Inequitable distribution of wealth

Bernie Sanders keeps going on, in his book and TV appearances, about the "inequitable distribution of wealth" in this country.

I wish he wouldn't.

I think most Americans believe in the American Dream, which is if you work hard and get some breaks you too can get rich. Americans do not believe everybody deserves the same distribution of wealth, that everyone should be equal. I think everyone should have equal opportunity to make something of themselves and do well -- not that we need to redistribute wealth from the billionaires.

Sanders' message needs to be repackaged.

Yes. His real point is that the American Dream isn't working: the inequality exists and is getting worse because there is very little mobility and the system is increasingly changing to favor the already wealthy. But that point gets obscured.

I think it may be a good idea for Sanders and all other liberals to quit using the word, inequitable. Not because it is incorrect, but because too many people misinterpret it and this error is eagerly promoted by the right wing.

Inequitable means unjust or unfair. While it can also mean unequal, it does so with the same connotation as the other definitions. It is not used to define a mathematically even distribution.

And the wealth distribution in the country is, in fact, inequitable. Capitalism depends on the movement of money through the system. The incredible wealth held by the top one-tenth of one percent is nearly all removed from the economy. It goes into investments (today nothing more than gambling) and personal and corporate saving. When enough money is removed from the system, recession occurs; in the worst case, depression.

Rather than obstructing the imaginary "American Dream," the redistribution of wealth, through whatever means are appropriate, would greatly enhance the opportunities for working people, simply because there is more money in the system, allowing for growth in the area of workers' earnings instead of just growth in the holdings of the super-wealthy as it is now.

Is there a way to amend the constitution via public vote?

Not directly.

An amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the states' legislatures. I guess the states could put the issue to the people and have their votes direct the way the legislature votes.

How does a "tax on wealth" (as opposed to an income tax) work?

When you pay your property tax, that's a tax on wealth. In California and many other states, a portion of your vehicle license fee is property tax, therefore a tax on wealth.

A couple of years ago, I saw an interview with a woman who was well up in the top one-tenth. She suggested a one-time, forty percent tax on the wealth of the top one-tenth. According to her figures, it would have paid off the national debt. It's scary to think that so few people have so much money and the power that it brings.

Wow, that's quite a claim. Can you find a link?

No, I can't find a link. The interview was on television. I can't link to a television program in the past.

Sometimes they're downloaded to the web, like on YouTube or one of the many websites that monitor mainstream media.

Remember, if it didn't happen on the internet it didn't happen!

Check this for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

I have tried to find a dollar amount of the wealth held by the top 0.1% but have not been able to. Every damned article, even papers from the Fed, talk about percentages. I can easily find dollar amounts for income, but not for wealth. Stupid fucking internet. Grumble. Grumble.

Probably not something the 0.1% would appreciate being published.