Krugman fails to define “affluent”. Chairman O alludes to the top 5%, which begins at $150k. Hardly affluent, particularly here in Montgomery County, MD.
I have a good friend who works in the financial planning industry who earns over $1 million annually. Another friend in the same industry earned $30k last year. This is an enormous disparity, in which one “controls” over 97% of the wealth. in the Chairman O/Krugman model, Obama has a “mandate” to right this egregious disparity. Problem is, the $1 million producer has been in the industry for 20 years, is extremely intelligent and proactive, has his CIMA and CFP certifications and has paid his dues. The $30k producer is 23 years old, one year out of college, just starting out in the industry.
I've challenged liberals with this scenario:
Sarah and Joe are salespeople for a specialized, big ticket software company. Sarah works long hours, networks, cold-calls, joins industry trade associations, learns her products and services inside and out, develops masterful presentations and closes a very high percentage of opportunities. Joe lacks ambition, fails to stay on top of and master his company's offerings, and chooses to work shorter hours and party with friends after work. Joe closes a far smaller percentage of opportunities than Sarah, but does not take the steps to improve himself. Sarah earns $500k/year, while Joe is content with earning $50k/year. Sarah “controls” 90% of the wealth.
Here's the question: How much of Sarah's wealth should be redistributed to Joe?
Well stated!