Hahaha, this is a cute post but incredibly naive. People may only earn 10k a month? Who decides that? What an arbitrary number also. Why not 9k? or 15k? And if you think people only make much money because "they decide it", lol, I wish it would be so easy, I'd be "deciding" that I earn a ton a day

Boohoo some people are rich and I am not. Well, the world ain't fair but that's that.

Please read again.

In this case noone actually needs 1 million dollars or even a net 250k 

10% is not enough to maintain a welfare state, something the electorate desires

Don't you understand what an example is?  Do you want me to mention every single amount of money that I think would be okay?
$2000 $2001 $2002 $2003 $2004 $2005 $2006 $2007 $2008 $2009 $2010 $2011 $2012 $2013 $2014 $2015 $2016 $2017 $2018...........

I said 10k as an example and 10k is more than enough for everyone. So let the "rich people" keep buying their $100,000 cars  they just need to wait 10 months now.

Actually, they'd need to wait a lot longer... people who earn 10k a month do not earn enough to save 100% of their income. That's only 120k a year, right? I'm assuming your talking dollars, but even if we're talking pounds, I know for a fact that £120k does not give you the means to live the sort of life you think it does.


Well you clearly lack the ability to understand what I say and I am sorry for you.  The thing is. Why do alot of people get rich?
Why for example does russia now have a ton of young millionaires etc?  Because  of the other people they "used" to become rich.   A ton of those russians now are kids and grandchildren of communist party members former generals etc  that kept the money that the average Iwan had to pay to the communist government etc. Its simply stolen money.  They are rich and they dont deserve to be it.

You see I don't understand what you're advocating, here. Clearly you have some kind of issue with capitalism... but the first example you give is an example of how big Government leads to corruption? Or do you just think that some kind of socialism will work as long as the "right people" are in control (which always means people like you, or even you)... I'm sure no other progressive in the history of the world has ever thought this. The fact of the matter is, the "right people" do not exist, they are not a part of humanity. Not even you, my friend. Not even me.

Then there is rich people like dukes  etc   whose ancestors were the  idiots of their time and forced people to do shit so they could become rich. And they now are rich because their ancestors "stole" money etc.

Again, this is statism, so you're referring to the actions of Government. I'm curious, though, why you think it's okay to "steal" the property of people today (through taxation), but the Dukes who accumulated their wealth through the stealing of property from ages past is evil? Which part is the evil part, here? The theft, or the accumulation of wealth?

Then there is rich people that became rich because they had a factory/company  and they are the ones that decided what would be sufficient for themselves and what their normal (disposable/replacable) workers should get. You know like "If you dont like how much you get f*ck off There is a ton of people that would work for this little money I dont need you!!!"

And the factory just fell out of the sky, right? Cast down from the mountain side, for the good of us all? Businesses take a lot of effort and capital to build. The people who worked those countless hours and invested the capital for their own purposes. If they did it to get rich, what's the problem? Would you have preferred that they didn't do this at all, and produced neither the jobs that the factory needed, nor the goods that the factory produced? How would people be any better off, then?

Just look back a few hundred years ago   do you know the term  serfdom?

Do you? Because the policies that your implictly supporting seem to support it.

Before the pest  there were so many poor people and some rich people (guess how they became rich...)  and they didnt pay their "slave workers"  and after  the pest killed like 90% of the population  there were not enough "slaves" and they finally could say stuff like " Dear Duke I will not work for you anymore another duke is paying me now /paying better than you"   The normal people became sparse and finally had some power. And we still dont have a society where wealth is split fair.

That's not how it happened, at all. What happened was the industrial revolution. What you don't understand is that wages are pretty much parallel with productivity. Wages didn't start increasing until the technology developed which allowed workers to become more productive. Even in the modern era, the differences in the wages of the average American and the average Chinese are roughly the same as the average productivity for each worker.

What I mean by this, is that say you're working in a factory making shoes, but you have no machines, and you're making them by hand... you are paid 10 cents a shoe. If you make a shoe an hour, you make 10 cents an hour. If, however, that factory bought a machine that, when combined with you labour, produced 40 shoes per hour, you'd make $4 an hour. You might not receive this $4 an hour directly into your pay packet... it could come to you through other means: improved working conditions, extra benefits (say: health insurance), fewer working hours, increased holiday pay, etc (the "mix" of these will often depend on Government policy... if the Government imposes high income taxes, for example, you will more likely see your increased productivity in the alternate ways... this is part of the reason why Americans of similar productivity earn more than their European counterparts, but often have fewer paid holidays, etc).

No one says there are no rich people that deserve to be rich but the mayority doesnt deserve to have the money they have they are rich because of the wrong reasons. 

I actually agree with this. If you've earned the money, you can do what you see fit with it (this includes, btw, giving that money to your children when you die). However, if you've made this money through corruption, or cronyism (the same thing), then you do not "deserve" that wealth. My only problem with this is that your impicit policies would lead to MORE corruption and cronyism and FEWER people earning their money legitimately.

Bill Gates for example  is a person who made a little questionable decision when he was younger (IBM/Microsoft) but he at least gave 24billion or so dollars to charity etc.
But the majority of people that are really rich are rich because of the wrong reasons. And do nothing for the society.

Well, this depends on how you define "really rich". If it's people on 10k a month, then, no they haven't got it for the wrong reasons. Most of them are legitimate small and medium business owners, most of them earned their money by providing others with goods that they wanted.

On the other end of the scale, you have the Bill Gates and the Larry Pages of the world... these people have got their money because they have improved the quality of lives of millions, maybe billions, substantially. This is what that money represents.

What you are seeing, though, is a growth in the number of multi-millionaires who got their wealth illegitimately. The guys with the friends in Congress (and the Congress, themselves)

There is also several problems like this:
If you are a good boss and you have a company that is slowly expanding and your workers are payed very well etc you will fall behind the corrupt unethical other companies  that pay minimum wage etc and expand really fast and as a result you will be crushed (for example because you have less money for marketing etc)

Paying minimum wage doesn't make you corrupt. Corruption is the use of force for financial gain. Corruption does lead to rapid growth, yes. I agree here. We need to shrink / eliminate Government to end the corruption.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that you would get "crushed", though. There's a large and growing market for "ethical" products. More people are interested in the sourcing of their goods. People are paying more attention to the activities of the businesses selling the products. "American made" holds some value in the eyes of consumers.

Another problem:
A nurse has a hard job and  is risking to get infected with whatever she is confronted at work. They also dont earn a ton of money  and  then there is bankers that actually  burn everyones money and get payed way to much for not risking their own ass but money of other people and if they do shit  its just a little OOPS not even  SORRY for f*cking up etc. How the hell does this banker deserve more money than a nurse? He is not risking anything can destroy other peoples lifes and earns alot of money?....

Well, in both cases, we have massive Government distortion. Banks have very little risk (TBTF banks, especially) thanks to Government corruption. As for nurses, in many parts of the world, the wage of the nurse is set by the Government. Who knows, if we let the markets set the wage, she could be on more money? Government regulation and distortion in the healthcare market in the States could have also lead to distortions of wages in the healthcare market. Let's not forget that the nurses' take home pay would greatly improve if taxes were reduced or eliminated.

But, you're forgetting something here: everybody who goes into the nursing game KNOWS that they're not going to get paid as much as a banker. Maybe they value the other aspects of nursing higher than money? If they valued money more, they would have trained and worked in a different industry. Nobody is forced into being a nurse (in a free society, anyway), and those who chose that path knew exactly what they were choosng before they went down it... money isn't the number one priority for nurses... it's just about the only priority for bankers.


"Boohoo some people are rich and I am not. Well, the world ain't fair but that's that."  Whats that supposed to mean? I will never ever have a financial problem ever   just saying. So its not a poor person whining about rich people at all ;)

Jay Z supports Obamacare. Jay Z's a mega-rich guy, clearly he's going to lose out from this program, while poorer people benefit. This makes Jay Z a good guy, right? Except, what he's actually doing is supporting using political means to give to the poor TRILLIONS of dollars, whereas he would only ever be able to afford millions.

If he's losing sleep at night because of all those 22 year olds not having health insurance, he benefits more from the new taxes than he loses financially.