If the top 80% had to give up all assets/ownership to be equal to bottom20%,would you?

[graham4anything]

A question-if the top 80% had all their wealth taken away, so they could be equal
to the 20% of the poorest, I would be 100% for that.

Would you?

That means anyone not in the poorest 20% would have to give up everything to be in the 20% poorest.
Then say give everyone $75,000 a year and free school and free health insurance.
Are you in?

see, what I keep gathering is, most people are not actually wanting to give up theirs to become the poorest of the poor, which makes the faux protest well, faux.

I would gladly give up everything I have to be equal with the 20% poor, as long as the 80% who are above the 20% of the people, do the same.
(and that includes ALL assets and material items and homes and cars and everything including all land).

So, there are 320 million people.
80% would be 256 million people would have to give up everything
leaving 64 million people as the 20% poorest, to be joined by the 80%.
Are you in?

[JHB]

1. Who's stronger: Tarzan or Flash Gordon?

[graham4anything]

2. You see, this is a topic the 1/99%ers never will acknowledge with their rants.

[JHB]

3. Damn Straight! They never want to admit Buck Rogers can kick both their asses...

...with one hand tied behind his back.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

32. .

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. +1 n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

4. Some people read your posts and ask why.

I read your posts and say "who cares?"

[bemildred]

5. Yep, I'm there.

All this consuming is much too complicated and a lot of work too.

"Property is theft".

[TimberValley]

29. "Property is theft"

So, if a homeless man owns a toothbrush, is this "theft" for him to own a toothbrush?

[hfojvt]

56. I think Proudhon may have only been talking about land and buildings

when he said "property is theft" and generally if you go far enough back in its history somebody first stole the land from somebody else, for any given piece of land.

[bemildred]

68. Yep, that's it, first you let one homeless man have a toothbrush,

and the next thing you know corporations are buying congressmen right and left. It's a slippery slope and just greased with good intentions too.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Property is theft. Property is liberty. Property is impossible.

Confusing our semantic maps with "real" reality is like walking into a restaurant and trying to eat the menu.

[bemildred]

117. Indeed.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe:



So what, exactly, is "property"?

[Throd]

74. I stole my own car?

[LWolf]

6. No, I would not be okay with that.

With taking away all the wealth, so that 100% were "the poorest."

Sharing the wealth? Absolutely. Those with more giving up some to equalize things? Sure. That means closing the gap; bringing "the poorest" up, hopefully above the poverty level SO THAT NOBODY IS "POOR."

Putting EVERYONE in the bottom 20%? Pretending that's mathematically possible, no. Are you sure you've worded this idea correctly?

[FBaggins]

7. Of course not

Nor would doing so help those 20%

[CBGLuthier]

8. I assume you mean national not global

Nationally I am within this bottom 20 percent but when you talk globally I live like a king.

Sure, you guys go ahead and give your stuff up if that will make you feel better.

Me, I am going to keep attempting to get back out of the bottom.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. No.

[Sharpie]

10. Silly and No...

Race to the bottom for everyone...

[badtoworse]

11. The short answer is no.

[tom2255]

12. No.

I was homeless. I met a lot of other homeless people. I still work with homeless people.

No.

[In_The_Wind]

18. Hello tom2255.

[img][/img]

I'm so sorry that you were homeless.
Many people would be in the same place if misfortune happens.

Thank you for the work you are doing with the homeless people.

[pinboy3niner]

19. Welcome to DU, tom2255

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. The figures would be more like "if the top 20% had to give up assets to have wealth = the bottom 80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_wealth

Mean wealth of all families in 2007 was $506,500. In the 75-89.9% band, the median (ie the 82-83 percentile) was $520,200; the mean for that group was $533,600. So a family at about the 80 percentile would have a little less - ie the overall mean.

So, to even everyone out, you'd just take from the top 20%, and the bottom 80% would gain.

[graham4anything]

17. One for all, No more, no less.

It would mean in my example giving up anything over that, so that everyone has that.

The excess could go to any/all new citizens/or people here who immediately would receive the and everyone would be equal.

The middle would not need one dollar more.
There would be zero poor and no one who wants to be in the country would have less than the middle.
And the rich would also have the same amount, whatever number it is.
total material assets/land/home anything.

And make it 500 million people instead of 320, to account for anyone who would want to enter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Such a drastic cut would mean everybody giving up ownership of their homes

The bottom 20% are not wealthy enough to own a simple home. Who, then, would own all the property in this situation you are suggesting?

[graham4anything]

24. Everyone.

Isn't that the point of the ones who preach 1%/99% to make equality for all?

(or is it secretly actually not?)

Because if the 1%/99%ers are just making political talking points, and not wanting to...well...

I would feel let down by that.

(note-I do not believe in burning things down without thoroughly thinking through 100% of all consequences the day and years after.)

and no, getting rid of the rich, does NOT solve any problem but I guess some primal Greek Arena tiger/gladiator scenerio. IMHO

Because nothing changes in reality without the 1% in the nation, does it?

So is everything just a political soundbyte?

btw, homes value depends of course on location,location,location.
The size of ones home never in any sense equals happiness or not happiness.
That is up to the love found inside the home, not the physical structure of it, I would assume.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

25. I still think you're a Third Way parody.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. OK, I read that as saying you knew your OP idea was silly

and were just waiting to see what the reaction to it was. How tedious of you.

[graham4anything]

36. Only one poster so far (response #20 i believe) got the correct answer

I am now convinced the vast amount of opiners on the 1% issue actually are disingenuous to the actual equality of wealth.

It is more in line instead of the 1% it is the Mi Mi Mi Mi generation.

It is not that the rich have money, it is that they don't have what the rich do.

So it is not actual like JFK said, shared sacrifice, it is just about the mi mi mi mi

Makes me sad.
It is unfortunate because that wasn't the case in the 60s with Dr. King and the civil rights marches.
It was about all, not about the mi mi mi mi.

Tear down the rich but not wanting to be poor themselves as part of the tear down.
So it is just vindictive Frankenstein's monster movie townspeople logic.
Which of course would not create any better world, but would probably just lead to anarchy and vigilantism that those type things always lead to.
nothing positive, 100% negative.

The world can't exist on 100% negativity
However, the poor can exist on happiness, because the richest person is not necessarily happy.

Remember, money can't buy love. And love=happiness.
As Tom Jones sang "without love, there is nothing at all".

But, alas, the vineyards do profit from all the whine, even the brands of vintage disengenuous whines.

So unless one actually believes wealth=happiness, then wealth is nothing good or bad, it's just wealth, which is nothing.

right?

[Tien1985]

61. +1

[pipi_k]

97. Everyone

would own the homes???

OK, who decides who gets to live in these homes?

Or does everyone just decide to tear them down so nobody fights over all those homes?

If nobody owns a home, we all just live in a tent, is that it? Where? On land nobody owns? Who gets to decide who lives on the land nobody owns? People just fight over it and the winners get to be squatters?

Or maybe we can all just be nomads or something.

sigh...

[theKed]

118. Bad strawman is bad.

The "1%/99%ers" don't share that point...hell, I'm sure they don't all share the same point. But, my personal view of the scenario is that the goal is not to make everybody equally poor - with wealth equal to the lowest 20% - but to make everybody equally rich. If you took all the fabulous wealth of America (including that squirrelled away in offshore secret accounts) and distributed it equally to all 300-odd million Americans, that is closer to how it should be.

There is more than enough wealth that, if evenly distributed amongst the population of the world, everyone could live comfortable, financially stable lives. Hell, if it was limited to just America, they would be more than just comfortable. The notion that all we want is to burn down the rich and make everyone equally impoverished is bullshit and, well, right wing idiocy. Hell..."nothing changes in reality without the 1% in the nation" is one of the more nauseating things to be seen here in a while. By and large, those 1% are parasites, contributing little and sucking the remaining 99% dry.

And if you think that doesn't solve any problems in the world, you're fucking blind. Or wilfully ignorant.

PS - a 1 bedroom ramshackle house and a 5 bedroom estate, if in the same place, are worth the same? Size may not equate to "happiness" but it sure as shit can equate to comfort and quality of life.

[IndyPragmatist123]

96. That completely changes the question

The point of this is mostly for people who are in the 20-50th percentiles. You are below average and there are many more people who could give up their wealth much more easily. However, you are willing to help to make everyone equal. This is often done to combat "class warfare." There are some people that are jealous of wealth and their motivations for "equality" come mostly from just wanting more for themselves instead of society in general. If someone isn't willing to give up any of their wealth for an equal society, it could possibly mean their motivations come from a personal desire for more wealth than a desire for more equality.

It's what Republicans think all Democrats are. They think Democrats are jealous and just want to take other's money while doing nothing. Sadly, there are a few people like that (I've met some) who are motivated by greed, not equality. But, obviously, most care more about equality.

[geek_sabre]

14. No thanks.

There aren't 320 million working-aged people in this country. You're including babies and children who can't work in the bottom 20%.

You're welcome to give up your wealth to live in solidarity with the bottom 20% in the US (or even the bottom 20% in the world, if you're really committed), but what you describe will never happen. Should never happen. When you say you would gladly give it all up, as long as everyone else has to, then you're not really willing to give it up.

[TimberValley]

27. And I don't even think there are 320 million people in the United States, period.

It seems that maybe the OP's population statistics are a bit off.

[pinboy3niner]

15. What's stopping you from just giving your shit away?

You don't have to wait for confiscation as public policy. You can be a pioneer. Set the example! Brazillions of people will follow you, no doubt.

[HiPointDem]

16. what a stupid post.

[In_The_Wind]

20. Interesting concept. I don't see Americana willing to join ranks with the poor.

[graham4anything]

39. so far as of 10am eastern, you gave the best answer

[In_The_Wind]

40. Sadly ... I accept that award.

We are no longer a compassionate society.
We allow despicable groups that have spawned the rape culture to thrive.
Slut shaming is an acceptable pastime for the youth of today.
This is so wrong in so many ways.
Some women attack men just because they live and breathe.
Men are afraid to show they want to help women because
of the anger they feel from women.

What have we done!

[hobbit709]

21. Then set the example and do so

Put your money where your mouth(or keyboard fingers) are and show us how it's done.

[HughBeaumont]

23. No happy medium between Pure "COMM'NISM" and Pure Capitalism, right?

Silly.

[TimberValley]

26. Sure, because there's nothing wrong with confiscation of property by force.

Why don't you propose this at a meeting at Congress, or the United Nations, and see how well this idea goes over?

[TimberValley]

28. So, do you plan to do this periodically?

Because even after you redistribute the wealth to make everyone equal, after a period of time, it's likely that some will again become wealthy and others become poor again.


So, what do you do - seize the top 80%'s wealth and redistribute it again, once every few years?

[Squinch]

30. Nope.

Any system used in its purest form is going to be a disaster. What we have now is approaching a pure oligarchy, and is a disaster. What you suggest is pure socialism, which would be a disaster.

[Newest Reality]

31. That's really skewed.

Almost a straw man.

How can you refer to a top "80%" when there is none in this country? Surely you have seen the income distribution in this country. If you talked about the top 20% you might have an interesting issue, but even more so, the top 1% would be a useful topic.

Without a better distribution of wealth the bottom 80% of us have a very poor economic forecast and there are many factors supporting that contention, in fact, there is a list.

There is no need for your extreme scenario to be the case when it comes to dealing with inequity or should I ask you if you had the choice to be a part-time worker at McDonald's the rest of your life or a more comfortable Serf for a Lord, would you be in?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

33. Why are people even replying seriously to this stupid shit?

.

[HughBeaumont]

42. I sure ain't.

It's ridiculous Republitarian-argument crap along the lines of "An egalitarian society is not possible.", and all that. The wealthy have way too much wealth and are, by and large, doing nothing meaningful with it except trying to win the Forbes 400 contest (see: The Kochs).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

53. Don't look below but now

he's arguing with himself.

[HughBeaumont]

84. Seems to be going on in a lot of places . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592625

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

86. The question is: For how long? nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

44. Never has one man cranked out so many mindless words.

If he had a one man show the audience would probably sit through half of it trying to figure out if he was serious or this was a put on. I say he's a poor man's Andy Kaufman.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. To paraphrase this or that singer (even though I'm actually quoting them): "Ralph Nader, Ron Paul,

something something Jeb Bush. Blah blah blah Michael Bloomberg. I love lamp."

So there, deal with that!!

[HangOnKids]

91. Mimes Silently Farting Make More Sense

Can it please go away?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

93. Sadly, it seems to have dug in.

[cherokeeprogressive]

111. Like a tick. n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

112. .

[kdmorris]

100. ROFL!!! +1

Best reply so far!

[mainer]

34. If everyone gave up their homes

are we all supposed to be homeless? Or are we all supposed to be renters? Who owns those homes, the government? And if you can't ever own a home, then can anyone walk into any building and squat in it? Can they come into my bedroom and tell me to scoot over?

Can we own dogs? Can we own cats?

Can we own cars? Can we own clothes?

[whatchamacallit]

37. Top 80% (lol)

That's an interesting curve...

[dawg]

38. No. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party.

If there were some magical formula that would make us all equal, with plenty of income for every family and health care provided as a basic right, I would be happy with that. But that isn't how the real world works.

Some of us would work just as hard as normal for the guaranteed wage. Others would slack off. The economy would shrink, and before long we would all be poor. That's just human nature.

[el_bryanto]

41. No

Fuck no.

Why would you support that? Just to take down the top 80%? That seems senseless.

Look some people in the 80% are empty suits who failed upwards or were born into money. Others were entrepreneurs and innovators who earned their money fair and square.

Some people in the 20% have had a couple of set backs. And some of them are lazy people who should try harder.

We don't need this brand of extreme socialism. We need a well regulated capitalism.

Bryant

[stevenleser]

43. The focus should be on policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%. nt

[graham4anything]

46. And how does that the next morning, give the lowest 20% anything at all?

once the rich are torn down, well, how does that help the 20% worst off in America?
It doesn't. Because to the people on this thread that think just the 1% have enough,
well, that smacks of the same thing in actuality as Ronald Reagan's trickle down.

There is NOT actually anything remaining for the bottom part of society at all with the 1/99 division.

It's quite a major point too.
Though it doesn't sound easy to say nor as effective as the 1/99 megaphone soundbyte.

And it all sadly leads me to believe that anyone in the middle just wants themselves to be on top, instead of better wanting IMHO the bottom 20 to make the middle and no longer have a bottom 20.
(cue in the mi mi mi mi mi chorus)

[stevenleser]

47. What I suggested does not involve tearing down the rich nt

[rrneck]

48. This reads like some freeper trying to be clever. nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

54. Maybe because it is.

[Union Scribe]

59. ...and failing at that. nt

[SomethingFishy]

75. As does everything this person posts...

Probably runs over to whatever right wing loony site they frequent and reposts threads and laughs at the "libtards".

[bluedigger]

83. If at first you don't succeed...

[kudzu22]

49. So I'd have to go through my house and put a value on every piece of junk I own?

Who decides what my old Nintendo is worth? If I price it at a million dollars and then give it up, can I keep the rest of my stuff?

Even if it could be accomplished, I wouldn't support it. I want to help the poor, not become poor.

[graham4anything]

50. Show me where there is anything for the 20% worst off? I don't see it

Show me where there is anything for the 20% worst off? I don't see it

I see the middle wanting to be the upper, but I see nothing getting down to the bottom who actually need it.(I myself am certianly nowhere near the upper btw much closer to the bottom).

So everyone needs to be on the bottom for a fair system of equality.

Or are they saying the middle class should keep their $50-300,00 homes and all their assets
AND on top of that, get all the rich money and just knock the rich down?

Where do the ones with nothing get to the $50,000 level?

I myself care more about those with nothing up to the $20,000 level, as they are the ones that need the most.

Where in the tear down the 1%, do those in the bottom get anything physical out of it?
Who gets the rich guys boat? Who gets to keep it? Who gets the rich guys mansion?
(Or are 200,000 people suppose to live in one rich guys mansion?)

(Note-my grandparents after being kicked out of Austria for being Jewish in the weeks prior to the arrests and trains into the camps, had their own house.
When years later my grandparents took me back to see it, it was a 30 person apartment house.
They were torn down to nothing.

So, when the rich guys mansion on 5th Avenue gets taken from them, who gets it?
Specifically. WHO. Not theory, but WHO?
Is it the people in the Bronx? Or the people in East Brooklyn?
That would be fine, but is that who is going to get those mansions?

Remember, the next morning, after tearing something down, what exactly is left to replace it?

You cannot give the rich money first to those right under them, that really is quite unfair.

If there are 320 million people, and you take from #1, it needs to go to #320,000,000 and work its way up, IMHO (and if a family has more than one, as each person is an individual, each person is counted separate).
(for those who think this is too hard to understand, think of the Top 128 in an NCAA tournament, each seed ranked 1 to 128 and #1 plays #128 all the way through)

[Locrian]

58. dont play the game...

This is like arguing about angels on the head of a pin but I'll play....


You're just re-arranging the $$ and pieces on a game of MONOPOLY.

The only way is to change the game: make a society / civilization where everyone has ENOUGH or at least doesn't have to worry about food, shelter, medical, etc. Abolish "money"? Change how 'wealth' is measured?

I have no idea. But talking about trying to 'divvy up the cash' is a distraction.

(apologize in advance if I completely missed your point - I do that sometimes )

[cthulu2016]

51. You could found Communists Against the Left

[Iggo]

55. How about the top 1% pay their fair share in taxes?

[Union Scribe]

57. Yeah right, Mr. "first they came for the rich"

is now an egalitarian.

[One_Life_To_Give]

60. If I was 30yrs younger

Confident I could put myself into the top 10% of wage earners. But loosing all of the years in providing for a retirement. At middle age I don't have as much time to make up for it.

[DebJ]

62. You are creating a false dichotomy of choices throughout this thread.

The choice is not between complete equality for all,
or the current system which seems to be quickly becoming a modern form of feudalism.

The choices are not communism, or feudalism.

In the 50s 60s and much of the 70s, new wealth that was created was
shared more equitably with the workers. Workers created that new
wealth, and workers got portions of that increasing wealth. Today,
90% of new wealth created goes straight to the top. THAT is the
problem.

Also, your logic is faulty in that you are focusing solely on current accumulations
of wealth at this point in time. The issue is what to change moving forward
so that those in the lower and middle tiers will have SOME f&**ing opportunity
to be able to provide food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and education for their
families while also paying taxes into a system for police, fire, and other
governmental needs. WE DID THIS FOR DECADES. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

I see little difference between your statements, and those of some of my RW friends
who think that my concerns are jealousy of the upper tiers and that I want to take
something away from them. It's NOT about taking away what exists today to
'redistribute'. It IS about changing the distribution of new wealth created moving
forward. Again, WE USED TO FUNCTION this way. It can be done.

[graham4anything]

66. OK, but when will the bottom 20 move up the ladder?

The top can be more taxed, but it goes without saying ALL that needs to be delegated to the bottom 20 first.

So would you be on board with that?
Say one taxes the top 20-% at 65% and the bottom 20% at zero.

at which point, will the bottom 20% be equal to the middle 60%?

There should be no lowest level at all. Those at the worst, should move into one equal level.

Say one makes the hourly rate $125 an hour all across the board.
From doctor to MacDonald's worker, with free education for all.

and those that are disabled will be given the same.
with those seniors all given a great retirement lifestyle where the poorest and wealthiest all have everything they want based on an equal system for all, without worrying that if one is out of work, they couldn't pay for SS so that they would receive less.

Because any system that is "trickle down" doesn't work. NOR does a system work where money is delegated, but not to the lowest level. That is as bad as the trickle down, but not called it.

[DebJ]

105. Neither does a system where everyone has equal everything.

That is not a workable system.

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. That's a painfully stupid question

the fact that you even ask this sort of thing shows that you're fairly ignorant of the facts regarding wealth inequality in the US; the top 20% of the population? They control 90% of the wealth. You've got it exactly arse-backwards.

[graham4anything]

113. All librarians across America will tell you there are no stupid questions

not to mention all union teachers will tell you the same.

Not asking a question that only 3 or 4 people all day actually answered would only lead to ignorance, instead of seeing the answer so Kubrickly.

Sometimes questions indeed make everything clear as good teachers and good musical voice
techniquers do.

[yawnmaster]

114. I believe there are, actually, stupid questions...

People should not be afraid to ask what may be a stupid question, as a good question may not get asked.

I also believe that the saying "there are no stupid questions" is just a way to make people less afraid of actually asking a stupid question.

[graham4anything]

116. Sometimes the truth is telling. Sometimes the answers are silent.

[yawnmaster]

121. doubtful. eom

[Angus86]

119. I am a librarian, and I disagree

I am a librarian, and people ask me stupid questions every day.

This thread reminds me of some of them.

[Rex]

64. Your slip is showing.

[RZM]

65. How about we start with 'The Great Equalizer'

He could live up to your hype. For once.

Let me know how that goes.

[Yo_Mama]

67. This doesn't make sense

Because your math is so far off.

Median household income in the US is about 50K a year. Most households in the US have very little net worth or negative net worth (pretty much even privileged people start life that way with student/car loans).

Thus, there is no possible way that 80% of the people giving up everything results in your scenario of free health care, free education and a 75K household income.

If your numbers weren't off, I think we would all take that deal. Since about 75% of the people would be better off, we'd jump at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Over 67% of the households in the US currently have income under 75K. They don't get free medical care and education. The costs of those are so high that it would pay everyone with household incomes under 100K to take your deal, and last year, that was over 77% of the population.

In that same article you can find a percentiles of net worth comparison up to 2004. ONLY THE TOP 10% had household net worth of more than 100K, and they averaged 256K.

Thus there isn't enough money out there to produce the living standard you assume, even if we did confiscate it all. The 2nd and 3rd net worth percentiles were 87K and 60K.

If you want to change the world, first you must understand the world.

[TimberValley]

69. Why not retitle this thread "Communism?"

It's essentially what it is.

[graham4anything]

70. As John Lennon said, Imagine if...however socialism is not communism,neither purely ever tried

[Throd]

72. Multi-millionaire John Lennon?

[name not needed]

71. Fuck no.

[bowens43]

76. no

[Jamaal510]

77. I would be OK with the top 2%

going for a week to see what it is like to be poor. Of course it would never happen, I want to see O'Reilly and Limbaugh survive for a week on just food stamps and public transit. I want them to experience what it is like to have to survive on greasy fried chicken and ride buses that smell like shit, on pothole-filled roads. If these rich Republicans think they are paying too much in taxes right now under that evil KenyanMuslimCommunistAtheist in the White House, I would gladly trade positions with them.

[upaloopa]

78. Why are we always in a race to the bottom?

Why not try to give people the opportunity to get out of poverty or provived for those that can't?

[dr.strangelove]

79. No

I am all for real taxes on the wealthy, but I do not think every person should be forced to have equal wealth. I think every person should have an equal chance to access wealth, and a real tax that can not be avoided on the upper class, while using that tax for nothing other than equality in education, training and access to healthcare gives the poorest of us a chance to actually obtain some wealth. some do not want wealth, some are happy with far less than others, some want it all. I am fine with that. It is the fairness in the system I hate. Level the field, and then let people live how they want. As long as they have the choice to go to school, get job training and have medical care, the rest is individual choice.

[Jenoch]

80. April Fool!

[Dr. Strange]

122. Yeah...

not just April, though.

[Throd]

81. No. We are all slightly dumber having pondered your proposal.

[Dreamer Tatum]

82. You first. nt

[bluedigger]

85. ...

[graham4anything]

87. After posting that large picture(known tactic), then what?

What happens the day after?

NOTHING.

It shows that only redmeat is wanted and soundbytes.

The old kill da monsta that was seen in the movies that were allegories for racism in the old days of the black and white movies.

SNL did a great skit a while back
Protesters in the town of Frankenstein and Dracula
They lit their torches and marched to the castle on the left
where the owner opened the door and said, oh, you want Dracula, he lives across the street

frustrated the mobbed relit the torch again and went across the street
where Dracula opened the door and said

oh, you mean Frankenstein
he lives across the street

and the townspeople again relit the torches and marched across the street
where Frankenstein opened the door and said
oh, you mean Dracula
he lives across the street

or as Robert Redford said at the end of the Candidate
"Now what"

or as the perfect line from the perfect movie White Christmas
Bing Crosby's character said to the Hanes sister
"Everybody has an angle...

[zaireeka]

88. A simple "wrong" may have done just fine...

[suffragette]

89. Is this Vogon poetry or an Apr 1st joke?

[Bluenorthwest]

90. But how would Mike Bloomberg function in life? Would you expempt him so he could keep the

penthouse? 75K won't cover his co-op dues. He'd just be another guy living in White Plains. Are you sure you could bear to see him reduced to ready to wear and driving his own car?

[graham4anything]

94. Actually, 75% of the time, he takes the NYC subway or walks with just a newspaper

because any true ny'er knows, the subway is the quickest way to get to places.

[olddots]

92. If Wendall has 7 apples

And lefty has no apples how many times does Lefty have to punch Wendall to have 7 apples ?

I see the point as being a nasty paradox .There are days I would give up everything for justice ,other days I wonder how everyone
interprets the concept of justice to fit their needs .

We have become aggressively passive in our fear of the future .

[Manifestor_of_Light]

95. You talking assets or income?

Those are not the same.

Some people have lots of assets and little income.
Some have lots of income and little assets.
Some have little of both.
Some have lots of both.

I'd be in favor of a living wage for everyone.

[TimberValley]

98. Why would anyone be a neurosurgeon when they could be paid as much for a much easier job?

Should a brain surgeon be paid as little as a janitor?

Why would anyone spend ten years of their life in medical school when they would make exactly as much $$$ by having a high school diploma and working in fast food instead?


Your proposal is likely to lead to a flight of high-skill talent.

[graham4anything]

120. Actually, wouldn't a janitor have a harder job than a surgeon?

Janitors save millions of lives, like sanitation workers.

And most are union workers and make little while the doctors have their underlinks(as doctors don't actually do mundane things like billing, but the underpaid staff does while the doctor leaves early and maybe plays golf),

but union workers do just as important job as a doctor, garbage has diseases that would spread and kill most all if not for a union worker picking it up, thanks to tax dollars paying for it.

So actually, your example proves my point.

The janitor in your example should make equal to the neurosurgeon, and if schooling were free, the old doctors pay yada for schools would no longer apply.

Get it?

[Orsino]

99. To please the eighteen people who want everyone equal? No.

How about we strengthen the safety net for those on the bottom rungs, and shift some tax burden upward, and see what results?

Then might be a good time for ridiculous what-ifs.

[JI7]

101. APRIL FOOLS

[JNelson6563]

102. I'm in the lower 20%

So this doesn't apply to me.

[mercymechap]

103. I can't figure out (too complicated for my wee brain) where I

would end up, so I'm going to have to say "NO".

[TheKentuckian]

104. So the problem with poverty in America is there isn't enough of it, according to Graham?

Or is the issue really to protect the wealthy via a lame-brained proposal that will be panned because it makes no sense considering where the concentration of both wealth and income allowing you to make a nonsense point?

[TimberValley]

106. I'm curious to see how you propose that the confiscation be done.

Do you really think that a government could simply just confiscate 200 million people's property without there being some really major repercussions?

[Major Nikon]

107. First step would be to amend the Constitution

[WinkyDink]

108. Why the number "80%"? We could just use the figure "1%."

[Rex]

109. This is the WORST 'if, then' statement I've ever seen on DU.

nt.

[socialist_n_TN]

110. Instead of bringing everybody down to the bottom 20% level,......

why don't we confiscate the wealth at the top and have a rough PARITY of income for everybody? I would be OK with that. And BTW, I have no idea where my household income would fall. If it was less than what we've got now, for the perks of single payer insurance, free education, a population housed, fed, and clothed, I'd be OK with that too.

And for all of you folks that think that under a TRUE communist system that all would be immediately equalized, NOBODY ever said that. Not Lenin, not Trotsky, not Marx, not Engels. It was ALWAYS going to be a rough parity of income for the societal perks that benefit EVERYBODY and not just the priviledged.

[yawnmaster]

115. If one wants to do it, why not just do it? why wait for the rest of the 80%?

you'd be in the same situation, either way.

[slackmaster]

123. I'm a member of the top 80%, and I would do whatever it takes to avoid compliance

I earned every penny that I have. Actually I've earned considerably more than that, and had it lawfully taken away in taxes.

Bust a deal, face the Wheel.

[Silent3]

124. Who is this supposed to parody?

I suppose there are a radical few who really, literally want to confiscate all that the 1% have and spread it around to everyone else, but the more typical liberal position (especially if you're describing American liberals in general, not just the self-selecting DU crowd) is to simply tax the rich as a higher, more progressive tax rate, and to stop cutting the rich so many political sweetheart deals which amplify their ability to obtain and retain more and more of the wealth.

Give us universal healthcare, decent housing, adequate healthy food, access to good education, secure retirement, a generally strong social and financial safety net, then additionally reduce (I'm too realistic to suggest "eliminate&quot the outsize power of money in politics, and I'd be pretty happy with where that would put us as a society, even if some people remain vastly wealthy compared to everyone else.