Why is it acceptable for 10% of people to own 90% of the world's wealth...

Let's wait on the data from those tests before celebrating prematurely. I've always supported a negative tax structure since you're motivated to make more (produce more) at every run in the ladder, as opposed to current welfare systems where you're fucked in the ass if you make a nickel more than the liberals want.

>If you think I want communism or a dictatorship then you are wrong. I am perfectly fine with capitalism and democracy. I just want the government to intervene more in social issues like poverty.
Poverty is an economic issue. If you think government should intervene in it, especially in this way:
>I think that 50$ are worth more to a poor person than a billionaire so lets be economically efficient and redistribute those 50 dollars, man.
...you are a commie.

>Poverty is an economic issue.

But it is also a social one. Poverty has real psychological effects on a person. And people who are poor live in shittier communities than rich people. And poor people live in the same society that over values materialistic gain to the point of shaming those who do not earn enough, and you want them not to become criminals looking for an easy way out of the poverty that is killing them.

Also, what I said about the 50$ is just a very literal sense. You know what I want.

I want every person earning 6 figures or more to be taxed an extra percent and I want all that money to go into a huge pool of poverty assistance money.

From this yearly income I want the government to kickstart investment in poor communities. Give out good loans to companies (better if local companies of the place) to build a new school or new apartments or new anything and to also tell them to have their workers in these projects to be at least 50% local people.

That way we are (ideally) giving a lot of money to a businessman (having millionaires in communities is always good) who will hire the poor people struggling and hire them to go get a well earned chunk of that government money.

And if we able to overpay those workers even by a little that will be great because then we will have a population that out of nowhere got a lot of spendable income and then other savvy businessmen will see this and start creating new shops and remodelling their new shops to attract a new, slightly wealthier population.

That is all I want. And affordable education, obviously, but that should be a separate program that should start first by getting public universities to stop over spending so their tuition lowers and then see what taxes we can put in place to pay for free tuition for students.

>You know what I want.
Yes, I know what you want. You want arbitrary redistribution of wealth through taxation from the successful to the unsuccessful. You want to lay out a very modest plan at first which you think will produce downright magical results, and then when that doesn't work, you'll want to increase government intervention in the economy, and keep doubling down as it continues to produce bad results.

>I want every person earning 6 figures or more to be taxed an extra percent
You don't even know what the rate of taxation is, and you think it should be higher. You don't recognize that much more than this amount of tax money is already spent fighting poverty, with the results you previously recognized but mysteriously couldn't attribute:
>A lot of poor communities are rotten to the core. Everyone there is a black single mother who fucks a different Tyrone every single day and lets their kids be raised by TV and gangs.

>rom the successful to the unsuccessfu

This is correct but I do so simply because I know that having wealthy parents heavily correlates with you ending up wealthy yourself, while having poor parents heavily correlates with you ending up poor yourself. And I don't think the way you were born should influence your opportunities. Everyone deserves a shot.

> and keep doubling down as it continues to produce bad results.

I am not an ideologue. I see how conservative policy "lets give tax breaks to the rich" works in making the rich even richer, so I want to try that very same policy but for the poor.

Remember, giving a tax break to a billionaire literally means giving him like 30 million extra dollars a year. I just want that in reverse. Lets take those 30 million dollars and give them to the poor, and see how the poor get richer.

>You don't recognize that much more than this amount of tax money is already spent fighting poverty, with the results you previously recognized but mysteriously couldn't attribute:

The establishment's bullshit welfare state is not what I want and is an obvious failure. Specially he idea of rewarding fucking single mothers.

You know what I want for single mothers? Give them free fucking abortions and then tell them to get a job. But no, today's liberals don't want that.

I will wait for Bernie though. He is the man capable of creating a real socialist society.

because 10% of the population have advanced knowledge in economics and a sophisticated knowledge of business and how to form mutually beneficial social relationships

That would devalue all wealth you numb fucking fuck fuck fuck

>instabilty (economic uncertainty / recessions) and chaos (uprisings, revolutions, war)

you're not a mathfag, that is not correct usage of terminology. Chaos and instability have very specific meaning in maths

100% of people already own 100% of the world's wealth, I think you should reword.

No they don't, unless you make the qualification of "currently owned wealth".

So yah 100% of the world's people own 100% of the wealth owned by people. kek