> while simultaneously holding most of the influence.
There are 20 million millionaires in the states. This is not even 10,000 people year over year with assets, not even net worth, over $2 million. This is a tiny fraction of the population, most of whom are contrarian or pursue an alternative lifestyle, given that they are living abroad.
I would hardly call someone with $2 million as having outsized influenced, they're barely upper middle class or be able to afford a house in San Francisco. If we assume this distribution obey a power-law, there are a small percentage of individuals here there who are ultra ultra wealthy to have that influence.
There are ideological reasons to renounce citizenship, and maybe having a small amount of wealth enables to pursue this option as it involves legal fees and also affordance of living off investment income. There are likely many poor people who would like to leave to, but don't have the financial means to. The data set will be biased towards those who can afford the process.
Furthermore, renouncement of citizenship involves exit taxes, on which people have already paid taxes.
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country
On what legal grounds? They can't enter on a tourist visa? To visit a dying friend or family member one last time?
> nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Then we should stop all foreign investments and investors.
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country
Given the track-record lefty authoritarianism has, I'm always a little nauseated to see people pull out the truncheon and jack-boots to enforce "economic justice". That and suggestions like this don't even make any sense, and rarely ever do. It always looks to me like retribution is the aim here, rather than effective economic policy.
Well, now, let's not paint "authoritarianism" as "lefty". Some Marx-reading student on campus is not exactly a threat, is it?
The ultra-left sentiment is, indeed, anti-liberal at its core, but it is still an irrelevant fringe.
The actual, viable threat of authoritarianism is coming from the opposite side, which is a spit away from holding absolute power, here in the States, at least. And then, it's on.
This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. I never tried to 'paint "authoritarianism" as "lefty"'. I specified there's an issue with lefties who are also authoritarians. If you don't think that can exist and if you think it's not that big of a deal, I suggest you take a look at the latter-half of the 20th century. It's pretty uncharitable to paint my argument as being afraid of a student on a campus who's read the Communist Manifesto. That's not even in my argument and requires a lot of bad-faith interpolation to get to from what I said.
> viable threat of authoritarianism is coming from the opposite side
This is nothing more than whataboutism. There's authoritarians on both sides. They're both just as dangerous in the end-game. In Canada, it's the left mainly. In the US, there's highly vocal, and influential to public opinion, left wing authoritarians. In Canada lefty authoritarianism isn't just a fringe, it's mainstream. This is true in a lot of places too. I'm not sure why some folks insist on downplaying the risk of authoritarianism when it comes from the left as opposed to the right. Both kill just as many people, one just uses gas where the other uses starvation.
You're correct. And the reasoning behind having not stopped lefty authoritarianism is actually very interesting and complex. At least one American general got ousted from his position after suggesting the USSR be subjugated after the Second World War.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm not sure subjugation of Communist states by force would have lead to a better outcome, historically.
I just find it fascinating and a bit sad that authoritarianism is often seen as somehow better, if it comes from the left.
If people truly value democracy and freedom, authoritarianism should be opposed regardless of its underlying political color.
> bit sad that authoritarianism is often seen as somehow better, if it comes from the left
This is exactly the train of thought I had thrown at me by another commenter who was insistent on bringing up the fact that the right wing is "worse" somehow. You're right, it is very disappointing to see.
"highly vocal", "influential to public opinion". I am sorry, these are just words. Prove that it's influential.
Is there an effort by these "loud" individuals to drive a focused disinformation campaign targeted at nullifying legitimate votes? One third of the United States is entirely sold on it. That is quite "influential", I would say, and presents clear and present danger.
This is just whataboutism again. There's nothing constructive to say to someone who's entrenched in ideology like you clearly are. I'm not taking about the right, and never have been. The right is irrelevant in this conversation. All you have done is derail this into but the other guys are bad too. Did I say "the right is fine?" No, I explicitly did not. I actually said both are tyrants when they can be.
You've addressed nothing I've said and launched a demand for sources on cherry-picked words from the point I made. I don't want to, and won't, argue with ideology and party lines.
You've made nearly identical points to me just about the right for some reason, despite the fact that I'm not even talking about them. I've used the word 'right' once in any other comment until this one. Not sure why you're trying to turn this into a right-left partisan shit-slinging match. Not every discussion of the left necessitates a discussion about the right's negative traits, and vice-versa. If you truly believe this, I suggest you get your head out of American partisan ideology.
Unless there are more than 20 million millionaires, you're talking about the top 6 percent of the wealth distribution. I wouldn't call that particular percentile "barely middle class". That term probably should be reserved for the 60th percentile, no? Middle being 60 to 40? 70 to 30?
Edit: fixed my percentile thanks to child comment!
Inflation. Being a millionaire or having a six figure salaries used to have much more weight during the 80s.
Pretty much any senior level engineer at FANG can be a millionaire if they saved, but they can barely afford a standalone home in San Francisco. What does the term 'middle class' even mean if they can't afford a home?
Only 20% of millionaires surveyed feel they're rich.
Senior-level engineers at a FAANGs are already a pretty rare and prestigious class of people. I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I've failed to pass the hiring bar at every FAANG.
And of course they don't "feel" rich. Lifestyle inflation is a thing. Trade the Civic for a Tesla; send the kids to private school; buy organic groceries; take international vacations every year or so; yet still find the means to save more money each year than the average household in the USA earns. Feeling is a state of mind, not a state of being.
You're including non-adults (330m population @ 6%). It's closer to 8% of the adult US population. Not very many people under 18 are millionaires or reasonably likely to be. The non-adults in question fall under the millionaire household grouping.
And if anyone is interested in the household wealth distribution (as of 1Q21):
$2 million is the minimum to be listed - it is not the median, let alone the mean. Eric Schmidt alone has wealth equivalent to 10,000 people with a “mere” $2 million.
There are 20 million millionaires in the states. This is not even 10,000 people year over year with assets, not even net worth, over $2 million. This is a tiny fraction of the population, most of whom are contrarian or pursue an alternative lifestyle, given that they are living abroad.
I would hardly call someone with $2 million as having outsized influenced, they're barely upper middle class or be able to afford a house in San Francisco. If we assume this distribution obey a power-law, there are a small percentage of individuals here there who are ultra ultra wealthy to have that influence.
There are ideological reasons to renounce citizenship, and maybe having a small amount of wealth enables to pursue this option as it involves legal fees and also affordance of living off investment income. There are likely many poor people who would like to leave to, but don't have the financial means to. The data set will be biased towards those who can afford the process.
Furthermore, renouncement of citizenship involves exit taxes, on which people have already paid taxes.
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country
On what legal grounds? They can't enter on a tourist visa? To visit a dying friend or family member one last time?
> nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Then we should stop all foreign investments and investors.