I like your style, but sadly your history is a little off; the 16th Amendment gave no new taxing authority; "We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,..." (Brushaber v. Union Pacfic Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916))

You see, the issue is that your Grandfather, Grandmother, Father, Mother and now You and I have allowed this false belief of IRS direct taxation to be allowed to live on.

It started with FDR and his "pay taxes to defeat the axis" which got close to 90% of those that never needed to pay income taxes on their money to pay taxes...then came the industrial boom in America, then Korea, then a wording change in the IRS booklets from 'Foreign' to 'Taxpayer', then Vietnam and the second generation of children growing up NOT KNOWING OR UNDERSTANDING THE LAW just signed the W4 & S.S. paperwork as though they had too...and here we are today.

The 16th Amendment actually fixed the mistake of the Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust Comapny 157 U.S 429 (April 8, 1895) that created the greatest assualt on the lower and middle class in the history of the U.S.; It created the Great Gatsby's of America and created the Wealth divide.

The 16th Amendment fixed that mistake...

We need to keep the 16th, but educate "We the People..." in order to stop the theft that our Gov't has been doing since 1939.

Hello, Mike,
I totally agree with you.
All the best.
Maritimus

That is the good news. Even better news is that the global middle class is expanding (culture/region relative) and the number of poorest of poor is dropping precipitously.

Denigration of the wealthy is a symptom of something quite evil. Denigration of the more wealthy and more successful generally should not need much exposition to be seen as evil by anyone that understands objectivism.

Reality makes no promises all will succeeed or succeed equally or even be in a fixed range of succcess in any endeavors whatsover. Reality mandates that not all causes will produce the same effects.

In a time of accelerating technological change I would expect the spreads to get much wider as technology is a force multiplier. I don't think this is remotely a bad thing. I think it is good and too be expected.

It is funny that "diversity" is held as a free floating good as long as it is not diversity of economic results.

Uh, the problem is that government has so many favors to sell NOT that those with more money can afford to buy them.

So what? 99% of Americans have more money personally than the majority of human beings do. Wealth is not static but created. Some people and especially some cultures are better at creating it than others. There is nothing in reality that says all humans should be equal or approximately equal in wealth.

In reality unequal causes produce differing results.

And he doesn't wear a red suit so you can identify the S.O.B. Hold on, my beagle is a bitch. How about son of a misbegotten weasel?

My bad, Herb. I forgot to include the moochers in my comment. How to steal money is what the moochers consider their job. A moocher family of four can take in over $40,000 a year from the American tax payer. The Liberal Santa Claus is alive and well.

Trans Pacific Partnership

Well, actually, that is what the Dark Ages were. As the Western Roman Empire slowly contracted, people put more and more coinage into the form of "plate" i.e., household goods. When the barbarians finally took over, those warlords had hoards of silver and gold objects in their dungeons. They gave each other "gifts" of goblets and plates and jewelry. But they never invested in roads or baths or much else. As you say, that is the view that the so-called "progressives" have of wealth as a static hoard.

OK, that was as clear as mud. Do you mean to say that money is not speech?

We have a common culture that condemns the "buying of politicians" and the "buying of officials." Why? What is the "common good"? Who defines it? Maybe it would be better to let people bid openly for what they want from the government. Heinlein once suggested paying Congress a million each (back when a million was real money) but making them pay for everything from that themselves.

Money is speech.
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

Money is speech and press:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

In a free market, the rich can only influence our lives by offering to trade something that they have for something they want from us. With a monster-sized government that can do any damn thing it wants to us, all the rich need to do is buy 100 senators, 435 representatives and 1 puny president. Without the later, the former is a greater force for good. Someone has to have an excess of funds after expenditures for there to be capital for investment, the more the better.

Hello UncommonSense,
Cronies know laws and regulations can benefit the few at the expense of the many and how to ensure they are on the winning side. Politicians make the rules in order to enrich themselves. This has become the nature of their profession. If one is buying a politician, then there is a politician willing to be bought. Who should be held to a higher standard? Who has accepted the mantle/pledge of doing right by their constituency? The rich play the hand the politicians provide. Undoubtedly this contributes to this disparity, but when the economy tanks the rich are also more capable of insulating themselves from loss. Of course the numbers skew in this direction. In a poor economy the poor and middle class lose ground while the rich continue if not amassing more wealth, at least holding their own. The ratio can only move in this direction when wages are stagnant or worse and household incomes are down. In a good economy the sheer numbers of the less than rich, making more money, can quickly change this ratio. The key is to provide economic conditions conducive for those 62 and others to invest in the future and to put their money to work increasing wealth and opportunity for all. Money held by an individual, no matter how much, is capital and feeds the economy as long as it is spent, is in a bank, or invested in some form. Capital is seed money for the economy unless it is stashed in a mattress. The worse the economy, the less likely the rich are to be bullish with their money. Little risk... little reward.
Multiple factors contribute...
Respectfully,
O.A.

Don't forget the moochers. I understand that they are almost 50% of the population. The amazing thing is how the small amount of money-makers, mostly the Middle Class, who create the real wealth, support all the giveaways and spending from our beloved representatives and executives. Just imagine how wealthy the USA could be if everyone getting undeserved "entitlements" and money by manipulation were to be productive instead.

Point that I think many are missing is the change in so called 'wealth'. The points already stated about wealth itself not being bad and these "62" not being evil are valid. They have it because they or someone before them, built it or earned it. The far more interesting point, and critical for our understanding of the current economic climate, is the fact that the #/% has changed so dramatically in a few years. This points to the system being rigged. The massive printing of money, and inflation of stock markets around the globe is indicative of a financial bubble of historic proportion. That is the real story.

Money? 62? Those are not 62 isolated individuals. Each is the nexus of an uncountable number of associates, families, co-owners, collaborators. Their possessions are diversified among many sources of value, and theoretical. It’s not like they have one heap of stuff all to themselves.

If the poorest half of world population own so little, how do they continue to exist? In the most backward countries (excuse me, "emerging economies"), people nevertheless live their daily accustomed lives, even if they have to haul water in buckets and clean their rice pots with sand. Until foreigners come and tell them to be discontented, they live as their evolution taught them.

Do-gooder busybodies profess to try to raise those populations' lifestyles to their own modern, say 1950s American middle class. Anything less than that is deemed inadequate. On the side they also hope to exploit the natural resources those primitive societies have under their feet, unaware of its value.

Many people, seeing others prosper, pursue get-rich-quick scams, believing money brings happiness. Actually, what a surplus of money represents is the safety margin, the survival cushion, between imminent starvation and a carefree life of guaranteed long-term plenty. It is natural, built-in human nature, to want the most for the least effort. And that includes harvesting others' efforts. Enter force and fraud.

Assuming that there are, in fact, only 62 richest groups that control and direct a considerable amount of the productive activities of mankind, that makes both their own and others’ survival possible. If there were just one person left standing, owning everything, with 7 billion nearly dead terminally poor bodies writhing in the dirt, what would that avail the one rich person? He (I assume it's a male) still needs others to provide all the necessities and comforts of his life, maintaining the entire infrastructure of the planet and its ecological balance, with a productive workforce and wisely husbanded resources. One person alone cannot manage that.

Come to think of it, religious people believe there is such a one supreme individual whom they worship, for whom they are willing to live and die, and whose oneness is prime. They even profess to believe that everything that happens is this supreme ruler's will and intent. That would include a spectrum of poor to rich.
Seriously, though, humanity is on an evolutionary track, and we are still working out the logistics of a system of coexistence that does not turn some individuals into prey for others. Gauging from present company, that may take a few more thousand years.