$3.3 trillion collected in 2018, so well under 20% of taxes, and they made over 20% of gdp and control over 35% of all wealth/assets according to google.

In that 40 years, over $50 TRILLION has been transferred from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

That equates to a person who now earns $35k earning $61k EVERY YEAR SINCE 75 (an extra $26k per year) had wealth inequality remained at levels we saw after ww2 until the mid 70’s…college educated professionals who make $70k are handing billionaires an average of $56k every year in lost earnings.

HEEEEEEEEEEEEY---------
When am i gonna see that extra $4k dollars a year from the 2017 tax bill trump signed---a lot of people forgot about that, but just now we're hitting the stride where we have to start paying for the tax cuts he gave himself and anyone else making $500k+ a year

I'm supposed to get an extra $4k back in my taxes from that, that's why I have to pay more in taxes now that they're sun-setting.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200306224327/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/11/trump-says-corporate-tax-cuts-will-mean-4000-extra-i
n-your-pocket-economists-arent-so-sure/

Remember? Where's my $4k trumppy? where's my extra $4k EVERY YEAR!?!?
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
Oh but it saved jobs or something right? Is there an emoji for jacking-off an eggplant?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/10/at-and-t-layoffs-jobs-slashed-trump-tax-cuts
https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/tax-law-offshore-jobs/

@bobknight33

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Kevin-OLeary-on-global-inequality-Its-fantastic

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

On her debut album for Philips, Nina Simone in Concert (1964), for the first time she addressed racial inequality in the United States in the song "Mississippi Goddam". This was her response to the June 12, 1963, murder of Medgar Evers and the September 15, 1963, bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, that killed four young black girls and partly blinded a fifth. She said that the song was "like throwing ten bullets back at them", becoming one of many other protest songs written by Simone. The song was released as a single, and it was boycotted in some[vague] southern states.[31][32] Promotional copies were smashed by a Carolina radio station and returned to Philips.[33] She later recalled how "Mississippi Goddam" was her "first civil rights song" and that the song came to her "in a rush of fury, hatred and determination". The song challenged the belief that race relations could change gradually and called for more immediate developments: "me and my people are just about due". It was a key moment in her path to Civil Rights activism.[34] "Old Jim Crow", on the same album, addressed the Jim Crow laws. After "Mississippi Goddam", a civil rights message was the norm in Simone's recordings and became part of her concerts.

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

This is what "real change" looks like, when it comes to trying to fix inequality in our country.

Which party just had another 88 paid adds online pulled today for using hate group insignia, specifically for using Nazi symbology AGAIN, this time using the inverted red triangle used to identify political prisoners, Communists, Social Democrats, liberals, Freemasons, people accused of helping Jews, and other members of opposition parties in concentration camps now being used by Trump and Pence to paint Antifa as social democrats- the enemy and instigators of violence, contrary to the actual arrest records that indicates Antifa involvement in riots and vandalism is minimal at most, but right wing hate groups have been repeatedly caught being the real dangerous instigators, with multiple instances of shootings, arson, repeatedly caught with bombs and written plans to instigate riots then blame BLM in their possession (because they are that stupid)? One guess.

Which party has gladly taken well over $40 million from the Mellons, who repeatedly make public, overtly and blatantly racist and derogatory comments about black and brown people? One guess.

Again I ask, how many civil rights leaders are Republicans today, or in this century?
Because I know you're too embarrassed to answer, I'll do it for you, ZERO.

It's undeniably clear during my lifetime which party is the best for unity and which is divisive, which strives for equality and which denies inequality exists, and which pushed and pushed equality more.
If you wipe the orange meconium from your eyes you can tell just by looking at their representatives, one party is full of non white men and is outraged by racism, one party is almost exclusively white men and claims racism and inequality doesn't exist, it's fake news.
*facepalm

Aside: TIL I've only seen the new Mad Max.

Oh, I know. I'm not waiting for Bartertown, per se. I'm waiting until, say in the case of inequality causing civil unrest, rich people getting strung up in public by huge mobs.

You know, stuff that happens in movies but is coming to a city near you. Literally.

All these except nuclear war are happening now, and effecting first world countries too.
Food shortages, check.
Super bugs, check.
Climate change, check checkity check.
Massive migrations due to effects of climate change, double check.
Water shortages, check....ask a Californian.
Wealth inequality causing civil unrest, check.

Because we aren't living in Bartertown yet is no excuse to ignore reality. These things are currently happening around the globe, in third AND first world nations.
Here's one small example getting very little airtime....
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change

1. Even though I definitively know the world is beyond fucked at this point, I still think the scientists are not doing themselves any favours by making these "probably" scenarios rather than almost definite ones. As said, even though in some ways I'm looking forward to when the shit starts hitting the fan, I've lost faith in knowing when it'll actually start happening. It seems like every other week I'm told that "soon it'll really start to go all to shit". And it never really does, especially for 1st world countries.

2. Great Filter, Humanity. Humanity, Great Filter. Nice to meet you.

3. I'm beginning to want to start a pot of which terrible thing will happen first to 1st world countries (sadly, the beginning will be poor countries getting fucked and 1st world countries complaining that it now costs $30 for a single banana). Super bugs and catastrophic pandemics (maybe measles!)? Climate change? Nuclear war? Massive migrations of refugees who can't live where they are due to climate change or war? Water shortages? Wealth inequality that will implode on itself? There are so many terrible things on the precipice of happening that I don't even know what I'd bet on, honestly.

*sigh....passive aggressiveness from someone who keeps changing the argument is tiresome, ask your friends.

Your original statement ....""American wealth inequality is staggering. "
???? Stated as if that is a bad thing......."

Clearly indicating staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.

Now..."I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing",
so unless you misspoke, you must be parsing the difference between staggering (acceptable) and excessive (unacceptable)....but staggering >= excessive.

Wealth/income inequality are tied....and now who's being pedantic?

Well, I'm glad you aren't running the economy then, sadly the one most in control thinks the same, that one person making (not earning) >10000 times what another makes for < 1/10000 the work isn't inequitable, and neither is one person owning more than 10,000,000 average fully employed countrymen thanks to an accident of birth and/or criminal/dishonest business practices.

"The veracity of the statement has no bearing on the fact that you dismissed/questioned it first"

<Sigh> Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.

My original statement had to do with my belief that wealth inequality is not a bad thing. It had little to do with OP's assertion that he foolishly sees current wealth inequality as "staggering".

"Forgive us if we take the words of economists, historians, reality, and our own senses over a random person's opinion. "

You are free to heed whoever pleases you. If you crave my
forgiveness, consider yourself forgiven.

"If that's not excessive, I have to wonder what could be in your opinion. "

I too have to wonder what "excessive" wealth inequality actually looks like. I don't think I have ever seen a large scale example. So, I'll just pull a number out of the air: under most distribution models, I would say that I consider a Gini coefficient of, say, .9 to be "excessive".

"My wife, head of her department for 10 years, working 45-50 hour weeks, makes $30k a year working like a dog....Warren Buffet makes >10000 times that much doing absolutely nothing...not excessive?!"

I thought we were talking about wealth distribution, not income distribution. Anyhow, to answer your question, the answer is "No", I do not consider that to be "excessive".

I think I just explained how that does nothing to address wealth inequality and leaves the poor paying the maximum percentage of income in taxes while letting the rich only pay a tiny portion, only the set sales tax percentage (on what they legally buy in the U.S. and report).
Your plan would probably have to set sales tax at near 50% (it's already over 10% with all the other tax revenues), meaning the poor, who spend all they make, pay >50% in taxes (and over 90% of all taxes with around 10% of all income), and the rich, who would spend <1% of their income taxably (I know that's not a real word) pay about 1/2%. Sounds like a great solution to wealth inequality, doesn't it?