I'm not sure if by redistribution most politicians mean it in the same simplistic way you're presenting it here. Of course you could mean you want to talk about the government actually withdrawing money from accounts in order to deposit it in other accounts which, in that case, go ahead and discuss...I guess?

The IRS essentially does just that.

Okay but this isn't then what I think conns' scenario is. This is basically leading into a discussion about systems of taxation.

Our nation has the most progressive personal income taxation in the western world. What more do you want?

I'm not sure why you're imputing to me a position I assume you've deduced from what was essentially my attempt to clarify things. I don't really have much to say at this point other than i think/thought the scenario presented here is extra-taxation in that the focus is on coercively leveling the socioeconomic playing field as opposed to (no less coercively) funding the government, which is what I correctly or incorrectly understand the main purpose of taxes to be, at least here.

, how long would it take most of the money to get back in the hands of almost the exact same people?

, What percentage of people would improve their life and not piss it all away.

, . What percentage of trust fund babies would be completely screwed and end up poor for life?

Yes, I realize the government is a problem argument has a long history and makes sense from time to time. On the other hand, how do you feel about recent revelations we've come across via the Panama papers and an oxfam report?

That's nothing more than a smokescreen to take the heat off our failing ruling class. Capitalism is so demonized and essentially it's nothing more than the trading of goods and services between individuals. That is, until a government gets involved and money gets involved in order to influence the outcomes of said transactions. Then you have crony-capitalism. Which is nothing more than a pay to play system which only benefits the rich and powerful. It's a system that can only be sustained by corrupt government officials that so many want to give more and more power over our lives. It all makes no damn sense to me.

That's nothing more than a smokescreen to take the heat off our failing ruling class. Capitalism is so demonized and essentially it's nothing more than the trading of goods and services between individuals. That is, until a government gets involved and money gets involved in order to influence the outcomes of said transactions. Then you have crony-capitalism. Which is nothing more than a pay to play system which only benefits the rich and powerful. It's a system that can only be sustained by corrupt government officials that so many want to give more and more power over our lives. It all makes no damn sense to me.

Yeah, Capitalism has really sucked for America. Let's try something completely different because a guy who supported and aided Communist regimes for years says that everything here sucks now.

Or you know, we could keep it, and things would pretty much stay pretty good for the next few decades.

Yeah, Capitalism has really sucked for America. Let's try something completely different because a guy who supported and aided Communist regimes for years says that everything here sucks now.

Or you know, we could keep it, and things would pretty much stay pretty good for the next few decades.

I would not get sucked into the idea that Sanders is going to end capitalism. He is mostly proposing a return to New Deal era regulations. This idea that if we stay the course with what has "worked" in the past will mean that things will stay good is a fairly terrible assumption. Capitalism already collapsed in the country in the 1930s. It took total war to bring the country out of it.

Is capitalism that rewards only the top one percent sustainable? Is it even environmentally sustainable to continue push monetary profits above all else?

Yes. Capitalism will continue to work.

Let's say we elect Hillary. Can you describe what happens to America over the next 8 years?

50 years




80%



The same percentage that have shitty lives right now, despite the money, would end up poor for life 2%

Yes. Capitalism will continue to work.

Let's say we elect Hillary. Can you describe what happens to America over the next 8 years?

Define continue to work. That's vague, open for interpretation and almost certainly an assumption. Would you say that capitalism was "working" in 2007-08? What if the student loan bubble bursts in the next few years.

The next eight years are going to be a transition phase. There are vast changes being brought on by technology. Who knows what will occur. I don't think many societies have collapsed because the people were too equal or that they shared too much.

Yes. Nothing is perfect. There are going to be good times and bad times.
Technology is going to happen one way or another. With or without Bernie those things are going to happen.

But, are you saying that society has a good chance of collapsing in the next 8 years?

It would not call 2007 bad times. A recession is a bad time. The entire economy collapsed, and there are still no protections on this not happening again. The banks are still too big to fail, and debt is still being packaged and sold in deceptive ways.

Not sure what "a good chance" means. I believe the odds are much better of systemic economic collapse if we stay on our current course.
But I do not know when this will occur. I also don't claim to be an expert on future predictions.

Who do you believe the economy has gotten better for since 2007-08? You can draw a direct link to the collapse and this: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ly/433863/

Our economy is undoubtedly doing better now than it was in 07-08.

For whom?

And because it is better now does it excuse the crash?

Does it mean that it's continued improvement is assured?