Exactly, SallyMc.

@icolan By "skimming off" I am referring to how teh gap between worker productivity and wages have dramatically increased over the last 35 years. Profit from business has always been off the difference in labgor productivity and the actual costs of labor. Whenever there are huge wealth ineq2ualities, such as now, the gap between worker productivity and wages paid to workers has gotten very large. Thus instead of fair wages for what is produced, the wages become exploitive, as workers are given a smaller and smaller piece of what their own labor produces, and employers skin off more and more of what is produced for themselves.

The net result is th emiddle class shrinks and slides down into the ranks of the working poor. This is not good because the middle class is the consumer base, and eventually there will be a "critical mass" reached where there wont' be enough consumer demand to support our economy.

Is Bill Gates greedy? Most of the wealthiest people in America are among the most philanthropic. Why are you jealous of their wealth

@jwd45244 I'm not jealous. I was meaning Trump.

@jwd45244 Which is the more generous, the person who makes poverty wages and still donates what they can while barely scraping by, or the person who makes billions and donates what they want while still living in luxury?

@Renickulous right.

Money buys and controls Democracy and limits it to the most powerful elites.

Equality is antithetical to Capitalism where the rich get richer and the poor get nothing.

Capitalism and Religion stem from the same tree of bullshit.

@Renickulous statistics disagree with your claim of fairness.

But, like religion, the devotees of the faith don't like facts that counter their narrative.

All of your questions seem to boil down to one big question. How can we have a society without private profit? Look to worker coops. They already exist, are already successful, and answer virtually all of your questions.

@DonThiebaut I’m a huge fan of cooperative companies, whether worker-owned coops, customer-owned coops, or credit unions and mutual companies (which are basically financial-services coops), but that model doesn’t really address the issues of individual creators like authors, actors, musicians, inventors, etc.

@cmadler Doesn't it? If they are the sole creater, they are a cooperative of one. If there are multiple creators, or if those creators work with others (such as writers and printers and distributors), then they should be in a cooperative together, mutually making decisions about how money is spent.

You make many good points that I hadn't considered when I wrote my initial point (which was borne out of frustration with people like Bezos and Zuckerburg to name a few). I suppose a better way to have put it is to ask how many people out there are as frustrated as I am and to encourage meaningful discussion as to how we can correct the problem. Thanks to all for the discussion!

Ok, hater here. It is impossible for a person to amass that much wealth,(billionaire), without walking over someone or something to get there. Unless they won the lottery. Sports figures, entertainers and the like are all guilty of it. Back to you.

@SilverDollarJedi You say that "NFL players merely provide entertainment for the masses." If people are willing to pay for that entertainment, why shouldn't NFL players be paid accordingly?

@SilverDollarJedi Who's to say what the criteria is for salary justification for NFL or other sports athletes? They operate within that realm. Their "fans" create the basis for their incomes. As has been said, if people are willing to pay to see them, this is all the justification that is needed. To ask what service they provide to Humanity? It could be said that the joy/enjoyment some derive by watching, following and supporting their team or favorite athlete is a form of service. I could go on and on about charitable foundations that many athletes create and contribute to/promote, and also about the "non-profit" status of the NFL itself, but these aren't really relevant to the issue. As for Stockbrokers, well, they have positioned themselves, smartly, in the middle of a financial transaction. Hopefully, they are making money for their customers. To imply that they are simply skimming money is incorrect. Their success should be based on the money earned for their customers by making wise investments and stock portfolio balancing. I have no problem with their success.

Take a hypothetical: you live in ancient Rome. Slavery is commonplace. Some slave owners are cruel to their slaves. These slave owners are evil. Some slave owners are kind to their slaves. These slave owners are not necessarily evil. But the institution of slavery is still evil.

Billionaires are not necessarily evil just because they're billionaires. But the system that allows them to amass all that wealth at the expense of others is. Maybe people sometimes confuse the two, but that doesn't mean those people are wrong for wanting to change the system

No one is suggesting that there won't be wealthy individuals. I myself said earlier that a limit of 500 million should be reasonable reward for any individual. But my question to you is what should be done about ever concentration of wealth, and therefore power, in fewer and fewer hands; the creation of elites of not just billionaires but billionaires hundreds of times over; the creation of ever increasing poor stratas while middle classes vanish.... elites and then super elites of very likely trillionaires? Don't tell me that hard word and initiative will create a workably reasonably wealth-shared societies. Many people work extremely hard just to barely survive. I hear from right wingers and fellow travellers about jealousy, class envy, and all the rest on this issue. Never any solutions other than freemarket (so called) capitalism and market based solutions, while rampant inequality increases. So, what do you suggest needs to happen to redress the trend towards plutocracy and, very likely, authoritarianism with it? ( Like what is happening in the US now) If not through taxation, wealth regulation and other political-financial measures, as proposed here, then what?

@David1955 "Wealth regulation? Pardon me, but WTF is that? It's theft, that's what it is. Just how would this be accomplished? I'm sorry, but that is an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Again, we have fingers pointed at the "evil" capitalist "system." It is implied that there is a systemic suppression of the middle class, seemingly with the intention of driving them down into poverty. That's just bullshit, plain and simple. I believe we are going in the wrong direction. If anything, we need less regulation. Yes, I'm a believer in pure, laisez faire capitalism. People have lost sight of the fact that to the degree nations freely practice capitalism, and are free to do so, there is a direct correlation between that, and their standard of living. Even communist China and Russia see the benefit of embracing capitalism and both have prospered to the degree which they have done so.

In the US, we are on the brink of socialism, IMHO. If that comes to pass, there will be a mass exodus from this country. I will be one of those people.

@IAMGROOT Russia is no longer Communist. China is now a weaponised form of state capitalism. You are back in the 1970s. Pure laissez faire capitalism has never existed except in right wing wet dreams. Your understanding of the word socialism is simplistic at best. And finally, every tax, every subsidy, every financial lurk, perk or benefit, every financial intervention of whatever form is a kind of wealth regulation. It's just a question of for whom the regulation benefits, and for the most part it benefits the rich, certainly in your country and in mine. And when you are ready to flee your "socialist" country where are you going to go? Europe - socialist in your terms; the UK, what with national health and social service programs? Australia? With our health and social welfare - don't think so, Africa, Latin America, where right wing economics are discredited. So where? Well perhaps they follow pure Adam Smith economics on Mars. Have a nice trip.

Gimme a break pal.

@IAMGROOT In my experience, many of the wealthy are not averse to government regulation when it comes to safe air travel, police, banks, the military or anything else that protects them and their property from others. They just don't want to pay for sick people to get care, or poor kids to have a meal, or clean water to come out of other people's taps. I'm not saying they're hypocrites. I'm saying they're heartless bastards.

@IAMGROOT You are not the first one to confuse Capitalism with Free Markets. Hint: they are not the same thing. Capitalism is private ownership for profit. Free Markets are markets with little or no government interference. Charities typically operate in near-free market conditions, but are not for profit. Coops are not privately owned, but operate in the same market conditions as private, and do well. Neither are capitalist.

@DonThiebaut When I use the term Capitalism, I mean it as the voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of values between two parties. Not as a political term. Apologies for not using it with the dictionary definition.

@David1955 Yeah, thanks for the insults. My point about Russia and China is accurate. Their increased prosperity is a result of the application of capitalism. You do have a point about there possibly being no escape from socialism, which sucks, frankly.

@IAMGROOT you should not do that. Not using the dictionary definition of a term is confusing. Not using the common usage definition of term is even more confusing. And there's already a perfectly good term for what you're looking for: Voluntary Exchange. It's not capitalism.

@IAMGROOT Russia and China's increased prosperity is the result of the application of Capitalism?! That's really funny. You really are as confused on these issues as you are outraged about socialism, even if you have only the simplist definition of it.Russia and China break all the rules of free market economics and your beloved laissez faire capitalism and have state based monopolies, oligarchies, authoritarian regimes, with private enterprise skewed to these systems, and you praise them. I see. So, a democratic based mixed economy, with a balance of public and private enterprise, a fair salary structure and social welfare system to prevent poverty and social alienation, along with a decent public health system, all paid for by reasonable taxation based on ability to pay - that's the terrible socialism (or what we more informed folk would call social democracy) you despise and want to flee, but oligarchy and authoritarianism is just fine as long as some people get stinking rich. Well, you know what, I don't agree.

@David1955 I never said either of these countries (China and Russia) WERE capitalist, I said their standard of living increased because they embraced capitalism so some degree. You either fail to grasp, or deliberately ignore this. You, who enjoy all of the fruits of capitalism (the smartphone/tablet/PC/laptop you are using to communicate on the system built and supported by privately owned businesses, and every other product and service you use in your daily life), piss all over the mechanism that brings you all of these things. If we MUST be taxed, I would be in favor of a flat consumption tax. That would level the playing field taxing everyone based on how much they consume. Where I live it's like paying 3 or 4 separate governments (Fed, State, County City) various types of tax (income, sales, property). In a supposedly free nation, I feel extremely "governed."

@IAMGROOT my final comment to you is re read my previous comment - a mixed economy with a balance of public and private enterprise, I said. I'm not pissing on anything. We have federal, state and local taxes too. Most countries have layers of taxation. They cover different things. That's not the point. The point is the fairness of taxation as applied. Your hostility should be directed to the corporate elites and alike who play the system and thrive while ordinary working people get screwed. That's where this post started. Instead you criticise those who focus on the rising egregious inequality. You follow a fantasy that some 'pure' form of capitalism will save the day. Your thinking is 30 years out of date. This is the kind of crap that lead to right wing freemarket ideology that took hold from the 1980s. It in turn has lead to the situation we have today with unsustainable inequality and oligarchic capitalism. And what is your solution? A flat consumption tax, much loved by the political Right. Of course. Rich or poor get whacked the same. No, not the same. The poor get whacked, while the rich have all the lurks, perks and schemes to play the system to their advantage. The usual.

@Countrycuz666 oh, sweetie, there ain't enough money in the World to get me to sleep with that pig! She wud robbed!

@Countrycuz666 l have a problem with most people. I reference Buffett because what he as it pertains to this subject.

@WizardBill you make a great point and I’ll concede my first point. I still think, as a matter of principle, that people should be allowed to make as much or as little wealth as they are able to, so long as their means are legitimate.

@WizardBill

Inherited wealth. What is the problem?

Paying employees so poorly... Get another job?

Oh well, I don't have a problem with their wealth. If they earned it then I don't know what else there is to say

@SallyMc Reminds me of the quote: "I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks." No one makes a billion on their own.

@Countrycuz666 You have a point regarding companies moving off shore. In oz that is less of an issue, most of our manufacturing is dead, we don't even have a car industry, most good are imported. Our only industries are primary and mining, so if they want the raw materials they must stay. Our coal mining needs to be taxed out of business, the world doesn't want it.