Rath said:
The nature of a capitalist economy is cyclical, the fact that the poor and the rich get richer at the same time doesn't prove that the poor are getting richer because the rich are. My interpretation would be the poor and the rich are both getting richer during an economic 'bubble'. You seem to be misinterpreting the difference between correlation and causation. Also you are building a strawman argument in my opinion, you are making out that because people believe it is fair to tax the rich more they somehow hate the rich. Progressives generally don't hate the rich or think they should be ashamed, they just think they have more and as such can afford to give more. |
Ah, but your statement is mis-guided.
The truth is that the rich and poor can get richer, or poorer. A study of people in poverty in the 1970's showed that an incredible 95% of those in poverty in the 1970's had improved their standing from poverty level (lowest quintile) to a better quintile. Over 40% had improved their position to the highest quintile (top 20%). Likewise, for those who were in the top 1% in 1990...50% were no longer in the top 1%.
So in the American capitalistic system, you can deride the distribution of wealth, but the truth is that those in poverty have been proven (to the tune of 95%) to have the means to change their situation, and improve. So why are people in poverty? Stupid choices.
Maybe its me, but if 95% of people in poverty today are due not to birth, but decisions...Would that not tell you the system works, as it doesn't seek to keep the rich, rich, or the poor, poor?
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.