I'm getting old enough (which is surprisingly young) to watch top-tier super-solid blue-chip businesses crash and burn. Smith Corona, once the most recognized brand in the world? most of you respond "who?". Kodak, with world domination of imaging? dead, just hasn't stopped moving yet. Pan-Am gone, IBM a shell of what it was, a host of other leading super-profitable businesses either crawling on broken glass or gone entirely.
Likewise I've seen a lot of big-name big-wallet people likewise go to nothing. I haven't studied the financial dynamics of wealthiest individuals (in terms of this topic's top 85), but as their hoard is based on business I can presume similar turnover for many. They may be at the top _now_, but for how long?
This growing consternation over income/wealth "inequality" consistently fails to look at the dynamics of those involved, focusing instead on a mere snapshot selected for maximizing political outrage. Fact is, some 85% of those in the bottom quartile move out of that bracket within a few years, with 15% jumping to the top 25%. The only financial help most of them need is for the government to get out of their way. Some do need active assistance, yes, but even most of that is better served by voluntary private charity - and certainly not massive economic changes inflicted by self-righteous & ignorant politicians.
Never mind the oft-overlooked fact that the top 85 spend and invest and donate a tremendous amount, way beyond what is publicly known. They may have half the money in the world; don't ignore how much money they move and thru whom. Confiscate their wealth by taxation in the name of "income equality", and you'll deny those who live on the movement of that wealth.
Insofar as social mobility may be stifled now, many contend it's in large part to government administration causing a sharp increase in taxpayer liability (you may not be billed for it yet, but your share of the debt is enormous and growing fast) and economic uncertainty (sporadic currency pumping, encouragement of class envy, and rule thrashing on healthcare etc). Hard for employers to hire & give raises (the core of social mobility) when economic future is so unpredictable and depressing.
I'm getting old enough (which is surprisingly young) to watch top-tier super-solid blue-chip businesses crash and burn. Smith Corona, once the most recognized brand in the world? most of you respond "who?". Kodak, with world domination of imaging? dead, just hasn't stopped moving yet. Pan-Am gone, IBM a shell of what it was, a host of other leading super-profitable businesses either crawling on broken glass or gone entirely.
Likewise I've seen a lot of big-name big-wallet people likewise go to nothing. I haven't studied the financial dynamics of wealthiest individuals (in terms of this topic's top 85), but as their hoard is based on business I can presume similar turnover for many. They may be at the top _now_, but for how long?
This growing consternation over income/wealth "inequality" consistently fails to look at the dynamics of those involved, focusing instead on a mere snapshot selected for maximizing political outrage. Fact is, some 85% of those in the bottom quartile move out of that bracket within a few years, with 15% jumping to the top 25%. The only financial help most of them need is for the government to get out of their way. Some do need active assistance, yes, but even most of that is better served by voluntary private charity - and certainly not massive economic changes inflicted by self-righteous & ignorant politicians.
Never mind the oft-overlooked fact that the top 85 spend and invest and donate a tremendous amount, way beyond what is publicly known. They may have half the money in the world; don't ignore how much money they move and thru whom. Confiscate their wealth by taxation in the name of "income equality", and you'll deny those who live on the movement of that wealth.