His entire argument is a strawman BS that he strong together by taking comments from different people in different discussion where he supplies false context.


edit: I guess I didn't properly address your point but it shows zero views so I will add this. I can't watch the video again from work so I will believe you when you say he makes the distinction but that doesn't explain why he used total wealth instead of income. One would assume that total wealth makes his argument look more stronger so he used it despite the fact that it is invalid. Come on if your total premise is a BS strawman do you really need to cook the numbers?