Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Does Hillary Clinton Want to ‘Topple’ Americans Making $346,000 a Year?
Oh, Piketty and Saez, what you have wrought? From the New York Times:
In a meeting with economists this year, Mrs. Clinton intensely studied a chart that showed income inequality in the United States. The graph charted how real wages, adjusted for inflation, had increased exponentially for the wealthiest Americans, making the bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart. Mrs. Clinton pointed at the top category and said the economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent, according to several people who were briefed on Mrs. Clinton’s policy discussions but could not discuss private conversations for attribution.
Now to give HRC somewhat of a benefit of a doubt, perhaps she was referring more to the 0.1% who make $1.2 million a year (at least if you are 50 years old) and above and not the actual 1%, who make around $350,000 a year. But even so, I sure hope there were some qualifiers and caveats in that conversation. What would it take to “topple” the super-rich? A 90% income tax? A wealth tax? In his best seller Capital in the Twenty-First Century, inequality researcher Thomas Piketty documents how it took two world wars and a global depression to reduce the power of inherited wealth. I’ll pass on those. And once again, isn’t wealth obtained though entrepreneurial capitalism different than through crony capitalism (or maybe even giving speeches)? The value added sure seems like it would be different. We should want more billionaire entrepreneurs, yes?
Why don’t we just reenact the French Revolution? The Democrats can decapitate the nobility (1%ers) and the clergy (who are anti-SSM). Isn’t that where this type of envy and hatred leads?
Fortunately, no one can honestly believe Hillary plans to do anything of the sort. It would require her to go after all of her wealthy friends and Chelsea’s inheritance. I see this as an empty “campaign promise” to appeal to the Leftist base of her party.
A co-worker told me he saw Hillary Clinton on TV griping about the disparity in wages between CEO’s of gigantic companies and the entry level employees at those same companies. If Hillary gets $200,000 for a speech, how much does she pay the speechwriter? Does she split if 50/50? Maybe 60/40?
A person of HRC brilliance writes their own speeches, writes their own books, writes their own laws, cleans their own house, drives their own cars ….. (ROFLMAOYSST)
Since she has never produced anything marketable herself (beyond her perceived crony influence), I wonder if she has thought through what will become of her when other peoples’ money runs out, post-toppling. We know, of course, she is an ordinary oppressed female with a mere $100,000,000.
Conan O’Brien: Hillary Clinton is making income inequality a central theme in her presidential campaign. For example, she points out that her husband makes $300 million a year and she has to get by on only $200 million.
HRC is simply using the Obama playbook – treating the voters as morons. LIVs are too dense to realize that Hill is part of the .1%
This strategy got BHO elected twice – who am I to argue with success?
This is one of those rhetorical questions, right?
The truly frightening thing is that, if elected President, she is willing to turn the full weight of the Federal government against a group of law abiding US citizens whose only offense is that of being successful.
That is frightening.
If an Olympic track team were looking to “deepen their bench,” so that they could perhaps capture gold, silver, and bronze in a given event, would it make more sense to take actions to make their fastest runner run slower, or to help their slower runners run faster?
The Social Justice Warrior answer is to give everyone a blue ribbon for participation. Yeah, that answer is a non-sequitur, but, so?
Seawriter.
Why? It is only FAIR. After all they did not build that business, they did not build that wealth, they did not earn that money. We all did and now they want to be selfish and keep it for themselves, when by all rights it should go to the people. Which oddly enough seems to be the government in this case.
If you topple the one percent by making them say top 5%, don;t you just put the next percentile in line for abuse?
It’s not as idiotic as you make it sound. Whipping up envy of the 1% will allow the progressives to introduce measures to punish high earners, thus preventing them from elbowing their way into the ranks of the truly rich and powerful. To build on your Olympics comparison, it’s the left’s purpose to make it as difficult as possible to unseat the current record holder.
“Now to give HRC somewhat of a benefit of a doubt, perhaps she was referring more to the 0.1% who make $1.2 million a year (at least if you are 50 years old) and above and not the actual 1%, who make around $350,000 a year.”
James, I think this is backwards. HRC is completely in bed with the 0.1% uber rich of Wall Street and Hollywood. She needs their backing and lavish fund raisers. Meanwhile, the mere 1% are of no use to her and probably vote Republican. It is the height of hypocrisy to slam the 1% while kissing up daily to the 0.1%.
The rich, as determined by Hillary and the IRS, shall be tithed at percentage rates proportionate with their own personal failures as Americans to help those with less.
So they’ll just basically do whatever they want, lawyers will get paid to influence legislation, and our tax code will become more complex – and none of that, nothing, will put one more single dime into the pockets of the people Hillary is selling this garbage to.
There’s a reason why Hillary doesn’t do a lot of open press conferences. She’ll get asked questions as to why she demonizes hedge fund managers when her own life, family, and investments were and are done with hedge fund managers. Who both make a lot of money and manager a lot of money from the people she thinks should be “toppled”.
Oh, and where does she think she’s going to get 2.5 billion to run her campaign? From the great unwashed? Ha ha! Let them eat Chipotle, I say!