US Income Inequality

[Listening]

...a 5-10% increase on the top rate would be quite reasonable, and needed to pay down the deficit.

The purpose of rate increases is fairness, not revenue. During the '08 primary debates Obama was asked why he wanted tax rate hikes if they lowered revenue, and his answer was "it's a question of fairness." Historically revenue rises after rate cuts and falls with rate hikes.

Can you provide some links ?

 

[Big Fitz]

I've been told our governments CIA pays a lot of attention to the GINI coefficent

if so, i suspect they've good reason....

~S~

And 9/11 is very much an 'intelligence failure'. Why can't this be too?

 

[Big Fitz]

i think equal opportunity is the term you're looking for UK Girl

~S~

I have some questions.

1. What is the benefit for "income equality" to a society in the areas of production, innovation, opportunity and investment? Is there a particular TANGIBLE economic and/or social advantage to this? If so, what?

2. By what authority does someone gain the right to the product of someone else's labor?

3. Does a flea have a right to the blood of a rat? If so, how much? What right does a rat have to it's own bodily fluids?

4. At what point does an individual have a responsibility to produce and be a productive, responsible member of society? Can all citizens enjoy the same benefits by not working and collecting tax monies from their fellow citizens?

<><><>

You envy-pimps all bitch about how someone has more than you or someone else you have 'compassion' on, but are loathe to dig into your own pockets, preferring to rely on the attitude that "SOMEONE" needs to do "SOMETHING" for those you have compassion for. Have some personal responsibility and moral rectitude and do the job of helping them yourself with your honestly earned money in the way you see fit and best to address the situation. Don't rely on someone else to do your bidding, or worse, DEMAND someone else pay for your attack of conscious and have it done by threat of force through government.

This is nothing less than a few steps removed from actual slavery. Taking the work and labor of another for your own benefit and use. It's just more palatable because you aren't really owning them directly, but effecting very similar results by different means.

Ethically, it's vile madness you cannot bear to view unvarnished although you cannot help but practice which brings into question your own ethics and morality, since it almost always brings with it a certain degree of hypocrisy of not wanting to include yourself in the effort to pay the cost of your own desired goal.

 

[expat_panama]

...During the '08 primary debates Obama was asked why he wanted tax rate hikes if they lowered revenue, and his answer was "it's a question of fairness." Historically revenue rises after rate cuts and falls with rate hikes.

Can you provide some links ?

You want a link to Obama's quote or to revenue/tax data?

 

[Listening]

You want a link to Obama's quote or to revenue/tax data?

Both would be great....

But my priority would be on the quote from President Obama.

 

[Dragon]

1. What is the benefit for "income equality" to a society in the areas of production, innovation, opportunity and investment? Is there a particular TANGIBLE economic and/or social advantage to this? If so, what?

Income equality boosts consumer demand, which boosts incentive to invest in production and innovation, which creates more opportunities. The advantages are not only tangible, they are gigantic.

2. By what authority does someone gain the right to the product of someone else's labor?

Good question, but I'm not sufficiently radical as to completely abandon the idea of profit, although I recognize that this follows from your question on a purely moral basis.

3. Does a flea have a right to the blood of a rat? If so, how much? What right does a rat have to it's own bodily fluids?

Rights do not exist outside the context of human society.

4. At what point does an individual have a responsibility to produce and be a productive, responsible member of society? Can all citizens enjoy the same benefits by not working and collecting tax monies from their fellow citizens?

That's for us as a society to decide. There is no simple answer.

 

[expat_panama]

You want a link to Obama's quote or to revenue/tax data?

Both would be great.... But my priority would be on the quote from President Obama.

All it takes is Google Search key words obama fairness revenue tax primary and we get Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains - "For Purposes of Fairness" - YouTube with a guy on TV explaining why tax-cuts raise revenue and Oboma responding that revenue doesn't matter because only fairness counts.

 

[Sallow]

The GINI coefficient is based on data that is pretax and doesn't count gov't transfer payments such as SS and medicare and the like. So, rich guys income is not adjusted for the taxes they pay and the data for the low income people doesn't reflect the money and benefits they get from the gov't.

Which is not to say there isn't any income inequality, of course there is. But it is somewhat overstated. They changed the way they collected data for the GINI in 1993, so the results are somewhat skewed for data before then compared to after. And the data collection in one country may not be the same as in another, so comparing 2 countries may not be an exact indication o actual inequality. And in many cases, the total amount of income is not that great, so the inequality is less if only because there's less wealth to accumulate in that country.

I'm not going to say that income inequality isn't an issue, but I do think it's overblown by politicians who want to build support for raising taxes and redistributing wealth. They go for short term policies that get them re-elected rather than long term solutions that address the roots of the issue.

Um..no.

It's a major issue.

And it might lead to the rise of a new Monarchy in this country. Followed of course by a revolution.

 

[Wiseacre]

The GINI coefficient is based on data that is pretax and doesn't count gov't transfer payments such as SS and medicare and the like. So, rich guys income is not adjusted for the taxes they pay and the data for the low income people doesn't reflect the money and benefits they get from the gov't.

Which is not to say there isn't any income inequality, of course there is. But it is somewhat overstated. They changed the way they collected data for the GINI in 1993, so the results are somewhat skewed for data before then compared to after. And the data collection in one country may not be the same as in another, so comparing 2 countries may not be an exact indication o actual inequality. And in many cases, the total amount of income is not that great, so the inequality is less if only because there's less wealth to accumulate in that country.

I'm not going to say that income inequality isn't an issue, but I do think it's overblown by politicians who want to build support for raising taxes and redistributing wealth. They go for short term policies that get them re-elected rather than long term solutions that address the roots of the issue.

Um..no.

It's a major issue.

And it might lead to the rise of a new Monarchy in this country. Followed of course by a revolution.

It's a major issue for Obama and the Dems, not so much for everybody else. You really sit around getting pissed off cuz some millionaire somewhere got rich investing in the market? Enough to start a revolution?

I don't think this country needs more income equality, it needs more jobs. I don't give a flyin' fuck how much money the rich guys make, I only want everybody else to be jobbin' somewhere and able to pay their bills.

 

[editec]

You sure the Gini coefficient includes SS payments?


No I am not sure. But if it doesn't include SS payments then it will be in error.

Social security payments are INCOME, they are taxable.

From what I read, it excludes benefits that the lower incomes get,

What benefits do lower incomes get, exactly? SAocial security isn't a lower incomes benefit, it is a payment on an INSURANCE policy.

and does not discount taxes, so the rich guy's incomes look bigger and the low income guys look smaller than their real incomes. Can naybody show me a link where it says SS is excluded?

You do realize they changed the way the Gini is computed back in 1993, so it looks worse than it did up until then.

No I didn't know that.

Can you tell us how they computed it before and after 93?

Not so say we don't have income inequality, but it's not the big deal it's made out to be.

Others disagree.

Especially if you consider the huge advances in investments since 1980, when the market was at 800 and now it's 11,500 or so. That's a huge increase in wealth, earned by those who risked their money on startups and new ideas like Windows and PCs.

Yes it is...hence the climb in income inequity. It doesn't much matter why this happens. What matters is that it is happening.

And who got the lion's share? Te people who had the most money to invest, the rich people. No big mystery about it, that new wealth did not come at the expense of anybody else either.

Nobody in the know is saying that this is the result of the rich being bad.

But they are saying, and I quite agree, that when too much money (of the aggregate money that exists) ends up in the ahdns of too few people, the economy WILL suffer.

Unwise tax policies, what would that be? You know why Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary? It's cuz most of his income is capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at 15%.

Yeah well some people think THAT is a perfect example of BAD POLICY,

I see that Obama wants to raise that up to about 23% in total, does anybody really think you can do that without economic consequences?

I think it is a bad idea at this time. Many people you might imagine are liberals or GASP even lefties ALSO think raising taxes RIGHT NOW, is a bad idea.

But in the longer run, the very wealthy need to pay more taxes. They really do.

Especially when there are so many other countries with more advantageous business climates relative to taxes and regulations and everything else. If that tax change goes into effect, you can plan on one hell of a bad depression.

Sport?

It's ALREADY a very bad depression for most Americans.

 

[ShackledNation]

Here are the assumptions of the OP:

1). Income inequality is bad.
2). Income inequality is caused by free market capitalism.
3). The US needs to have less capitalism and more government to fix income inequality.

Here is why each assumption is wrong:
1). People do not have to have equal incomes. I would rather have some people rich and other less rich than everyone equally poor. If everyone has the same income, there is no social mobility. That means those who fail are subsidized, and those who succeed see little benefits. That is not a good model to run an economy on. People should be able to fall from the top and climb up from the bottom. America once prided itself on that.

2). If anything, the increasing gap between the rich and poor today in the US is caused by a big government. How can this be? Just look at the Federal Reserve in the US. Money is created. Who gets it? The big bankers and corporations. They get the money before prices rise due to the increase in the supply of money. They profit off of it. The people at the top have more money and can buy goods cheap. But eventually prices rise, and poor people who never got the new money will suffer, as will the middle class. The result is a shrinking middle class and money being transferred from the poor to the rich. This is not capitalism. This is corporatism, or in harsher words fascism.

3). Clearly, the US needs more free market capitalism and less government intervention. Yes, taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor will obviously reduce income inequality. But the cause of that inequality was government in the first place.

 

[Big Fitz]

1. What is the benefit for "income equality" to a society in the areas of production, innovation, opportunity and investment? Is there a particular TANGIBLE economic and/or social advantage to this? If so, what?

Income equality boosts consumer demand, which boosts incentive to invest in production and innovation, which creates more opportunities. The advantages are not only tangible, they are gigantic.

2. By what authority does someone gain the right to the product of someone else's labor?

Good question, but I'm not sufficiently radical as to completely abandon the idea of profit, although I recognize that this follows from your question on a purely moral basis.

3. Does a flea have a right to the blood of a rat? If so, how much? What right does a rat have to it's own bodily fluids?

Rights do not exist outside the context of human society.

4. At what point does an individual have a responsibility to produce and be a productive, responsible member of society? Can all citizens enjoy the same benefits by not working and collecting tax monies from their fellow citizens?

That's for us as a society to decide. There is no simple answer.

Income equality boosts consumer demand, which boosts incentive to invest in production and innovation, which creates more opportunities. The advantages are not only tangible, they are gigantic.

Take a look at the list of countries with the greatest income equality. How many have as robust (current economic times not withstanding) economy, productivity and investment potential as compared to say the much hated US? Venture to say not many if any. Therefore, your upsides are theoretical, not tangible.

Good question, but I'm not sufficiently radical as to completely abandon the idea of profit, although I recognize that this follows from your question on a purely moral basis.

Actually, it is more than just moral. Do you condone slavery on others? The right of someone else to take unbidden from another by what authority? How does this then help the overall economy when you take from those who produce best to those who produce least without paying by fair market value? Does not another deserve and have a full right to profit from their labor? Do not you? Why should you work harder so someone can work less or not at all regardless of their circumstance?

Rights do not exist outside the context of human society.

Ahhhhh... 'Rights are but a human construct' eh? So your pet or cattle have no inalienable right from nature to live? The parasite is equal to even vermin or how about a beloved family pet? You may want to see this as anthropomorphizing the issue, and in some way it is, but then to answer you must ask the question are there inalienable rights that are from a divine source or even a universal natural one, won't you?

Best to just dodge the question for it does expose the bankrupt nature of relativist morality, doesn't it?

That's for us as a society to decide. There is no simple answer.

In this you are correct. It is for a society to decide together. But the answer is not so complex really. You cannot overburden any society's productive members for the 'need' of the non-productive regardless of cost. If you overwhelm the producers both they and those dependent on them will be destroyed.

Marx did not invent the concept, but voiced it the most eloquently when he said "From each according to their means to each according to their needs." It's an ancient plea. But it still is founded on the concept that a man's need grants him rights to the property and work of another which is no more than the credo of a common thief and slaver. You may as well say "Whatever isn't nailed down, is mine. What ever I can pry loose, isn't nailed down." This attitude only helps the 'needy' short term, but long term is nothing more than strangling the golden goose.

If you take from the producer, he must work harder to make the same. This will breed resentment and hit a wall wherein they cannot make up for what is lost to those who have claimed 'need'. This decreases overall output while increasing productivity. And when the 'needy' claim new needs, the demand increases for it is easier to invent or find need than it is to produce. That being the case, and the nature of man to find the most efficient and most profitable way to survive, it is assured that you will see this increase. "Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of" is an economic truism that cannot be dispelled by pretty words and pleas of mercy from the needy.

The hard part is looking at those claiming need and seeing what true need is. Most of what we call need now, isn't. It's want and sloth masquerading as need because it's easier than doing what is necessary, and that is working. They put on the blub and tell sad tales to make everyone desire to help and pull at your heart strings like a harp plucked by satan. For in the end, it is rationalization and justification for a wicked desire in which to maintain their ill gotten gains rather than an honest day's work for their own profit.

The problem is that economics and ethics speak against the need for income equality AND the rights of another man to lay claim to the labor and property of another without their will. To say otherwise is to condone slavery and thievery, no matter how sweet smelling the manner and method.

 

[Dragon]

Take a look at the list of countries with the greatest income equality. How many have as robust (current economic times not withstanding) economy, productivity and investment potential as compared to say the much hated US? Venture to say not many if any.

You are incorrect, particularly if you do not limit your example of countries with high income inequality to the U.S.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

This listing from the CIA fact book shows countries from the highest inequality to the lowest. At the top of the list (most unequal) are Namibia, South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, and other poor countries. At the bottom (most equal) are Sweden, Hungary, Norway, Serbia Luxembourg, and other much more prosperous countries. Germany is #124 on the list (near the bottom). France is #98. Japan is #76. The U.S. is #39, making us very atypical in that generally speaking, richer countries are more equal, poorer ones less so -- and there is good reason to expect that if we don't reverse our trend towards increasing inequality, we will not remain among the rich countries. We can see it happening right now.

Actually, it is more than just moral. [etc.]

I guess you didn't get the point, which I really didn't expect you to. You referred to taking the fruits of one person's labor to benefit another, but that is the entire premise of the capitalist system, in which people are denied the opportunity to use their own labor for their own gain, and must sell it to others for pay that is less than the market value of the goods and services they produce with it. Rich capitalists get that way by taking the labor of others for their own profit.

I agree that this is wrong. What do you suggest we do about it?

Rights do not exist outside the context of human society.

Ahhhhh... 'Rights are but a human construct' eh? So your pet or cattle have no inalienable right from nature to live?

Of course not. Take a look at how nature actually operates, and you will see that absolutely nothing has an inalienable right to live.

You may want to see this as anthropomorphizing the issue, and in some way it is, but then to answer you must ask the question are there inalienable rights that are from a divine source or even a universal natural one, won't you?

Certainly, and the answer is no. There is no such thing as a natural right or a God-given right. Rights are what we, as a society, collectively choose to recognize. That doesn't make them any less valid and appropriate. Recognizing rights is a part of what society does, and we will go on doing it.

But you used examples from animals. Animals do not recognize rights, and therefore have none.

You cannot overburden any society's productive members for the 'need' of the non-productive regardless of cost.

The problem here is that you are mislabeling society's parasites as its "productive members," and many of its most productive members (the working class) as "non-productive."

 

[Big Fitz]

You are incorrect, particularly if you do not limit your example of countries with high income inequality to the U.S.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2172rank.html

This listing from the CIA fact book shows countries from the highest inequality to the lowest. At the top of the list (most unequal) are Namibia, South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, and other poor countries. At the bottom (most equal) are Sweden, Hungary, Norway, Serbia Luxembourg, and other much more prosperous countries. Germany is #124 on the list (near the bottom). France is #98. Japan is #76. The U.S. is #39, making us very atypical in that generally speaking, richer countries are more equal, poorer ones less so -- and there is good reason to expect that if we don't reverse our trend towards increasing inequality, we will not remain among the rich countries. We can see it happening right now.

Thereby proving my point that income equality or inequality has no tangible positive benefit to a nation. Both equal and non-equal nations suck and succeed regardless of this factor, meaning it is irrelevant to any economic discussion unless we want to talk causes.

I guess you didn't get the point, which I really didn't expect you to. You referred to taking the fruits of one person's labor to benefit another, but that is the entire premise of the capitalist system, in which people are denied the opportunity to use their own labor for their own gain, and must sell it to others for pay that is less than the market value of the goods and services they produce with it. Rich capitalists get that way by taking the labor of others for their own profit.

I agree that this is wrong. What do you suggest we do about it?

Excuse me? No, I'm sorry. Your understanding of capitalism has been skewed by too many high school economics teachers preaching marxism in the classroom I think. maybe first year college. From each according to their means to each according to their needs is the definition of taking from someone and giving to another. Fruits of labor denied from the producer to another individual who had a supposed need of them that implies a greater moral status and therefore "Right" to them. This is marxism, not capitalism.

A capitalist system says you work for your own profit. What you do with your profit after that is your own concern, and you have a right to own property and profit to do with as you see fit. If you choose to work for another, you contract a wage that profits you both. (They get your labor, you get a paycheck) If you don't like it, you may quit and find another way to profit. The employer does not OWE you a job. You do not have a RIGHT that someone give you a job against their will. You can make your own job and succeed or fail as your ability and circumstances allow. There is no guarantee or right to success, nor do you deserve one. Make good choices and thrive. Make bad ones and fail. Rich Capitalists almost always started out POOR capitalists. Look at the history of American entrepreneurs. Almost all of them were poor when they started. Some destitute. From Colonel Sanders to Thomas Edison to Ray Krok (sp?) to Elias Singer. They filled a need, found a niche and worked their asses off to succeed. But since 9 out of 10 businesses fail by their fifth year, you must risk a lot, but like Bill Gates... who also wasn't very wealthy... or Steve Jobs, the upside is tremendous. None of these men were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

Of course not. Take a look at how nature actually operates, and you will see that absolutely nothing has an inalienable right to live.

I do know how nature operates. But all have the opportunity to have life. They don't necessarily succeed. That is as close to a right as you get in nature. So in the strictest sense, you're correct, but you're missing the point because it takes you to an uncomfortable place right here:

Certainly, and the answer is no. There is no such thing as a natural right or a God-given right. Rights are what we, as a society, collectively choose to recognize. That doesn't make them any less valid and appropriate. Recognizing rights is a part of what society does, and we will go on doing it.

But you used examples from animals. Animals do not recognize rights, and therefore have none.

Red emphasis mine.

That is your belief, but not necessarily a truth. If rights are only given by men, then they can be taken away by men. If rights are from a source beyond men, then the right to life, liberty and property (the original words Thomas Jefferson stole) are divine and cannot be taken away at any time. But to accept the concept of inalienable rights to live life as you see fit by the best of your ability and conscience, you have to accept a power or existence greater than yourself. And if this right to these things exists, it makes the act of taking from another, life, liberty or property, against their will, is an abomination that you cannot deny.

The problem here is that you are mislabeling society's parasites as its "productive members," and many of its most productive members (the working class) as "non-productive."

Incorrect. You're seeing the whole discussion bass-ackwards. The parasites are those who do no work, and produce nothing for society. Even an idle rich man, living off his estate provides work by dint of managing it. Even a rich man can be a parasite off his own fortune and cause it to decline. Look at what happened to much of Europe's nobility throughout the centuries. Sure he's the Earl of Kent or whatever, but he hasn't got a pot to piss in, nor window to throw it out of. But he's a Noble! The fortune frittered away through bad choices and overspending till nothing is left but a working man with a title and famous name but nothing more.

Now a person who started with nothing, and then promptly made nothing of himself or herself can throw themselves on the mercy of the tax payer to support them. They then become a drain on society at large. Producing nothing, they have no fortune of their own to waste and support them. They do it on the backs of other men. There is only so much that a working man who has a job, earns a wage either from another or from his own effort will put up with being taken from him and handed to another who is not supporting or even TRYING to support themselves. If you're going to be an idle scrounger, best be quiet about it and live reasonably. But our current indigent class, living off of Government Largess has learned they don't have to be quiet because they are allowed to vote, and vote for those who will give them the biggest pacifier and treat. The politicians who exist by pandering to these people have been trained to respect those who scream the loudest and have the largest voting block. Well, the screaming of the indigent at the expense of the middle class working people AS WELL AS the rich investors have had enough of the temper tantrum of the indigent demanding more cookies at their expense. That is why you see the tea party movement. This is why you hear people screaming taxes are too high. This is due to the fact that government has forgotten it's real purpose: To defend it's citizens rights to live the lives they want the best way they see fit from threats both foreign and domestic. That is why we have the military and courts and consumer, trade and labor protection. That is the job of government. Not to make sure that Johnny is fed an apple at breakfast for head start at the tax payer's expense. No. that's a state issue. It's a check and balance.

The fact you don't know what a productive member of society, and deny the fact there are inalienable rights given us by a force greater than man or society would trouble me, but I got over that long ago. It does show me though that you are a threat to my freedom and that of every other American here. And that's sad.

 

[JWBooth]

Diversity of end results.

Life's a bitch.

 

[Big Fitz]

Diversity of end results.

Life's a bitch.

Thomas Sowell pointed it out best. You can have an equality under the law or equality of results. The two are incompatible with each other, so choose.

 

[Listening]

Here are the assumptions of the OP:

1). Income inequality is bad.
2). Income inequality is caused by free market capitalism.
3). The US needs to have less capitalism and more government to fix income inequality.

Here is why each assumption is wrong:
1). People do not have to have equal incomes. I would rather have some people rich and other less rich than everyone equally poor. If everyone has the same income, there is no social mobility. That means those who fail are subsidized, and those who succeed see little benefits. That is not a good model to run an economy on. People should be able to fall from the top and climb up from the bottom. America once prided itself on that.

Thank you.

We keep hearing about income inequality. This is one parameter. It is calculated. It is also a relative measure. Poverty is also a floating measure that is very relative in its computation.

There are other numbers that should be evaluated and included in the analysis.

After all......

Why do I care how much others have. If I am in the lowerst quintile in terms of standard of living........but I am:

Living in a four bedroom house
Living in a safe neighborhood
Eating steak every night
Have good health insurance
Have many luxuries

Why would I or why should I care how the "better half" lives ?

I don't see many metrics in this regard. It seems all relative to me.

On another point...about failing.

Not everyone can succeed. If someone fails, it is not a tragedy. It is a fact of life. I don't cheer that people are being forclosed on, but I know many people who have been forced from their homes only to recover and go on to better situations.

 

[Listening]

Thomas Sowell pointed it out best. You can have an equality under the law or equality of results. The two are incompatible with each other, so choose.

Sowell is the greatest !!!

 

[Listening]

Thereby proving my point that income equality or inequality has no tangible positive benefit to a nation. Both equal and non-equal nations suck and succeed regardless of this factor, meaning it is irrelevant to any economic discussion unless we want to talk causes.

How do you create programs in Washington D.C. to resolve this for the different situations that you might just encounter when you have 300,000,000 people interacting within our borders ?

Answer: You don't

Even the term "economic discussion" seems a little useless when talking about the USA. There isn't just one economy. It has several components that in some cases are very unrelated.

People want to correlate tax rates and standard of living. That is balonga. At least until we see the real causation.

 

[Dragon]

Thereby proving my point that income equality or inequality has no tangible positive benefit to a nation.

On the contrary. When we see that the great majority of the rich nations are also those that approach equality, while the great majority of the poor nations are also those with the most inequality, the reasonable conclusion is not that it has no tangible effect. There's a clear correlation between income equality and economic success.

We can see this in our own history, too. The period since industrialization when our economy performed the best (by more than two to one compared to both earlier and later times) was the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Even if you lump the poorer-performing 1970s in there, those four decades saw per capita GDP grow more than twice as fast as it did in 1900 to 1940 or in 1980 to the present.

A capitalist system says you work for your own profit.

If that's the case, then neither this country nor any other than has ever been has had a capitalist economy. Most people work for the profit of others, not their own. They receive wages or a salary for their work, but that's not the same thing.

The only way we would have an economy in which everyone worked for his own profit is if everyone owned his own company and nobody was an employee of anyone else. Then you would produce whatever goods or services your work enabled you to, and sell those on the market. You would own the goods, and you would own the profit from sale of them. When you work for a fixed wage, and produce goods that belong to someone else, along with the profit he makes for selling them, you are working for his profit, not your own.

I do know how nature operates. But all have the opportunity to have life.

Even that isn't true. Most seeds never germinate. A crocodile lays a gazillion eggs by the riverside; most of the baby crocs become bird food before they hit the water, and most of the ones that make it to the river get eaten by fish or whatever before they become big enough that nothing messes with them except humans.

And I don't find my answer to your other question the least bit uncomfortable, FYI.

That is your belief, but not necessarily a truth. If rights are only given by men, then they can be taken away by men. If rights are from a source beyond men, then the right to life, liberty and property (the original words Thomas Jefferson stole) are divine and cannot be taken away at any time.

And the observable reality is that rights CAN be taken away. Therefore, rights are NOT from a source beyond men. It follows logically, does it not?

The parasites are those who do no work, and produce nothing for society.

These are, at most, an extremely minor problem. The damage inflicted upon society by the very rich is astronomical. And that's yet another reason to pursue narrowing of income gaps and increased equality.