The top 1% is 3,110,000 people the Forbes 500 are 500 CEO's.

Most rich people are self made, even in the 1%. If there were sealed layers, then I would see this as a huge problem, but if most people who lie in the top 20% were in other layers not too many years ago, then I think the system works. If you reward those that prepare themselves and try to improve you will create a much more dynamic society. If you reward those that are lazy and punish those that create wealth, then you will destroy the economy.

LOL typical GOP thinking. Because people are poor by choice, right? Or people don't work because they live lucrative lives while on state benefits, right?

I seen this video quite a while ago. While I must admit the presentation was very well executed, I cannot agree with it because of a few issues it overlooks. The biggest issue I have with it is the fact that it rests on the premise the wealth inequality is inherently wrong, which I don't think is necessarily the case. The importance lies not in the amount of income the various groups make in relation to the rich; rather, importance lies in whether the low-earners are earning enough to make a comfortable living, and income mobility

For example, if 95% of Americans had a comfortable lifestyle, with a similar wealth divide, I'm sure most would consider that a successful system. So wealth inequality in itself doesn't tell us much. Take note that I'm not saying the low-earners do earn enough to make a comfortable or that the poor have the ability to acquire a comfortable living (that would probably require a hefty debate on the meaning of 'comfortable.'). I'm just criticizing the video for overlooking the important issues (which the author may or may not be able to argue in his favor), and focusing on less important issues.

Actually the lives are pretty lucrative. Recent studies have shown that most poor HOUSEHOLDS get benefits and cash worth about $44k a year which means they would actually have to earn over $50k a year to have that money after taxes.

The biggest driver right now of income inequity is marriage and education. There is no reason to discourage either of those.

Women more than ever are going to college. They make up the majority of students and the majority of degrees awarded. She isn't going to marry beneath her or take a deadbeat for a husband.

So you end up with a two earner household that is considered a household because it is married.

On the flip side you have women who have children early or who do poorly in terms of education. They do accept deadbeats in terms of spouses. They don't marry them and thus they are not a HOUSEHOLD but they do shack up and create kids with them.

What they marry isn't a man, but the government. They have the government provide what they or the man cannot.

80% of household poverty is removed the second these "households" decide to marry and their incomes are legally combined instead of considered separate.

That won't happen though because the combined income won't qualify for the benefits.

Look into studies on what poor households SPEND versus what they EARN. They don't earn much but they spend plenty. This is about legal definitions of households.

Tons of jobs exist for people with skills. More skilled people, more jobs taken.

70 Percent of the economy of America is all consumer driven, meaning people have to spend money. If people don't have good paying jobs, they can't spend money. So we need good paying jobs to push up US economy.

In most cases, being poor is absolutely a choice. Not acquring the skills needed to get a decent paying job is a choice. Espeically when the government hands out money for people to go to school.

There are people that don't work because government benefits give them essentially everything they need to survive. That's a reality, members of my family have been doing it for generations.