I think I've shared it before, but I think it's worth sharing again.
The ad can be skipped after 5 seconds:
And yes, it is shocking (as is its understanding of socialism).
But that's what neoliberalism intended.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Indeed.If I may make a suggestion look in Youtube for Robert B. Reich – Aftershock: The Next Economy and America′s Future (55 minutes)
Hi Richard..Is there a video you know of like this showing the situation in the UK?
Not that I know of
The idea that no-one will be motivated to work hard under ‘socialism’ is, of course, another American myth. Judging by the nef research, we are not too far behind. Illustrative of what Jeffrey Sachs called ‘moral pathology.’ The wealth of the super rich merely circulates amongst themselves – no trickle down as you’ve pointed out, Richard.
Is there a twin video which shows the tax inequality in the US? That being the top 50%+ of wage earners toting the note for the bottom 50%?
There is noi inequality there
They pay as they have the money
That’s an absurd argument.
If the top 50% earned 99.999% of all income then almost certainly they would pay 100% of all taxes.
Would you then call the bottom 50% “scroungers” and state that they need to pay significant taxes as the top 50% are paying 100% of tax???
All you have done is measure and highlight the degree of inequality in the U.S. The bottom 50% pay so little in taxes because they have so little of the nations income.
But you seem to want the bottom 50% to pay more tax anyway. So lets roll the clock back to the level of inequality that the U.S. had in 1980 or so.
The bottom 50% paid significantly more tax relative to the top 50% at that time point. That should make you happy as it fulfills your objective. So I can take it you wholeheartedly support reducing inequality, yes?
I put the post on facebook. However, I did wonder how the wealth is calculated. Some of the even average seemed to have little wealth . If a person has a house worth, say £150,000 but a mortgage of 130,000 and other savings, car and effects worth say £20,000 is s/he deemed to have wealth of £170,000 or have ‘minus’ wealth? This would affect the distribution.
I have to be honest and say not sure
I hope it is net wealth and suspect it is