Depends where we are in the world. In my case, the US, has a pretty progressive tax code that allows one to recover from debt. Bankruptcy is also an option if one goes into too much debt.

Sure, but this doesn't equalize opportunity, and does not change the wage gap.

Sure, but this doesn't equalize opportunity, and does not change the wage gap. — Lif3r

Structurally, I am in agreement that there's simply a structural advantage to being rich. It allows one to explore opportunities once unavailable to the common man. Wage gaps aren't an issue if you don't work in a corporate environment.

The thing about American democracy that you may or may not be getting at is the disproportionate amount of reward for taking risk. Europe and Asia don't really stand anywhere near this state of affairs as does America.

So, is that something you had in mind or am I making things up here?

I'm speaking more in terms of an entire state, or country. Not on the level of the individual. We are seeing people fight back around the world in order to regain their liberties from their economic constraints, but at the end of the day it's a fight for equality between the people and their leaders. The rich and the powerful versus the meek and the poor. Is this phenomenon not a cycle?

The rich and the powerful versus the meek and the poor. Is this phenomenon not a cycle? — Lif3r

The cycle that once may have existed in Europe, has been addressed and broken in a manner of speaking by encouraging entrepreneurship, credit to the poor, and lending. This sort of issue blew up or created the 2008 financial crisis. Booms and busts will continue to exist; but, there are ways to hedge against these tendencies in the market.

so if capitalism broke the barrier, then why is there still a huge separation between the rich and the poor? Why is that separation increasing?

On paper it should be working, but the numbers don't show that it is. The same pattern is resurfacing where the rich gain more wealth and the poor become more poor. The cost to live is higher, the wages stay the same. The opportunity is not equal and the results are apparent.

so if capitalism broke the barrier, then why is there still a huge separation between the rich and the poor? Why is that separation increasing? — Lif3r

Inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing about it is when the rich decide to collude and form monopolies, oligopolies and are in the bed together with the government. The US is very vigilant about consumer protection. The majority of goods in the US are available to the common Joe.

Relatively speaking, we are enjoying a period of downright amazing economic prosperity, that, unfortunately, has increased the inequality between the rich and poor. If you want to talk about debt, that could be an issue worth mentioning.

There are two things in the US that stand out in my mind as barriers to the poor. It's universal healthcare and college tuition.

There are two things in the US that stand out in my mind as barriers to the poor. It's universal healthcare and college tuition. — Wallows

You remove those two barriers and most of the talking points of the left disappear.

I feel like you just told me "tough tiddies"

But I feel like you also agree that there is a growing gap.
And I feel like you agree that this usually results in a transition.
But I feel like you disagree that this transition will take place in America because of how the system is designed.

so if capitalism broke the barrier, then why is there still a huge separation between the rich and the poor? Why is that separation increasing? — Lif3r

What Capitalism did was lift people out of poverty. The gap between rich and poor might be there, but the “poor” as you call them are far from being as poor as they were.

It’s possible that Capitalism as we’ve known it may change, who knows how it may change, for better or worse, but the evidence of its success is there to see.

Second thoughts. What Capitalism has created, which is now a problem, is huge population growth. How do we deal with that?

But I feel like you also agree that there is a growing gap.
And I feel like you agree that this usually results in a transition. — Lif3r

Let me reassure, you, the US will never experience a "transition" in governance. Trump may seem as an outlier; but, apart from his estranged foreign policy towards the rest of the world, he's a pretty common politician for the right.

There's this sort of implicit conspiracy present within the left, that is overstated. I suppose it's a relic of treating the rich as villains by the far-left.

Just take a look at the HDI for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

It's an objective measure of your prospectus of living in the US and making or breaking it. If you want to play safe, just open a 401k or mutual fund/ETF from Vanguard or elsewhere, into an index fund. No need for active management on these sort of things. Just don't steal from yourself by pulling out money from the index fund, and all will be fine when you reach retirement.

Also, being rich doesn't mean that you can just live on some island and never care anymore about working. It's a very time-consuming thing to maintain your wealth, and expand it.

I would agree that capitalism is one of the closest to fairness humanity has come in documented history for an economic structure. This is not an attack on what capitalism has been. This is a curiosity of what should come next in order to keep it from crumbling.

I dont know what to believe about population growth. I have heard that we need more people and I've also heard that we need less.

Also, let's please keep in mind that most people don't only work for money. The frictional unemployment rate in the US is pretty steep due to this.

I can’t believe anyone would believe we need more people. Maybe better distribution but not more.

You asked what comes next to keep Capitalism from crumbling. But is it crumbling?

so you believe that America will never have a revolution so long as it exists? Even if it continues to over tax the majority of it's citizens, write of the taxation for the rich, and allow corporations to pay wages that barely scrape by for back breaking labor? Labor that they have been forced into for lacking the finances and the connections to do something greater?
Or do you expect the poor to just be satisfied that they can afford the CEO another yacht this year because the CEO was lucky; born to the right people under the right circumstances.

Second thoughts again. This might sound extreme, but I suspect Capitalism to be an evolutionary stage of our development just as having an opposable thumb is.

maybe not, but I have seen the history books. We are experiencing a similar pattern to the rest of the world. The wages divide, and then the people divide.

Even if it continues to over tax the majority of it's citizens, — Lif3r

23% does not seem that extreme to me. What do you think it should be?

maybe not, but I have seen the history books. We are experiencing a similar pattern to the rest of the world. The wages divide, and then the people divide. — Lif3r

What countries and what era are you referencing?

so you believe that America will never have a revolution so long as it exists? — Lif3r

I really don't think there has been a viable alternative to even entertain the notion of "transitioning" or even a "revolution". Just look, at the M2 money stream from FRED. I mean, where is that money going to go?

Even if it continues to over tax the majority of it's citizens, write of the taxation for the rich, and allow corporations to pay wages that barely scrape by for back breaking labor? — Lif3r

The facts point towards a pretty progressive tax code in the US. If you make less than the egregiously defined poverty line, you pay nothing in taxes.

Or do you expect the poor to just be satisfied that they can afford the CEO another yacht this year because the CEO was lucky; born to the right people under the right circumstances. — Lif3r

CEO's have always seemed to me as an example done out of poor reasoning. Let's take the population of the US and compare it to the number of CEOs in the US. You end up with a really low number of the number of people actually being CEOs. Furthermore, if you're adamant about the issue, then you should strive to become your own boss.

Or do you expect the poor to just be satisfied that they can afford the CEO another yacht this year because the CEO was lucky; born to the right people under the right circumstances. — Lif3r

Very few CEOs would be like that. Very few would succeed if they were.

I think if it's 23% for me it should be 23% for you and everyone else in the country, but it isn't.

Once you bridge the gap between poor and rich your money makes it's own money and your taxes are often times non existent, and if you do so happen to pay taxes it doesn't matter because you make enough money off of the backs of other people who never see a fraction of your wealth and are just supposed to accept that your life is more valuable than theirs because you came up with the idea and you had the connections, and usually the money to make it work in the first place.

I pay 23% and Amazon makes x0,000% more than me but doesn't pay 23%

Why not? That's enough to piss people off, and it does, and it's just an example of what has happened in the past but with extra steps.

A quick summary of Michael Bloomberg’s life from Wikipedia.

Bloomberg was born at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, in Brighton, a neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts on February 14, 1942.[13] His family is Jewish. He is a prominent member of the Emanu-El Temple in Manhattan.[14] Bloomberg's father, William Henry Bloomberg (1906–1963), was born in Chelsea, Massachusetts, and worked as an accountant for a dairy company. He was the son of Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg, an immigrant from Russia.[1] The Bloomberg Center at the Harvard Business School was named in William Henry's honor.[15] His mother, Charlotte (Rubens) Bloomberg (January 2, 1909 – June 19, 2011) was a native of Jersey City, New Jersey.[16] Charlotte's father, Bloomberg's maternal grandfather, Max Rubens, was an immigrant from what is present-day Belarus.[17][18]

The top tax bracket as far as I can see is 37%. I’m guessing you’re not paying that.

Big companies have long relied on strategies to reduce their tax bills. But the new tax law is making it even easier, with a new analysis finding that 60 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes on a total of $79 billion of profits earned in 2018.

The companies, which include tech giants such as Amazon and Netflix, should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes based on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's 21 percent corporate tax rate, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Instead, these corporations received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion. The analysis is based on the corporations' annual financial reports, which were filed earlier this year to report their 2018 results. 

I know there is an extreme imbalance in wealth and that life is hard for many people. But I think the problem is more one of government than greedy CEOs. Governments seem to have stepped back from the responsibilities. Maybe they’re too influenced by big business or maybe they’re just not good enough for what the times demand. I don’t think there’s any benefit to targeting the riches of others or tearing down the system.

let's be clear - I am not here to tear down the system. I am here to say that there are people who wish to. What I am asking is how to appease both parties without getting to that point.