You might remember this story from HuffingPaint:
The Waltons currently own 49 percent of Walmart stock.
That’s right. The six Waltons, heirs to Walmart founder Sam Walton, not only have a net worth equal to the combined wealth of the bottom 30 percent of Americans, as we learned this week from University of California economist Sylvia Allegretto, but they also own and control nearly half of Walmart, the world’s largest corporation.
But this comparison of wealth doesn’t show us quite what Mr. Goldberg thinks it does. If you’ve got no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than that 25% of Americans have collectively that is.
That a family who has inherited the majority of one of the leading global retailers have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans, when compared with how high up the tree a single ten dollar bill gets you, is pretty much worthy of a heartfelt “Meh.”
I hate it when people try to spin facts and data in a deceptive manner. Where I come from that’s called “lying.” As a general rule I don’t trust people who lie to me.
I’m in that 25% who don’t own shit. But I notice that lots of arguments about income inequality can be summarized as “Mom! He’s got more than me! Make him share!”
I would like to see someone articulate a cogent argument for the redistribution of wealth that doesn’t assume that the “Haves” somehow stole their fortunes from the “Have-Nots.”
Using the Walton family as an example – what have they done that would justify taking some or all of their money away from them? Absent some kind of wrongdoing, what political or legal theory supports asset confiscation?
I’m not talking about a tax on earnings – I support a progressive income tax – I’m talking about taking what they own rather than taxing what they earn.