyone in their life away from them, but it's no way to run a supposedly civilized country founded after the dark ages.

 

[Foxi4]

Awfully naive of you. No, it's not like the cartoons, but his money does just sit in accounts where it collects interest. No billionaire with a full corporation's resources at his disposal exposes his own money to the risks of the stock market. He just "invests" Amazon's money in that type of thing instead, including buying back their own stock.

It's not about "having too much," or I'd insist that all gains past a certain amount be taxed at 100%. It's about contributing too little relative to income to consider yourself a citizen of this country and continue enjoying the privileges that brings with it. Let alone the moral and ethical implications of allowing children and veterans to starve on the streets in the richest nation on Earth. Most cities in the US haven't had their infrastructure updated since the "greed is good" era of the1980s, and thus they're becoming harder and harder to distinguish from cities in third-world countries. The problem with worshiping the "free market" is that it ties the amount of freedom an individual has to the amount of zeroes in their bank account, and/or their parents' bank account. Nowhere is this more evident than with the US' long history of slave labor, culminating with American prisoners becoming the modern-day slaves. Which is perhaps fine by miserable dusty cunts like Ayn Rand slowly who drive everyone in their life away from them, but it's no way to run a supposedly civilized country founded after the dark ages.

Jeff Bezos' moral and ethical responsibilities in regards to the homeless, the sick, veterans and children starving in the streets are exactly the same as yours, they do not scale up or down with income. He is not magically more responsible for their well-being than you are based on his wealth, he just has better means compared to you.

As for stock buy back, it's regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Rule 10B-18. If what you're trying to say is that Bezos buys stock cheap and sells it dear, congratulations, you've just figured out how the stock market works. He's also using his own money - Amazon is a corporation, not his private fund. He can't dip into its budget and just spend it willy-nilly - that's an asinine suggestion. What you're suggesting is literally fraud, that's not his money to spend, even if he is CEO.

Fortunately we don't have to guess how Jeff Bezos makes and spends his money since he's quite happy to tell us - space exploration and fighting climate change are big ticket items on his shopping list. Truly a heartless man, if only he contributed his fair share.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-net-worth-life-spending-2018-8

 

[Xzi]

Jeff Bezos' moral and ethical responsibilities in regards to the homeless, the sick, veterans and children starving in the streets are exactly the same as yours, they do not scale up or down with income. He is not magically more responsible for their well-being than you are based on his higher income, he just had better means compared to you.

That's just about the biggest load of boot-licking horse shit that I've ever heard. Whether it's his set-in-stone, god-mandated responsibility to act or not is frankly irrelevant, the man could solve world hunger in a single day and still come out a billionaire on the other side of it. If I had that kind of wealth it wouldn't take but a millisecond to decide to pull that trigger, and the same should be true of any billionaire who's managed to hold on to even a shred of humanity throughout their immense capital gains. Unfortunately, the hoarding of wealth does simply morph into a game for most of them after a while, with anybody under a certain net worth transforming into their disposable pawns.

 

[Foxi4]

That's just about the biggest load of boot-licking horse shit that I've ever heard. Whether it's his set-in-stone, god-mandated responsibility to act or not is frankly irrelevant, the man could solve world hunger in a single day and still come out a billionaire on the other side of it. If I had that kind of wealth it wouldn't take but a millisecond to decide to pull that trigger, and the same should be true of any billionaire who's managed to hold on to even a shred of humanity throughout their immense capital gains. Unfortunately, the hoarding of wealth does simply morph into a game for most of them after a while, with anybody under a certain net worth transforming into their disposable pawns.

I sure hope you're never put in a position where those noble principles are tested - principles are great, they make you feel good, but you can't eat them. The man started a $10 billion dollar research fund helping scientists fight climate change, in 2018 he spent $2 billion on the homeless, he's in the process of building a network of tuition-free pre-schools with full scholarship, I don't know how much you expect him to spend on things he has *no obligation to pay for whatsoever*. Anything above zero is a charitable contribution worthy of praise, and although Bezos is more frugal than his peers, he certainly does more than you or me.

 

[Xzi]

The man started a $10 billion dollar research fund helping scientists fight climate change, in 2018 he spent $2 billion on the homeless

Literally the change he finds between his couch cushions, which he's more than willing to spend to keep the "peasants" in the media and the government off his back. If history teaches us anything, however, it's just a matter of time until the next "let them eat cake" tipping point arises.

 

[Foxi4]

Literally the change he finds between his couch cushions, which he's more than willing to spend to keep the "peasants" in the media and the government off his back. If history teaches us anything, however, it's just a matter of time until the next "let them eat cake" tipping point arises.

You do realise that his net worth is $130b, and most of that is not liquid, right? Just the climate pledge alone is to the tune of 5% of his total. I'd love to see you spend 5% of your total wealth on charity. If 5% of what you own can fit between your couch cushions, you either don't have a lot of wealth or you have a sizeable couch. Not that I'm really trying to convince you specifically, I know your mind is set, but the other people reading this thread can draw their own conclusions from this exchange.

 

[Xzi]

You do realise that his net worth is $130b

And that's after already being halved from his divorce. Besides, Bezos is just one example, I didn't intend to make him the entire focus of the discussion. The fact that Amazon has to be considered to be "benevolent" among the corporate world simply for having enough cash reserves to not demand a COVID-19 bailout check speaks to just how little dignity the working class is permitted to retain in this nation. And yes, they also have a $15/hour wage, but that means next to nothing in the face of abysmal working conditions and their push toward automation.

If ever there were the perfect image to describe just how deeply the free market and capitalism have failed us, it's probably this one:

 

[Seliph]

consider the following - if dealing with money was simple, everyone would be a millionaire.

Flawed argument
1. Money is finite so unless you want to horribly inflate the dollar, no one's becoming a millionaire. (Not that anyone should be in the first place)
2. If money wasn't simple, people like Donald Trump who fuck up and bankrupt several of their own institutions (i.e casinos) wouldn't be billionaires. Clearly there's something keeping these people afloat and lemme tell ya it isn't their brains. It's that once you get big and rich like Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or any number of upstart capitalists, it's very easy to keep ahold of that money because the system we live in kinda just allows that to happen. Money (often inherited) = power, power = influence, influence = more money.

Money is simple. It's the systems that rich bureaucrats put in place to allow them to hold onto their wealth that are complex, unfair and should be dismantled.

That's why people believe in the distribution of wealth. Not because everyone wants to become a millionaire, not because everyone wants a sweet taste of that government cheese, but because the people who are millionaires often float by on unearned money and the disproportionate amount of power and influence that money gives to stupid people. Meanwhile, the ever-growing lower class is expected to sit by and act like this system is okay when they go to their third job at 2 am on a Sunday just so they can barely scrape by on minimum wage accrued by shipping boxes for some lazy CEO making millions by the second. We give people positions of power simply because of their financial influence. Not because they are worthy, and not because they work hard, but because they have enough money and therefore enough power to push their will around and exploit as many people below them as possible.

That's not meritocratic, that's giving power to the highest (and often least scrupulous) bidder.

We live in an oligarchy - or - better yet -

a society.

 

[Foxi4]

Flawed argument
1. Money is finite so unless you want to horribly inflate the dollar, no one's becoming a millionaire. (Not that anyone should be in the first place)
2. If money wasn't simple, people like Donald Trump who fuck up and bankrupt several of their own institutions (i.e casinos) wouldn't be billionaires. Clearly there's something keeping these people afloat and lemme tell ya it isn't their brains. It's that once you get big and rich like Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or any number of upstart capitalists, it's very easy to keep ahold of that money because the system we live in kinda just allows that to happen. Money (often inherited) = power, power = influence, influence = more money.

Money is simple. It's the systems that rich bureaucrats put in place to allow them to hold onto their wealth that are complex, unfair and should be dismantled.

That's why people believe in the distribution of wealth, not because everyone wants to become a millionaire, not because everyone wants a sweet taste of that government cheese, but because the people who are millionaires often float by on unearned money and the disproportionate amount of power and influence that money gives to stupid people. We give people positions of power simply because of their financial influence.

That's not meritocratic, that's giving power to the highest (and often least scrupulous) bidder.

We live in an oligarchy - or - better yet -

a society.

They believe in redistribution of wealth because they're greedy and they covet. The belief that you are entitled to your neighbour's wealth exclusively on the grounds that he has more than you do is what's flawed. If three people who have little and one person who has lots "decide in a democratic vote" to take money away from "the wealthy guy", it's still a robbery, just with extra steps. People can choose to participate in charity, but the line is drawn at coercion. None of their money is "unearned".

The idea that "the rich" are wealthy because they received an inheritence is a complete fabrication supported by no data whatsoever. These cases are actually in the minority. Market research shows that 67.7% of millionaires are self-made, 23.7% inherited some wealth and built upon it and only 8.5% inherited a fortune. People who are rich only stay rich if they know how to handle their money, income mobility is incredibly high and people move in and out of the top 10% all the time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/maj...est-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html

Donald Trump who "fucks up his investments" is involved in over 400 ventures under The Trump Organisation umbrella, the gross majority of them are profitable. On average, 90% of startup business ventures fail within the first three years of operation - in the case of Trump, an analysis of his latest 60 shows that about 1/3rd failed, 1/3rd survived, but performed below expectations and the last 1/3rd succeeded. That's a good success rate, certainly outperforms the average.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...s-actually-a-pretty-good-record/#38348936486a

You also don't understand how the financial system works if you think this is a zero-sum game - the entire world economy is based on *generating* wealth. To use my favourite example, when you put bread, ham, cheese and some spread together, you form something that is more valuable than the sum of its parts - a sandwich. There is a difference between your bill of materials and the value of the item you've just created - that's your profit margin. Congratulations, you've just generated wealth.

Money is just an abstraction we've invented to quantify generated value, it's a representation of productivity. The fact that there's a "finite amount of money" printed/minted at any given time is completely irrelevant because it doesn't account for the fact that the buying power of currency constantly fluctuates. A dollar is only worth as much as the economic output it represents.

If the society you're advocating for is going to be based on cutting your best and brightest at the knee to make sure they're as short as everybody else instead of propping them up, you can keep it. My country has been through that exercise in the 80's, we're not looking for a round two and we certainly don't recommend it to anyone.

Your ideas are not novel - they've been tried and they failed before. Venezuela was held up as a shining example of successful social reform for years, until it wasn't anymore. The same applies to every single country in history that pushed socialist policies past the breaking point, destroying their economy in the process. There's a healthy middle ground here where the amount contributed is fair, but that point is not at 97.5%.

 

[Waygeek]

Which is a meaningless generalization with no evidence to back it. A lot of Bernie supporters are on the younger side and will be voting for the first time in this election. If it only took 18 years to radicalize every single one of them, then America is far more fucked up than Bernie gives it credit for.

Again, it's not. Their every abrasive, attacking, toxic post is all the evidence required, including yours.

The fact that these extremists still thought it was a good idea to run after his heart 'sploded is evidence enough, in fact this only served to whip them up into more of a fanatical frenzy.

Also... you think it takes more than 18 years to radicalize someone? LMFAO it can be done in 18 days.

The thing is... young people are immature. With little life experience. That's why Bernie's blanket statements that he could never have realistically pulled off appealed to them.

Thank god this communist globalist dropped out. Trump 2020

I was wondering where the radicalized right was. Took them a while to show, and on a gaming forum. Quite odd.

 

[tofast4u]

"Thank god the communist globalist dropped out. Vote fascist globalist 2020! Gotta love Israel and Saudi Arabia pulling America's strings!"

Gotta love Hamas and Iran pulling your strings.

 

[notimp]

Bezos *most definitely* doesn't "hide his billions" in off-shore bank accounts, he has it invested in the stock market, among other things. The reason why rich people stay rich is because they put their money to work - by investing a significant portion of their money into stock they both stimulate economic growth *and* benefit long-term.

Yeah, works wonderfully.

(Minus the hyperbole (the channel is not a good source - they are mostly out to produce outrage bait).)

The issue for a long time has been, that there is much, much more money in derivative markets, than in the real economy:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/the...economy-signaling-it-could-be-overvalued.html

Meaning. If somewhere in the world - there is growth (lets say india), and people can be convinced to invest in 'something' that promises them a better return. But the real economy isn't going so great in the developed world. You can basically make more money, by faking other investors out (invest into something they dont really understand), signaling opportunity, then cashing out and move on, while they flood in inflating the actual worth of the opportunity. Meaning - you get rich, not because you invest in the right opportunities, but in the right trends.

Meaning - that you make more money from 'virtual' transactions (having nothing to do with investments that reach any real world economy), taking other peolpes money. Essentially - playing casino.

Meaning - if you can do that, because you find/overexaggerate an opportunity in lets stay with india as an example - none of your investment helps people in the actual economy - much less in the US (or europe, or...).

Same with that money being invested in automation, or digitization (takes away well paying jobs, doesnt produce new ones).

Meaning - currently there is so much money in play looking for returns (boomer generation looking for a better retirement), with essentially no one believing in (sustainable) economic growth in the developed world, that that money is switching hands in the derivative market, like in a casino (some people loose, some people win) - ending up with big wealth people, because they can represent an aura of 'we know what we are doing' better. (Think of chip leader in poker, not taking substantial risks anymore, while blinds dont rise - similar mechanics.)

Which means, millenials are f*cked generationally. For one and a half centuries already. No one will give them (big'ish) credit (if they are starting out). They are unable to accumulate wealth through wage growth. They cant save up (0 percent interest rates after inflation). And they are told by boomers, to life a little less, for the environment in 100 years.

The only thing they can do essentially is innovate (in an economy where no one believes in sustained growth past 10 years on any thing one can come up with currently (it seems)), consume everything they have (because tomorrow it will be worth less), and inherit wealth.

Thats it.

Oh and Bezos is actively destroying city centers and small and medium size companies - through the amazon business model - which optimizes for, everyone stay at home, and click on skinner box.

(Sample image of a skinner box:

)

Here is where tax havens come in - because no one of the bigger wealth people believes that states can solve any of that - they now especially tend to not pay wealth- or income taxes if they dont have to.

(Also - if you make money in a casino, you are relatively fiscally mobile (not invested into the real world, much), meaning its harder to tax you. (In the internet age, you dont need suitcases with money going over borders anymore.))

 

[Xzi]

Again, it's not. Their every abrasive, attacking, toxic post is all the evidence required, including yours.

You've been nothing but abrasive and toxic yourself since joining this conversation. My first reply was a pragmatic breakdown of why Elizabeth Warren's campaign failed, and that one little dose of reality seemed to have been more than you could handle. Bernie's campaign was never about a single person, and work on the movement he began will continue long after he's passed away.

The fact that these extremists still thought it was a good idea to run after his heart 'sploded is evidence enough, in fact this only served to whip them up into more of a fanatical frenzy.

Also... you think it takes more than 18 years to radicalize someone? LMFAO it can be done in 18 days.

The idea that the majority of America's youth are extremists is itself an extremist position to take. Not to mention the joy you seem to find in medical emergencies befalling those who are politically opposed to you. But I suppose that's just a microcosm of how far establishment neoliberals have dragged political discourse into the mud, all the while claiming it's everybody else's fault.

 

[notimp]

You've been nothing but abrasive and toxic yourself since joining this conversation

Dont use toxic as a descriptor. All it describes is "you are one on the outside of our circle - never to be let in". That its entire meaning. As soon as that word falls, any argument is over.

You cant debate constantly uttering, that the other side the antichrist. Dont be lazy - state why you dont agree with the other sides statement. Never just say - because they are toxic.

Its so stupid, I'm constantly amazed, that there are still people that havent realized that that word is only used to win arguments, by posturing, then turning away and leaving the room.

While normally - the person leaving a discussion usually has lost it. So toxic also serves as a warm and fuzzy blanket for you not being able to win an exchange. Telling yourself, that it wasnt your fault - no, it was the other sides, who clearly, no obviously was toxic..

 

[Xzi]

Dont use toxic as a descriptor. All it describes is "you are one on the outside of our circle - never to be let in". That its entire meaning. As soon as that word falls, any argument is over.

Typically I wouldn't. It's only in this case that the other party in the conversation was repeatedly using the word as a crutch, and so I felt the need to point out the hypocrisy in it.

 

[notimp]

Just sayin'

 

[Seliph]

They believe in redistribution of wealth because they're greedy and they covet. The belief that you are entitled to your neighbour's wealth exclusively on the grounds that he has more than you do is what's flawed. If three people who have little and one person who has lots "decide in a democratic vote" to take money away from "the wealthy guy", it's still a robbery, just with extra steps. People can choose to participate in charity, but the line is drawn at coercion. None of their money is "unearned".

The idea that "the rich" are wealthy because they received an inheritence is a complete fabrication supported by no data whatsoever. These cases are actually in the minority. Market research shows that 67.7% of millionaires are self-made, 23.7% inherited some wealth and built upon it and only 8.5% inherited a fortune. People who are rich only stay rich if they know how to handle their money, income mobility is incredibly high and people move in and out of the top 10% all the time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/maj...est-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html

Donald Trump who "fucks up his investments" is involved in over 400 ventures under The Trump Organisation umbrella, the gross majority of them are profitable. On average, 90% of startup business ventures fail within the first three years of operation - in the case of Trump, an analysis of his latest 60 shows that about 1/3rd failed, 1/3rd survived, but performed below expectations and the last 1/3rd succeeded. That's a good success rate, certainly outperforms the average.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...s-actually-a-pretty-good-record/#38348936486a

You also don't understand how the financial system works if you think this is a zero-sum game - the entire world economy is based on *generating* wealth. To use my favourite example, when you put bread, ham, cheese and some spread together, you form something that is more valuable than the sum of its parts - a sandwich. There is a difference between your bill of materials and the value of the item you've just created - that's your profit margin. Congratulations, you've just generated wealth.

Money is just an abstraction we've invented to quantify generated value, it's a representation of productivity. The fact that there's a "finite amount of money" printed/minted at any given time is completely irrelevant because it doesn't account for the fact that the buying power of currency constantly fluctuates. A dollar is only worth as much as the economic output it represents.

If the society you're advocating for is going to be based on cutting your best and brightest at the knee to make sure they're as short as everybody else instead of propping them up, you can keep it. My country has been through that exercise in the 80's, we're not looking for a round two and we certainly don't recommend it to anyone.

Your ideas are not novel - they've been tried and they failed before. Venezuela was held up as a shining example of successful social reform for years, until it wasn't anymore. The same applies to every single country in history that pushed socialist policies past the breaking point, destroying their economy in the process. There's a healthy middle ground here where the amount contributed is fair, but that point is not at 97.5%.

It was an incorrect statement that most "self-made" get inheritances, that's my bad. But if you look at a large number of "self-made" millionaires it's pretty evident who they are. The majority of them come from mid-upper class families. The majority of them are white males. The majority of them have gone to college. Yes, there are exceptions, but the general trend for most "self-made" millionaires are white male college graduates from generally affluent families. Looking at the 67.7% you've cited, a lot of that 67.7% appears to fit this description.

So yes, they may have put their time and effort into making their fortune, but you cannot deny the socioeconomic factors that weight that wealth in their favor. It's much easier to become affluent as a white male because most rich people are white males (and they wanna keep it that way) and if you come from a family of means (again, most of these self-made millionaires do), you are much more able to go to college and therefore have a greater range of opportunities to gain wealth.

The problem is that if you don't fit that criterion, it becomes much much harder to become rich, or even sustain yourself or a family. Again, redistribution of wealth is not just because we "want the rich people's money" it's because the rich people's money is used to perpetuate this cycle that only allows white college graduate males from affluent backgrounds to become rich (with some outliers). Like I said earlier, money = power, and the rich people in power are usually the ones that lobby against reducing the effects of climate change, that lobby against public education, and that lobby against fair and affordable health care. By redistributing that wealth, we take away the power of the few wealthy bureaucrats and give that power to the people, the ones who actually need it.

When you redistribute that wealth, opportunities open up. It becomes easier to afford housing, which in turn makes it easier to hold onto a job which in turn makes it easier to go to college which in turn gives you more opportunities to support an affluent lifestyle. If everyone has the opportunity to become affluent instead of just white college graduate males from affluent families, then the lower class shrinks, and the upper-middle-class becomes more diverse and therefore we get more diverse people in power, making our government more democratic because the people in power cater to more demographics than just white college graduate males from affluent families.

Redistribution of wealth is not and will never be about simply "taking away money from rich people", it's about providing the means of success to people who aren't predisposed to wealth, to people who aren't white males from affluent families.

Now I'm not saying it's bad to be a white male from a wealthy family, but it is a bad thing that the vast majority of rich people reflect these attributes because that shows a clear socioeconomic bias towards these people, which is undemocratic.