Words don't have specific meanings except what we ascribe to them. What I said to you was that you definition of socialism is not at all the same as the wiki definition. You don't understand the wiki socialism. I told you when you can understand the difference between the wiki definition and your definition your brain will change.

suck your ego up.

To avoid an epic Tragedy of the Commons. Under actual socialism it would be like giving everyone a $3K/mo UBI. I.e., enough workers won't show up for work to make it untenable.
Fair enough but you still need to come up with some way to produce all the goods and services necessary to lift all those out of poverty because getting rid of all the corruption and whatnot won't do much to help the poor. Mostly it'll simply prevent the rich from getting richer, which again won't do much about helping the poor because this isn't a zero-sum game. And since we're talking about increasing living standards for the poor, it's really about redistributing consumption and there just aren't enough rich people consuming enough to make much of a difference for the tens of millions living at or near poverty.

So to really address the issue you'll need to go after upper-middle and lower-upper incomes because that's where the bulk of consumer spending comes from. For instance, compare the 20 million HHs with incomes in the $100K-$200K range and a total income of $3T... to the 60 million HHs with incomes < $30K with $1T in total income.

Can u expand ?
No idea where u come up with that logic .

Corruption definitely do not help the economy and usually bad economic period hurts the poor the most .

And it’s not because it isn’t a zero sun game that it automatically means rich getting richer do not affect the poor by mis allocating capital by bad taxing program for example .

If a company can get in serious trouble due to mis allocating capital , how can bad redistribution of capital on a larger macro scale wouldnt effect negatively the economy ?

Of course all that stuff has a negative effect on the economy and the poor. It's just not that big of an effect that if it were negated poverty would disappear. It won't. Look at your social democracies—they have all those negatives to one degree or another, yet living conditions of their lower classes are usually trotted out as what we should have here.

My argument is that it's their compressed wage scale relative to ours that's the major driver of living conditions. The issue in the US is less about how little employers are paying because there's a point where the workers won't be able to afford the goods & services they produce. Fair to say we're butting up against that point but it's the other end of the wage scale causing deteriorating living conditions as we move down the wage scale. And not because I'm so naive to think if companies cut the high income pay they'd give it to lower income workers. They won't. Instead it's the effect of not having all that income in the consumer goods and services economy compressing the price scale from the top down. If instead we tax and redistribute high income to the poor, they'll just sustain or drive prices up from the bottom.

There is other ways u can use that money .
Giving better and easier access to social benefits (health care , education , etc) instead of just “giving “money away to possibly raise inflation.

Fwiw it I was poor , I would rather be in many other countries then The US .
So surely there is some work that could easily be done there without increasing inflation .

What's your theory on why those high incomes are even there to begin with? I mean if we can tax away hundreds of billions from low six-figure hhs without imposing much hardship on them, why aren't the exploiters exploiting them more?

Sorry but I don’t get what u are saying

Why are there "20 million HHs with incomes in the $100K-$200K range" as opposed to the same 20MM in the say $75K-$175K bracket?

In other words why aren't the same forces that are responsible for exploiting low income workers by forcing their wages down doing the same with higher income bracket workers? Just with the above example, they're leaving hundreds of billions of exploitable surplus value on the table. Why?

Then again, if that were to occur the Treasury would fall short $100B or so in tax revenue....

So you are asking why the higher end middle class aren’t exploited as much as the bottom poor ?

I guess at some point they just can’t exploit them because the workers knows better and there is competition issues shrug

Look what musk did at Twitter getting rid like half is employees .
Now trying to sue META over the uses over these fired employees over at META new app threads lol .

.... or maybe some holes in exploitation theory. I'm thinking if some benevolent aliens offered toiling laborers robots that could seamlessly do their job so they could just stay home and cash their paychecks, the super-rich won't care. If anything it'll be the other workers crying unfair, even though the toiling laborers' benefit didn't come at their expense. They'd probably lobby to reduce replacement-bot wages to force them back to work to create fairness.

Nice theory but it wont happen for the same reason no one can’t be rich at the same time .
You need workers plain and simple and if the majority of workers can’t earn enough wagers to live and it goes so big as u reach a critical mass of problems then revolution happens -> civil war and the high end wealthy get their heads cut .

But let me ask u this , do u believe the economy should benefit everyone or just a small pack of people ?
Do u have any reason to think only the big ceo and management of big corporations deserves to earn indecent wealth while the rest of society do not and vast amount of people can’t even get by decently while working full time ?
Where does that sentiment come from ?

And if u think an efficient economy should at least benefit half the population ( feel free to suggest another threshold ?) , what would you propose to remedy the situation when that median target isn’t respected ?

My point is I don’t believe there is any justification of seeing the economic pie being so large and yet the vast amount of its growth and profits is grab by a very small amount of people .
I see no reason of why this should be acceptable .
A vast majority of people provide to the economy , no idea why just a few should enjoy the fruit of tens of millions of workers .

Why shouldn’t we agree at some point 5 persons hold all the wealth in the US should be ok if you think the way wealth is distributed today is fine ?

The work that will need to be done will always get done; and people like to work. We are a naturally industrious race. Like the cute video of the beaver that was orphaned before it met its parents and never met another beaver in its life and lived fostered by humans but still had an innate desire to build a dam. We just don't like it when it's the only thing and we're too tired to spend quality time with family or have a hobby. There are exceptions, of course, those who don't like their family or don't have hobbies. These aren't really problems in the socialist society. Whereas in our society the worst jobs are also the ones that pay the least, in an ideal society, the worst jobs will pay the most.

As I've been saying: If the goal is to increase consumption with poorer hhs and basically raise everyone's living standards up to somewhere in the middle income range, then double the effective tax rate on hh incomes $100K-$200K. There are alternative approaches like VATs but at the end of the day whatever is done will force austerity on that income bracket. That's the only relatively short-term workable way given our current production potential.

It wouldn't matter to living conditions for the masses if it was 1 person. What matters is what they do with it. Imagine a giant farm: if I held all the wealth I could (a) give the farm workers back all their surplus value and just take a moderate cut for myself, (b) take some of the farm workers surplus invest in R&D/productivity, or (c) take all of their surplus leaving the farm workers at bare subsistence and use all the farm workers surplus to feed entertainers.

I'd say (b) is gto for me and I think workers would choose it as well. It has the benefit of (a) in that they could see how all the food they produced was getting equally distributed and if the workers that got pulled off the farm to innovate increased their productivity, I'm thinking they'd be okay with the arrangement even if my moderate cut was multiples of the mean. Seems like (c) would be a tough sell, if it were fully transparent.