Every american has a dept $82000

[Lord Tammerlain]

Let's see the debt is $27 trillion, that 27 X 10^12, the population is 328 million, 328 X 10^6.
27 X 10^12/328 X10^6=$82,317 per person, no citation needed.
Are you questioning the amount of the bonds issued, or the population?

Note that is just federal debt not state and local

 

[swing_voter]

It's amazing that people keep lending us Americans money.

Someone on a news program said, America is a bad place to put your money right now, however, all the places to put your money are bad places and America is the best of the bad places.

 

[longview]

It's amazing that people keep lending us Americans money.

Someone on a news program said, America is a bad place to put your money right now, however, all the places to put your money are bad places and America is the best of the bad places.

The income to debt ratio of the US Government is quite a bit better than most households and Businesses.
We also have a lot of assets!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The income to debt ratio of the US Government is quite a bit better than most households and Businesses.
We also have a lot of assets!

The US currently has the worlds reserve currency so it is in demand in the world which helps keep US interest rates, low. It can also issue debt in USD, which it can print lots of if required

As for assets, they are not really sellable for the most part. Trying to sell Yellowstone national park would cause an outrage, and selling a state or city is generally frowned on today

US federal debt at 105% of GDP is rather large but no where close to the worst in the world (Japan is above 200%), so it can borrow lots of money for the next few years without a debt crunch occurring

 

[longview]

The US currently has the worlds reserve currency so it is in demand in the world which helps keep US interest rates, low. It can also issue debt in USD, which it can print lots of if required

As for assets, they are not really sellable for the most part. Trying to sell Yellowstone national park would cause an outrage, and selling a state or city is generally frowned on today

US federal debt at 105% of GDP is rather large but no where close to the worst in the world (Japan is above 200%), so it can borrow lots of money for the next few years without a debt crunch occurring

I agree, my concern, is if something goes wrong and we miss a single quarter payment.
I do not think the American people are prepared for the types of budget cuts that will be necessary
if we cannot borrow massive amounts of money at cheap interest rates.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I agree, my concern, is if something goes wrong and we miss a single quarter payment.
I do not think the American people are prepared for the types of budget cuts that will be necessary
if we cannot borrow massive amounts of money at cheap interest rates.

Canada did not miss any debt payments but in the early to mid 90s' it was a concern. The federal Liberal government made spending cuts and by the early 2000's we we paying back debt. Health care and the military took a hit, but debt was under control. Then the financial crisis hit, and the conservative government took on quite a bit of debt, The deficit was going down, to about $30-40 billion a year, and now Covid 19.

Covid 19 is going to effect government spending, debts and taxes for a good 20 years in much of the world (not for the better)

 

[Court Jester]

Under Donald Trump...

Federal debt at a historical high
Federal deficit at a historical high
Trade deficit at a historical high
Economic inequality at a historical high

What is "economic inequality"? Is there something in the constitution which states people are guaranteed some level of economic equality? Because I don't think the 14th amendment mentions economics.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I had a feeling this is what we were going to talk about... again...

...And again I have to note for the record how sad it is that "conservatives" are all of a sudden concerned about deficits and debt, but were entirely silent when President OrangeGlow and a complicit Republican Congress passed tax cuts that literally took our deficits and pointed them the wrong direction *at the very point* that the lot of them told us the economy was "great."

I have no dispute with the rest of your post.

The above point I do dispute.

Yes, Trump did some major tax cutting, and it is likely that in addition to citizens like myself who benefited from the short-term cuts, the greatest beneficiaries were big business and the already wealthy.

HOWEVER, businesses which retain more capital, and most of those very rich people who invest in such typically use increased assets to re-invest in business expansion. This is the foundation of all those pre-Covid-19 job increases, which were lifting millions of people out of the poverty level and into one where incomes taxes could be collected from them as well.

A larger tax-paying base is better than a larger tax USING base using welfare and other entitlement programs.

So IMO he was doing exactly what needed to be done to pump up our economy; which was occurring prior to Covid-19, and IMO what is helping us recover so much faster now.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I have no dispute with the rest of your post.

The above point I do dispute.

Yes, Trump did some major tax cutting, and it is likely that in addition to citizens like myself who benefited from the short-term cuts, the greatest beneficiaries were big business and the already wealthy.

HOWEVER, businesses which retain more capital, and most of those very rich people who invest in such typically use increased assets to re-invest in business expansion. This is the foundation of all those pre-Covid-19 job increases, which were lifting millions of people out of the poverty level and into one where incomes taxes could be collected from them as well.

A larger tax-paying base is better than a larger tax USING base using welfare and other entitlement programs.

So IMO he was doing exactly what needed to be done to pump up our economy; which was occurring prior to Covid-19, and IMO what is helping us recover so much faster now.

What you are describing is trickle-down economics, which is empirically less efficient than trickle-up economics. The top 20% by wealth will typically save a large chunk of their income, which prevents that wealth from circulating. The bottom 20%, by contrast, will spend 100% of their income, leading to greater circulation.

If you give $100 to a wealthy person, you can expect maybe $50 of that to be reinvested in business expansion, with the rest kept out of circulation in tax-sheltered accounts in the Cayman Islands.

If you give $100 to a poor person, you can expect that the full $100 will be spent on groceries, which will lead to profits for the grocer, who will be able to buy more inventory, which will lead to greater profits for the farmers and freight companies that they do business with, who will, in turn, use those profits to expand their own business, leading to more jobs and economic growth.

 

[Rogue Valley]

What is "economic inequality"?

I suggest you look it up. Educate yourself a bit.

And no, one can't eat the Constitution.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I have no dispute with the rest of your post.

The above point I do dispute.

Yes, Trump did some major tax cutting, and it is likely that in addition to citizens like myself who benefited from the short-term cuts, the greatest beneficiaries were big business and the already wealthy.

HOWEVER, businesses which retain more capital, and most of those very rich people who invest in such typically use increased assets to re-invest in business expansion. This is the foundation of all those pre-Covid-19 job increases, which were lifting millions of people out of the poverty level and into one where incomes taxes could be collected from them as well.

A larger tax-paying base is better than a larger tax USING base using welfare and other entitlement programs.

So IMO he was doing exactly what needed to be done to pump up our economy; which was occurring prior to Covid-19, and IMO what is helping us recover so much faster now.

That is not accurate at all, more of a political argument over economic reasoning. Because we are narrowing this down to the tax part of fiscal policy, I'll focus on that for our discussion but I would offer that any fiscal policy is based on both parts taxation and spending.

But back to taxes only, your argument boils down to supply side economic theory (which you could say is trickle down economics.)

The issue with your argument is supply side economics is an argument about aggregate supply as influencers for an economy, not the demand for those products and services. We have far more empirical data to back up that supply side economics driven by low percentage wealth taxation tends to extend the distance between the highest income earners over everyone else and doing very little to nothing for aggregate demand.

My argument boils down to linking all of fiscal policy to economic condition, which is based on aggregate demand. When the economy is doing well, as in on the incline, there is no reason to tax wealth less and create a bubble. We have no indication that wealth all of a sudden invests in demand that may not be there just because of a benefit from Republicans. We have more indication that velocity of money slows, businesses and investments are more interested in the demand for their products and services not just extra cash to throw more out there.

The foundation to any increase in aggregate demand are the economic indicators making that a healthy tread line of growth, which means equitable increases across all income quintiles from more sound jobs performance and more healthy economic participation. Wealth increases across all income quintiles are not on the rise, only the top 1st income quintile. Private debt per capita is on the increase, the number of Americans will little to no savings is on the increase, etc. Supply side economics does not care about these things, it only cares about dumping more back towards the highest earners.

Worse, now that Covid has hit we have a new reason for aggregate demand fault. Meaning Trump increasing deficits before this hit put even more onus on fiscal and monetary policy to deal with that bad choice now. Now we have no choice but to increase deficits even more on top of what was caused by his gift to wealthy friends. At this point raising taxes is also a problem now that aggregate demand is in trouble.

 

[Captain Adverse]

What you are describing is trickle-down economics, which is empirically less efficient than trickle-up economics. The top 20% by wealth will typically save a large chunk of their income, which prevents that wealth from circulating. The bottom 20%, by contrast, will spend 100% of their income, leading to greater circulation.

If you give $100 to a wealthy person, you can expect maybe $50 of that to be reinvested in business expansion, with the rest kept out of circulation in tax-sheltered accounts in the Cayman Islands.

If you give $100 to a poor person, you can expect that the full $100 will be spent on groceries, which will lead to profits for the grocer, who will be able to buy more inventory, which will lead to greater profits for the farmers and freight companies that they do business with, who will, in turn, use those profits to expand their own business, leading to more jobs and economic growth.

That is not accurate at all, more of a political argument over economic reasoning. Because we are narrowing this down to the tax part of fiscal policy, I'll focus on that for our discussion but I would offer that any fiscal policy is based on both parts taxation and spending.

But back to taxes only, your argument boils down to supply side economic theory (which you could say is trickle down economics.)

The issue with your argument is supply side economics is an argument about aggregate supply as influencers for an economy, not the demand for those products and services. We have far more empirical data to back up that supply side economics driven by low percentage wealth taxation tends to extend the distance between the highest income earners over everyone else and doing very little to nothing for aggregate demand...

Both of you? IMO...Wrong!

I am not describing "trickle down economics," or "supply side economics;" I am describing a segment of plain old Economics.

Businesses produce and market things and services to make a profit. They invest and reinvest if they are successful in order to increase current and future profits. If taxes and other operating costs get to be too much? They find a cheaper place and relocate to where those are not such a problem.

Trying to denigrate how things work IMO simply because of "wealth envy" is not an argument. Trump cut taxes, businesses did return many jobs to the USA, other's did expand their American business interests. This led to a rapidly shrinking unemployment sector and a rapidly increasing number of employed...especially among MY segment, Black American employment.

So I'll look at the real world effects, and you can spout "doom and gloom."

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Wrong!

I am not describing "trickle down economics," I am describing a segment of plain old Economics.

Trying to denigrate how things work IMO simply because of "envy" is not an argument. Trump cut taxes, businesses did return many jobs to the USA, other's did expand their American business interests. This led to a rapidly shrinking unemployment sector and a rapidly increasing number of employed...especially among MY segment, Black American employment.

So I'll look at the real world effects, and you can spout "doom and gloom."

This is what you said:

HOWEVER, businesses which retain more capital, and most of those very rich people who invest in such typically use increased assets to re-invest in business expansion. This is the foundation of all those pre-Covid-19 job increases, which were lifting millions of people out of the poverty level and into one where incomes taxes could be collected from them as well.

You are saying that when businesses 'retain more capital' through tax cuts, they reinvest in business expansion. This wealth, you claim 'trickles down' to 'lift people out of the poverty level and into one where incomes taxes could be collected from them as well.' That is exactly a description of trickle-down economics.

I don't believe I said anything about 'envy' or 'doom and gloom.' I am just saying that trickle-down economics is less effective at stimulating the economy and creating jobs than trickle-up economics is. I don't think your idea of 'real world effects' are supported by the data.

Job growth actually slowed during Trump's administration compared with job growth during the Obama administration, and the short term positive effects on the economy were achieved via huge budget deficits that we are going to have to pay off with interest later on. Trump had higher budget deficits every single year than when he took office. He had higher trade deficits every single year than when he took office. He increased the national debt every single year since he took office. I don't think Trump was good for our economy at all.

Ever since Reagan, we get a recession every time we elect a Republican, and we have growth every time we elect a Democrat.

 

[beefheart]

Whoa!!

So who's fault is this and how to solve it?

I can afford it.

How is Russia these days?

 

[Helix]

do they have dept in Russia? some say that Tweety sure does!

 

[Captain Adverse]

...Ever since Reagan, we get a recession every time we elect a Republican, and we have growth every time we elect a Democrat.

Then please explain why there was no actual "recession" during the Trump "pre-covid" years despite constant predictions every year which never came true?

An economy so strong that during that period most pundits for or against expected the truism "it's the economy, stupid!" would swing Trump into a second term?

That it took a national shutdown due to an invasive viral infection, from of all places "China," to affect it at all?

Yet even with the massive undermining of small businesses, our "partially open" economy is still avoiding a "depression" and moving up out of that "shut down recession?"

IMO a desire to ruin the economy is one of the major reasons Democrats are pushing for more economic restrictions based on an emotional appeal to "save lives."

So I don't think you can blame Trump for this "recession," much as some would like to.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

If you gave the US Government 82k, it would never mean that you paid your share. It would mean that you were a fool and the make believe 82k you think that you owe would still be there.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Whoa!!

So who's fault is this and how to solve it?

Dividing the national debt by the number of American citizens and designating the resulting number as the amount of money every American owes is not how the national debt works.


Let me give you a hint about how it actually works. The U.S. government sells treasury notes/bills in exchange for a currency that only the U.S. government can issue. When those treasury notes/bills mature, they redeemed from the U.S. government and paid out in a currency that only the U.S. government can issue. This why technically, if the U.S. government can do something, it can afford to do it.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Dividing the national debt by the number of American citizens and designating the resulting number as the amount of money every American owes is not how the national debt works.


Let me give you a hint about how it actually works. The U.S. government sells treasury notes/bills in exchange for a currency that only the U.S. government can issue. When those treasury notes/bills mature, they redeemed from the U.S. government and paid out in a currency that only the U.S. government can issue. This why technically, if the U.S. government can do something, it can afford to do it.

Note

That only works to a degree. Go to far with that and you can create hyperinflation

 

[Bum]

If I cut a check in the amount of $82000 to the US Treasury, can I stop paying taxes?

 

[post]

The fault is our government spending more than they take in.
The solution could be as simple as ending base line budgeting, and limiting the government spending to the income.
If they balanced the budget every year (really balanced the budget), the debt will naturally mature and be paid off
in about 20 years.
If we keep going as we have been, at some point servicing the debt would consume all of the budget,
Like only making enough, to make the minimum payments on your credit cards.
The US federal government has averaged an 8% raise, every year, for over 200 years,
and they spend like that raise will always be coming in, and then some!
What we need are politicians who hang onto each dollar, as if they earned it themselves.
It is far too easy for the government to spend Other Peoples Money.

Uhhh...no... the fault is Trump party, and republicans, before Trump, cutting taxes with no spending offsets and passing legislation with no funding scheme. See Part D medicare in Bush era and Trump era tax cuts.

The Medicare Part D Analogy - The New York Times
https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/the-medicare-part-d-analogy/
2) Medicare Part D did not depend on the same kind of mandate-regulate-subsidize model as Romneycare and Obamacare — not least because it was a more narrowly-focused program than either — which meant that its architects had less reason to fear a "death spiral" during the initial period of bureaucratic chaos.

The ACA, OTOH, was passed with a fully designed, funding scheme. Trump party, in its effort to destroy it, removed the penalty on "free riding", known as the mandate, a fine necessary to discourage those refusing to pay for health insurance coverage until they needed it, ludicrous and unworkable in a system guaranteeing no higher premium to enrollees with pre-exsisting medical conditions.

So, Trump party actually encourages free riding, making the entire ACA an uncalculated and wholly avoidable expense drain, easily remedied by voting these political vandals out of office!

Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"....
The increased coverage was due, roughly equally, to an expansion of Medicaid eligibility and to changes to individual insurance markets. Both received new spending, funded through a combination of new taxes and cuts to Medicare provider rates and Medicare Advantage. Several Congressional Budget Office reports said that overall these provisions reduced the budget deficit, that repealing ACA would increase the deficit,[8][9] and that the law reduced income inequality by taxing primarily the top 1% to fund roughly $600 in benefits on average to families in the bottom 40% of the income distribution.[10]..."

The effects of the vandalism Trump triggered when he signed the legislation eliminating the mandate is not covered by the media or accounted for in the CBO reports described above!

Before 2017 tax cuts, national debt grew @ $56 billion monthly.
From October 1, 2017, to February 26, 2020, borrowing accelerated to $106 billion per month.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2021

Debt to the Penny | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

Debt to the Penny is the total debt of the U.S. government and is reported daily. It is made up of intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public.

www.treasurydirect.gov

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Then please explain why there was no actual "recession" during the Trump "pre-covid" years despite constant predictions every year which never came true?

An economy so strong that during that period most pundits for or against expected the truism "it's the economy, stupid!" would swing Trump into a second term?

That it took a national shutdown due to an invasive viral infection, from of all places "China," to affect it at all?

Yet even with the massive undermining of small businesses, our "partially open" economy is still avoiding a "depression" and moving up out of that "shut down recession?"

IMO a desire to ruin the economy is one of the major reasons Democrats are pushing for more economic restrictions based on an emotional appeal to "save lives."

So I don't think you can blame Trump for this "recession," much as some would like to.

Frankly, your opinions seem to get more and more conspiracy-minded.

As to the "Trump economy". Personally, I have always thought that the notion that presidents have much to do with economic growth, good or bad, in normal years, is absurd. While a president can horribly mismanage some kind of disaster and negatively impact the economy, there isn't much a president can do that has any real impact on economic growth in normal times. No one wakes up and says "President Bob was elected, thus I am going to buy that second home", or "President Sally was elected, thus I am going to forgo that new car purchase". That just doesn't happen. It's the same in business. No one other than maybe a defense contractor hires or fires anyone based on who is in the White House. If I went to a C level and said "Because of Trump's policy on whatever, I want to bring 2 new people into my group.", they would laugh at me. Outside of Fed policy, you really have to go all the way down to the local government level, particularly major city governments, to find any real impact that governments have on economic policy. In normal times, presidents get far too much blame for recessions and far too much credit for economic booms. Frankly, I think we would have had the economic boom of the 90s regardless of which party held the presidency then and we would have had the 2008 Financial Crisis/Great Recession regardless of which party was in the White House at the time.

As to the Trump economy. Pre-COVID, it was the same anemic GDP growth that we have experienced ever since the Great Recession ended. Unemployment levels had continued to go down and the median household income was showing a bit of growth, but that was due to the fact that we had been growing at 2 to 2.5% or so yearly GDP growth on average for 10 years, not because of some boom in GDP growth.

GDP growth in 2019 was 2.1%
GDP growth in 2015 was 2.5%

The Trump numbers are pathetic compared to Reagan or Clinton's numbers, but I don't think that has anything to do with Trump. Our nation's slow GDP growth since 2009 is due to what has happened to American business culture over the last 20 years. For example, these days, the typical engineering group (software or whatever) will have 4 product managers, project managers, digital marketing managers and so on for every 1 engineer. So you have one person actually producing something, and 4 other people generating work for that one person that actually produces something. That is not a model to produces much real growth, but it's an operating model that is pervasive across our economy's private sector these days.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Frankly, your opinions seem to get more and more conspiracy-minded.

As to the "Trump economy". Personally, I have always thought that the notion that presidents have much to do with economic growth, good or bad, in normal years, is absurd. While a president can horribly mismanage some kind of disaster and negatively impact the economy, there isn't much a president can do that has any real impact on economic growth in normal times. No one wakes up and says "President Bob was elected, thus I am going to buy that second home", or "President Sally was elected, thus I am going to forgo that new car purchase". That just doesn't happen. It's the same in business. No one other than maybe a defense contractor hires or fires anyone based on who is in the White House. If I went to a C level and said "Because of Trump's policy on whatever, I want to bring 2 new people into my group.", they would laugh at me. Outside of Fed policy, you really have to go all the way down to the local government level, particularly major city governments, to find any real impact that governments have on economic policy. In normal times, presidents get far too much blame for recessions and far too much credit for economic booms. Frankly, I think we would have had the economic boom of the 90s regardless of which party held the presidency then and we would have had the 2008 Financial Crisis/Great Recession regardless of which party was in the White House at the time.

As to the Trump economy. Pre-COVID, it was the same anemic GDP growth that we have experienced ever since the Great Recession ended. Unemployment levels had continued to go down and the median household income was showing a bit of growth, but that was due to the fact that we had been growing at 2 to 2.5% or so yearly GDP growth on average for 10 years, not because of some boom in GDP growth.

GDP growth in 2019 was 2.1%
GDP growth in 2015 was 2.5%

The Trump numbers are pathetic compared to Reagan or Clinton's numbers, but I don't think that has anything to do with Trump. Our nation's slow GDP growth since 2009 is due to what has happened to American business culture over the last 20 years. For example, these days, the typical engineering group (software or whatever) will have 4 product managers, project managers, digital marketing managers and so on for every 1 engineer. So you have one person actually producing something, and 4 other people generating work for that one person that actually produces something. That is not a model to produces much real growth, but it's an operating model that is pervasive across our economy's private sector these days.

What makes Trumps numbers worse is the federal deficit in 2019 was nearly 1 trillion, in a good economy a 4 % GDP deficit

 

[post]

What makes Trumps numbers worse is the federal deficit in 2019 was nearly 1 trillion, in a good economy a 4 % GDP deficit

The avoidable, with a sane, responsible congressional majority and POTUS of the same party it supported, additional nearly $2
trillion debt accrued between 10/1/17 and 2/26/20, or just before pandemic effect, was most easily tracked via the corporate tax cuts. The top 75,000 households benefited by hefty personal tax cuts and their portion of the top ten percent owned, 84 percent of all publicly traded stock shares.

A "system" requiring two massive drains on the federal treasury in just 12 years, especially one in which wealth and the political influence it buys are so absurdly concentrated, is a failed, oligarchy.

Trump touts stock market's record run, but who benefits ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-speech-stocks-analysis-idUSKBN1ZZ19A
That's because 84% of stocks owned by U.S. households are held by the wealthiest 10% of Americans, according to an analysis of 2016 Federal Reserve data by Edward Wolff, an economics professor ...

The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/richest-10-americans-now-own-164104176.html
The top 10% of American households, as defined by total wealth, now own 84% of all stocks in 2016, according to a recent paper by NYU economist Edward N. Wolff. 70 Record Closes for the Dow so far ...

The Trump tax cuts influenced an actual reduction in capital investment in the U.S. by corporations. $2 trillion in corporate tax savings resulting from those tax cuts were spent on stock buy backs, cementing the job security of major corp. executives because the buybacks raised the value of remaining shares. Now, Trump has been promising additional national debt increases funneled to major fossil fuel and airline corps. that expended their "rainy day" surpluses on the stock buy backs and are in deep covid-19 aggravated decline!

The bottom of the population, 250 million, accrued more additional federal debt per capita than any benefit Trump boasts he "enriched" them with!

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

Airlines are begging for a bailout, but they've used 96% ...
https://markets.businessinsider.com...bate-trump-economy-aoc-2020-3-1029006175?op=1
Airlines are begging for a bailout, but they've used 96% of their cash flow on buybacks over the past 10 years. It highlights an ongoing controversy over how companies have been spending their money.

Stock buybacks exploded after the tax cuts. Now they're ...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/investing/stock-buybacks-drop-tax-cuts/index.html
Aug 22, 2019 Corporate America's epic buyback mania may finally be succumbing to gravity.

Goldman Sachs busts myth that Trump's tax cuts only fueled ...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-fuel-stock-buyback-spike-130545937.html
President Trump's corporate tax cuts from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 triggered a spike in stock buybacks as companies repatriated cash overseas, Goldman Sachs strategist David Kostin said.

Saving Capitalism - or Democracy?
https://blog.raulza.me/saving-capitalism-or-democracy/
Saving Capitalism - or Democracy? ... This is the starting point of Robert Reich's latest book on how to save capitalism - and democracy too! But how did we get to this point? Reich first pinpoints that the ongoing and now repetitive debate on the "free market" vs. government alleged rivalry has been a distraction: ...

 

[Court Jester]

I suggest you look it up. Educate yourself a bit.

And no, one can't eat the Constitution.

You listed several things you believe have been failures under President Trump, and then you added "economic inequality". I was just wondering how that is something you can blame on Donald Trump? You had also listed public debt, but to be fair, there was a lot of debt before Trump became President.

I just don't understand where you feel that "equality" enters into personal finances. Nobody is entitled to economic equality. Unless you can make the case that somebody is robbing money out of poor people's bank accounts, all you are doing is suggesting this country needs to go full communist so that everyone has "an equal share".

Why do some people have more? Because they earned it, or their family earned it.