The problem is the gap between 10 percentile and 1% percentile is massive.  I'm just at the edge of 10%...  dude I have one house, not 20.  I don't have yacht.  Having a few million puts one in upper, but it isn't like a couple million buys 20 houses.  

It was an example. An extreme one, okay, but still. Nothing more. I am pretty sure the 1% can spare another few percent of their money and still be absurdly rich. 

as an american i have seen this first hand. our preoccupation with race is unhealthy and it makes people depressed. racial division is promoted by politicians so they have a way to rally votes, its plainly obvious. 

i wonder who paid for the cookies in this analogy

While making about half of all income

And the share of "expendable" income is going to be an even higher number. Steaks don't start to cost more just because you get a pay raise.  

Money is not a finite resource that is set in stone. It's not a pile of gold that disappears when you spent it. It gets reinvested in things. Even food stamps get paid out to grocery stores, which they use to pay workers, and get new food by paying distributors, etc.  

A lot of different programs have wildly different effects on the broader economy. High quality early childhood programs can yield a $4 – $9 dollar return per $1 invested.

There's a reason why most of the focus is on the "top 1%".  I think Bernie has even specifically talked about the top 10 people. 

A lot of this comes down to where you put the credit.

"Business owners have the money"

"Business owners have money, because their workers made most of it for them"

"Business owners made their first chunk of money on their own, and invested it"

"Business owners couldn't have made their first chunk of money, without _________" 

- the education that society paid for,

- plenty of wealthy people got their first start because of other people's tax dollars

And lots of other circumstances.  

Group A: earn 50% of the money and pay 72% of all taxes.

Group B: earn 50% of the money and pay 28% of all taxes.


Liberals -> group A needs to pay their fair share!!!!

Lol, crazy.

Top 50% population pay 97% of all taxes

Bottom 50% population pay 3% of all taxes


Liberals-> steal from the rich so they pay their fair-share

Extremely right wing.

If you see it that way it looks unfair, I give you that. However, let's compare purchasing power. After taxes the top 50% have much more disposable income, even though their tax load is heavier. For the bottom 50% it's much harder to compensate higher taxes. Meanwhile the top 50% would suffer much less. The very simple principle behind that: those who CAN contribute more are the ones who SHOULD do so.

You still haven't adressed better public services and lower crime rates. In your example of board members getting the money you also basically admitted that wealthy people with power always win, no matter what it takes. Why is this fair? Why shouldn't this be leveled to a certain degree?