Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "A Fact On Income Inequality That Will Blow Your Mind" video.

  1. He never talks about income inequality, he talks about wealth where they are no way equal. But, as a whole, this isn't bad.
    3
  2. They have wealth, not income. Learn the difference.
    3
  3. Yep, and he owns three homes.
    2
  4. Wealth does not equal income.
    2
  5. They do contribute more to society.
    2
  6. Wealth does not equal income. Nobody is just sitting on billions of dollars. They have billions of dollars with of assets, but not billions of dollars.
    2
  7. No, no, no, no. They want "democratic" socialism.
    1
  8. hitfan01 Not really.  They have just as many problems if not more than the US.  Also, they have populations that are smaller than a lot of our states.
    1
  9. Joel Costa Police: Ran and funded locally Schools: Ran and funded locally Streets: Ran and funded locally  Germany has restrictions on their social programs. That is why it works.
    1
  10. Yep, while buying a third home.
    1
  11. Shawn Brink It shows he is a hypocrite.  He is all talk and no action.  It is easy to promise to give away other people's money.  Why doesn't he donate his?  Why does he need three homes?  What career did he have before being a politician?  He is worthless. 
    1
  12. Kyle is incorrect in his conclusion. Wealth inequality this large is great. The reason why we have it is because people like the Walton family own half of Walmart. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to know wealth because not everyone has the desire to own a business. Wealth does not equal income, but economic illiterates like Kyle and his viewers feel it does.
    1
  13. Bobbert Bobby Cutting taxes and regulations works well in other states.  You point towards KS but that is about all you have.  There is more to it than just taxes and regulations.
    1
  14. Kyle is an economic illiterate. He is equating wealth to income. While income can be a part of wealth, there are other assets as well. The Walton family is so wealthy because they own half of Walmart. People see their wealth and think it is all money they are just sitting on. That is false though. When you realize what wealth is than you can begin to realize why wealth inequality this great is not bad.
    1
  15. Global Warming Skeptic True. The top 10% earn around 40% of the income.  That means the bottom 90% earn around 60% of the income.  Not very unequal anymore.
    1
  16. 0Clewi0 Nope, the top 10% earned around 40% of the income. http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384 Here, the top 20% earned around around 50% of the income.  That means the bottom 80% earned the other half.
    1
  17. Sean Slowik He is a hypocrite.
    1
  18. Calvin Burr Sanders complains about wealth inequality (which isn't that bad to begin with) but bought a third home.  Around 30% of the country does not own the homes they live in.  He has three.  He is a hypocrite and a career politician.  He is a part of the establishment.
    1
  19. Sean Slowik Ok, and all of those rich people he wants to tax were practicing good budgeting.  Why do they have to pay higher taxes?  Why is it so bad they have so much wealth?  I don't see a problem anymore.
    1
  20. Calvin Burr Sanders is in the 1%.  That is hypocrisy.  Why didn't he sell that house to fund his campaign or donate to a charity?  Why does he need three homes?  He complains about the rich all the time, but he has a third home with a flat screen sony TV.  Bernie doesn't work for his salary either. 
    1
  21. Son37Lumiere Bernie does nothing but promises to give away other people's money.  Meanwhile he owns three homes instead of donating money to a needy cause.  He hired his family members so he can pay them with the donation money.  He is a career politician that is all talk but no action. It is easy to sit there and talk, I want action. 
    1
  22. Son37Lumiere So standing on stage saying the same rhetoric over and over again and promising to give away other people's money is taking actions?  Man, why don't I do that? My argument is not a logical fallacy.  All Bernie does is promises to give away other people's money.  Anyone can do that.
    1
  23. Calvin Burr Vermont is a very small state, the second smallest in the union. Also, Congress has an approval rating of less than 10% but a retention rate of greater than 90%. Seems like every state likes their representatives. Sanders is a part of congress that has a low approval rating and could not beat Clinton in the primaries.
    1
  24. Son37Lumiere We lack professors, TAs, tutors, nurses, doctors, pharmacists and other skilled workers in education and healthcare is not taking actions.  He wants to over work them.  How about he pushes people to become doctors and professors?  Oh, wait, he won't.  Instead, according to him, if you work a job you will also have a 1. living wage 2. healthcare 3. paternity leave 4. retirement 5. vacation time So why work the stressful life of earning a doctorate when you can work at McDonalds and get all of that.  Bernie is a fool.
    1
  25. Son37Lumiere The jobs are there, people just don't want to push for the skills to work them.  You are comparing what we have now to the 50s and 60s.  Technology is different, the market is different.  One reason why healthcare is expensive because of lack of workers in the system.
    1
  26. Dan Extrinsic01 What?
    1
  27. Wealth does not equal income. Income is a part of wealth, but there is a lot that goes to wealth. Wealth inequality is not bad. A home owner has around 30 times more wealth than a renter. a home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Several, who have loans, have negative wealth. Is that necessarily bad? No. I have negative wealth due to student loans but I am fine. So are several others. The Walton family have so much wealth because they own half of Walmart. This doesn't blow my mind. This is normal. How many people are willing to run a company like Walmart? Not many.
    1
  28. Music It is sustainable.  You didn't read the entire comment.  Some people have so much wealth because they own large parts of corporations.  How many people in society are willing to handle that?  Not many. 
    1
  29. Joseph Mann Nope.
    1
  30. Firstname Lastname The Walton family own half of the company. If the company falls apart they lose it all.  Those working will just get picked up by another employer.  The Walton family do not pay more for one simply reason, they can't afford it.  That reason why is because wealth does not equal income.
    1
  31. Music Wealth is not finite.  New wealth is being created all the time.  I, as a man who only earns $25,000 a year, have more wealth than someone who was rich in the 50s, if you ignore my student loans. The reason why I because I have a better car, a smart phone, a laptop and so on.  Technology that did not exist then.  Wealth is the dumbest thing to tax because it is not income. We should tax income if anything, never wealth.
    1
  32. silvafox07 If we let the market alone a failing company will be bought out by someone else.  Sticking with Walmart, just because Walmart fails doesn't mean people will stop buying goods.  Another company will buy it out hiring those employees again. "the system almost failed once and was saved with tax money" Actually that hindered recovery.
    1
  33. silvafox07 Yes, there will be times of unemployment.  But when left alone the market will correct itself quickly.  Unemployment rate is simply friction of people changing jobs or a business closing.  It is temporary. 
    1
  34. Music Walmart does not pay more because they can't afford it.  Wealth does not equal income, period. Until you learn and understand that than we can move on with the topic.
    1
  35. Infinite Sheldon Sorry the truth hurts.
    1
  36. Music I looked it up, their profits are thin, like every other business.  They can't afford more.
    1
  37. Music Walmart has to keep shareholders happy. If they don't they will have to downsize which means less jobs.
    1
  38. Music It is not wrong.  If Walmart were to cut profits the value of the stocks will go down meaning shareholders will either have to 1. vote in a new CEO 2. sell stocks causing Walmart to downsize leading to job loss Walmart is as big as they are because of shareholders.  Without them they will be no bigger than Raley's, Hy Vee or other local stores who pay similar wages.  Also, if more money created more jobs, why not give everyone a check for $50,000?
    1
  39. silvafox07 I never heard an answer.  No one will work for one cent an hour, that's the point.  A company pays more so they attract better workers and lower turnover rate.  There comes a point where you simply can't afford more.  Compare it to renting a place.   If you want lower rent you end up living in a poor area of the city.  The more you pay the better place you live.  There comes a point where you can't afford higher rent.  As is companies already pay more even though they can, by law, pay less. So why do companies pay more when they can pay less?
    1
  40. Music I Walmart were to cut profits then their shareholders would sell their shares causing Walmart to downsize.  There is a reason why Walmart is so profitable and large compared to Raley's and Hy Vee even though they are similar stores and pay similar wages.  It comes down to shareholders.  As a shareholder you want to see your investment grow.  What's wrong with wanting to make more money in something you invest in?  That's the whole point.  Assuming you went to college and paid, do you not want to earn a higher income after your investment?  If you bought a new car do you not do so to live an easier life?  That is the whole point in investing, to improve the situation you are currently in. "The difference is higher wages are true economic stimulus whereas lower taxes are not" The min. wage will not stimulate the economy.  According to Christina Romer, on a $9.50/hr min. wage if all of that money came from the top it will generate less than 1% of GDP.  That is miniscule in our economy.  Also, that is making the false assumption that no hours are cut. But if higher wages led to a better economy why not $50/hr? "lower taxes causes recessions." How?
    1
  41. Music On taxes, why not a 90% tax rate?  Or 100%?  Lower taxes cause recessions, why not go to 100%? 
    1
  42. Music What's wrong with Christina Romer?  You are pulling a logical fallacy. You buy a car to make your life easier in some way.  If you don't have one you have to find another means of travel which requires more hoops to go through. Point is you spend money to better your life in some way.  If you don't you are wasting it. Shareholders will pull their funds if the value drops.  So $50 is too high but not $15?  Why?  Both are arbitrary.  That is the point.  Switzerland does not have a min. wage. We haven't practice austerity in years.  Also, more money in the economy does not mean a better economy.  What grows an economy is developing wealth, not spending.  And when did lower demand ever lead to higher prices?  That does not follow any economic model. "Seriously it's not difficult concepts." Seems to be difficult to you.  Supply and demand curves are day one in economics.
    1
  43. Music Nobody paid that 90% rate.  In 1967 there were 155 Americans earning over $200,000 that paid $0 in federal income tax. 
    1
  44. Music It does has to do with investment.  I bought a breakfast burrito today.  I had food at home that was cheaper but I did not have time to eat it because I had to get to work.  I slept in a little bit because I have been stressed lately.  I felt paying that little bit for that burrito was worth it because I ate some food and got some sleep.  It was an investment. 
    1
  45. Music How is $15/hr a living wage?  What is it based off of?  I need numbers.
    1
  46. Music It is an investment.  It is small and temporary, but it made, according to me, my life better.  I was able to work today and get a lot done. 
    1
  47. darkdragonsoul99 Not really.  Someone with a lot of income can have little wealth.  Wealth is assets.  Income is tied into it, but that is only one of several things.  Just because someone has a lot of wealth does not mean they have a lot of income.  The Walton family has a lot of wealth.  People say they should be able to easily pay higher wages because of that.  The reality is they can't because they have a lot of wealth, not a lot of income. Unless they start giving away part of Walmart they can't pay more.
    1
  48. darkdragonsoul99 How is Walmart subsidized by tax payers?
    1
  49. madingo02 Walmart does not pay their employees more because they can't afford it.  It is not Walmart's fault their employees refuse to earn a higher wage someplace else. 
    1
  50. darkdragonsoul99 Lots of businesses can't afford higher wages. Several businesses can't afford to hire more employees. People praise Costco for their "higher" wages, but don't criticize how they hire very few workers. It is not a business's job to pay an employee a wage to live off of. That is up to the employee. A business pays the market rate, period. Walmart is as big as they are because of share holders.
    1
  51. So? Learn what wealth is and you see that is not a problem.
    1
  52. "You don't have to be intelligent to be rich. Give any charlatan on the street a couple of good books on microeconomics and they can do pretty well for themselves." Not really. The most common major for CEOs is engineering for a reason.
    1
  53. Grant Ray Fully understanding financing requires a lot of math.  The ability to see patterns. 
    1
  54. Grant Ray You are seeing patterns. It requires knowledge in math.
    1
  55. Wealth is net worth. Pretty much how much assets you own. Wealth does not equal income. These individuals are not sitting on all that income like Kyle is claiming.
    1
  56. Because Bernie is an idiot.
    1
  57. aviftw He is an idiot.  This is the same guy who doesn't understand collateral. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/26/bernie-sanders-mercilessly-mocked-for-posting-economically-illiterate-tweet/
    1
  58. aviftw But support Bernie because he is anti-establishment even though he has been in politics for over 3 decades, and supported Clinton, and bought a third home. 
    1
  59. They don't have that much money. They have that much wealth. Huge difference.
    1
  60. Trickle down economics is a term used by politicians and economic illiterates. Which one are you?
    1
  61. ***** I don't see it.
    1
  62. Son37Lumiere I understand economics very well. 
    1
  63. Son37Lumiere I am not the one who used "trickle down economics" which is not even an economic term.  It is an appeal to emotion phrase used by politicians and economic illiterates.
    1
  64. Son37Lumiere Trickle down economics was a phrase developed in the 1890s by a politician.  It is not an actual economic term but an appeal to emotion phrase used by politicians and economic illiterates.  People use it as an attack on someone without breaking down their actual policies. "The rich horde their money" Not true at all.  They invest.  If they didn't invest they would not have wealth.  Wealth does not equal income. "barely livable wages" The phrase "living wage" is another appeal to emotion phrase used by economic illiterates.  It is subjective and means nothing. "the top 0.1% have as much as 90% of the population" Wealth, yeah.  But wealth does not equal income.  The top 20% earned around 50% of the income.  The reason why there is a wealth gap falls for two reasons 1. not everyone has the desire to run a business, beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth 2. people, like me have negative wealth due to loans A person with no other assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the country.  "I don't know what's more pathetic, that or the fact that people like you have your heads buried so far up your asses that no amount of evidence will convince you of just how flawed your thinking is." I think it is sad you don't understand what wealth is.
    1
  65. Wealth inequality is not bad.
    1
  66. AvangionQ We are talking about wealth, not income.  Wealth does not equal income. The reason why we have wealth inequality is because beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth.  Not everyone desires to run a business. 
    1
  67. AvangionQ Wealth are your assets including you debt.  A home owner has around 30 times more wealth than a renter.  The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home.  You pay with income, not wealth. 
    1
  68. AvangionQ Why not a 100% tax rate?  Why stop at 90%?
    1
  69. AvangionQ Nobody paid those high tax rates during that time.  There were more write offs those days along with less technology making hiding money easier.
    1
  70. andrew donohue Walmart pays above the min. wage.  They don't pay more for one simple reason, they can't afford it.
    1
  71. andrew donohue Walmart can't afford higher wages, period.
    1
  72. liquidminds And the value of the stocks will drop causing Walmart to downsize.  Now you have less jobs.
    1
  73. liquidminds People invest in the stock market for retirement, scholarships, and other programs. 
    1
  74. They will blame Reagan and Obama was Bush 2.0. Really, the political left has become radical. That is why they lost to Trump.
    1
  75. Except, this video talked about wealth inequality, not income inequality.
    1