Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Is Wealth Inequality As Bad As We Are Told? Defending the Indefensible - How Money Works" video.

There is one, it's called UBI and reducing the lenght of the workweek so that there are enough jobs and cash to go around. When we get to the point where there's legitimately no lowskill jobs out there, we'll be at a point where we can give everybody UBI to cover their basic needs and the folks that were working those lowskilled jobs can do something else. Just because a job is lowskilled, doesn't mean that the worker is. A bunch of them are working those jobs because they couldn't get a better one. You'd be surprised how many people are working those jobs with advanced degrees. It's hardly unheard of to get your coffee from somebody with a PhD in a field that doesn't have many openings.
6
I've come to the conclusion that the only way out of this mess is likely to stop buying so much stuff, buy less, but buy as much of it as you can from people that are behaving responsibly. Also try to invest what money you can in companies that engage in more socially responsible behavior, especially with regards to the environment as that seems to be the one issue that can't really be undone.
5
Yes, and that's why I wish people would talk more about alternate means to buying a house. The real issue there is that the price of rentals has gone up to the point where you're not likely to be able to save money to buy a house. It wasn't that long ago that you could take the difference between a mortgage and the rent and invest it. Since there was somewhere around 10-15% difference between the rates you gain from stocks and the interest you pay on a mortgage, you could actually get to homeownership at some point. But, with wages stagnant, rents skyrocketing and the cost of houses skyrocketing as well, that method of home ownership is endangered.
3
That used to be somewhat true decades back, but with rent and housing prices on the rise, it's entirely plausible that the poor man just never had anything left over to save becaue the rich man stole all the gains of his labor. Thinking about it a bit more, that was only not true for a relatively short period in time. Go back to the 19th century and it wasn't any better than it is now.
1
That's the frustrating bit, homelessness in America, medicare for all, tuition-free college, to name a few, all could be paid for just by making the ultrawealthy pay the taxes that they're already on the hook for. If we also rolled the taxes back to where they were in 2000, we could give generous pensions to all of our citizens and pay down our national debt or replace most of our energy production with green renewable energy. We're choosing to let them off the hook because we've had courts decide that corporations get to be people and that they can bribe politicians in the literal sense. Apparently, it's not bribery to pay off a congress critter's credit card bills these days.
1
@daosdresari7349 They pay the most in total because they have the most. Their effective tax rate is tiny, in some cases as low as 0%. You don't know anything about the topic if you think they pay anywhere near the tax rate of typical people.
1
@mothertruckersparadise3260 They got that money by not paying it to workers. You know the workers that generate wealth. They should pay more because they benefit more from the government. I wouldn't lose billions of dollars if the government collapsed, they would.
1