>>Except that doesn't happen. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. Capitalism doesn't work unless you have massive amounts of people living in poverty and largely stuck there. People like to talk about how much wealthier the world has gotten over the past 100 years or whatever but usually don't mention that only a small percentage of the population are any better off than they used to be.

Actually it did happen through most of the history of the United States. Which was capitalist by the way. Same with Europe which had adopted a generally capitalist model. By the way while the U.S. has a high income disparity GINI, (which will only get bigger with more regulation, government collusion which the little guys can't compete with and more government shutdowns) we also have a much higher average income and median income.

This can be seen if you search for median income by country. Since median income is how the middle of the country lives it's a good metric to use to compare. The US according to median income is the 6th richest country in the world. Ahead of Germany by the way.

Also you can look up stats on median income over the years. The majority of the U.S. on all socioeconomic ladders is far better off than they were a 100 years ago, or 50 years ago for that matter. Once again it's annoying I can't link anything right now, but search median income by year adjusted for inflation. Looking up median income the way to go because it shows you how the middle of the country is doing, unlike average income which takes into large account the top 1% you dislike so much. Median income shows how the middle class is doing.

>>Not sure what countries you're referring to, but the US (low income taxes, low corporate taxes, capital gains etc.) has about the highest income inequality of the first world. Compare it with the more "socialist" countries in Europe. If you mean countries like China, as a fake communist country that's not really an argument. Same for other fake communist countries.

First off the U.S. had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It was changed a few years ago to about the middle of the world and the last few years the bottom 10% had the highest rise of income in the past few years than in the previous decades. Middle class incomes also rose too after it's passage.

There's been a lot to do about how many companies pay zero in taxes by leftists. Amusingly enough those big companies have voted in people who suppesedly want to make the big companies pay. If you actually look up what loopholes they use (mainly by paying taxes on stocks given when their company stocks were issued rather than having to pay the full value of the current worth of the stock), also look up carried interest tax loophole Donald Trump. With him working to get rid of investment income tax loopholes where the rich get to pay far less than us in taxes on investment income it's no wonder why the big companies and hedge fund managers worked so hard to get rid of him and supported democrats who wont be getting rid of it.

I would like to note here I am not a Trump supporter and dislike him for many things. Though there are other things I agree with him on such as these reforms. Some of which passed some didn't. All of which democrats have promised to repeal.

Most European countries work off a semi capitalist system. The idea being you are generally allowed to do what you want with your wealth. That's the great thing about capitalism, people can choose to donate all their wealth to charity, or not. They are free. Where communism and socialism has been tried everyone just got poorer.

If you want a list of socialist states you can easily search list of socialist states/countries. They are pretty much all fairly poor with large disparities in the rich vs. the poor.

>>I'm not sure how to respond to that. Anyway, you know it's obviously false, right? Back when some of the super-wealthy were real philanthropists, Carnegie spent the last 20 years of life giving away 90% of his fortune. Or do you mean, everyone giving away their wealth all at the same time would crash the economy? If so, that's probably the best thing that could happen.

Carnegie existed before the stock market was in his current form and sold his company to perform his charity. Since buyers invested in it he didn't leave his company with no capital after selling it.

Also most billionaires give large amounts of money to charity. Bill Gates famously runs the worlds largest charity by himself.

Yes a rising tide raises all boats. And yes a person pulling over a hundred billion out of the stock market one day would lead to panic selling.