Still, I'm going to wait till tomorrow to see if Big or anyone else challenges\has issue with any of my 5 'givens'. If not, I'll continue with them as the basis for my view.
posted
can you restate your view? i think you are saying that in America there is still opportunity, and i don't think people disagree, but that opportunity is getting slimmer rather than bigger...
as to Bigs view? i beleive he is saying that wealth is becoming more concentrated which is true IF you look at liquid assets and not homes....
even tho the top 20 to 25% is getting bigger? the top 1% is getting alot more...
even before the 2007 "crash"? the middle class was not getting better pay than they were before Bush took office. It really was th top 1% whose pay was increasing so much that it made the average or median pay higher, but when you drop the top 1% the average pay was dropping...
i followed this closely as we analysed how home prices could not keep inflating the way they were, home prices are direclty linked to what people can actually afford and the disparity was buggin' the heck out of me...
wealth and pay are two different things....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
More than 30 US billionaires have pledged to give at least half of their fortunes to charity as part of a campaign spearheaded by Warren Buffett, the investor, and Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder.
The list of those signing up, posted on The Giving Pledge’s website, includes many names familiar in business and philanthropy, such as Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, Ted Turner, the media mogul, Barry Diller, the chief executive of IAC, and David Rockefeller
The financial sector is well represented, with the former Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill and his wife Joan, David Rubenstein, the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, Pete Peterson, the co-founder of the Blackstone Group, Ron Perelman, the investor, and Julian Robertson, the hedge fund manager, on the list.
Mr Buffett and Mr Gates and his wife Melinda launched the campaign in June and have been encouraging other wealthy people to sign the pledge.
“We’ve really just started, but already we’ve had a terrific response,” said Mr Buffett. He was “delighted” by the response “and that so many have decided to not only take this pledge but also to commit to sums far greater than the 50 per cent minimum level”.
Some of the signers said they had already planned to give away the majority of their money before Mr Buffett and Mr Gates.
“Many years ago, I put virtually all of my assets into a trust with the intent of giving away at least 95 per cent of my wealth to charitable causes,” wrote Larry Ellison, the Oracle co-founder, in one of many letters posted on the website.
“Until now, I have done this giving quietly ... So why am I going public now? Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be ‘setting an example’ and ‘influencing others’ to give. I hope he’s right.”
Mr Rubenstein, who is about to turn 61, began devoting energy to philanthropic endeavours at the age of 54. He currently donates to a range of causes including in education, health, the arts and history.
Almost as interesting as the list of those who signed the pledge was those who chose not to. While Mr Peterson, Blackstone’s co-founder, appeared on the list, his partner Steve Schwarzman does not. Both men made billions when Blackstone went public.
The Giving Pledge does not accept money, but asks billionaires to make a moral commitment to give away their wealth to charity.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Sorry, Big, it seems I'm not making my point clear, let me try to put it another way. First, let's set up some 'givens' to work with. If you disagree with one of my 'givens' let me know so we can use them clearly in our discussion.
Given 1: In the 24 years represented on the above data chart the top 1% stayed aprox. the same. (given a 1% moe)
With reservation of the caveat that there were large fluctuations within the 24 year time frame I accept this given.
quote: Given 2: The most significant change in wealth distribution was from the bottom 80% to the second 19%. Using financial wealth(non primary residence wealth) as an indicator, this is less than a 2% (or as low as 1% given a 1% moe) change in wealth distribution.
I don't like the moe unless it is used both ways but yes I accept that the greatest distribution was from the bottom 80 to the second 19.
quote: Given 3: Population in America grew by 70 million people or roughly 30% during that time.
Agreed though I still don't see why this has relevance to you.
quote: Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
Indeed, which I think proves my point that wealth among the wealthy is concentrating at an exaggerated pace.
quote: Given 5: Those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars are well within the top 20% category.
Absolutely. I still don't understand your point. You do understand that no matter if the population of the country grew by 30% the top 20% can not represent more than 20% of the nation right?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for not getting this out last night. Been gettting things ready for my baby girl's b-day party on sunday.
I'm going to try a different approach to make my point. Let's look at the premise, that wealth in the U.S. is concentrated in the top 20% of income earners and that this concentration is increasing.
My view on this? Yes...and yes(with a mild qualification)...and it's a good thing.
Let's be clear on what kind of economic system we're talking about:
Capitalism definition
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
It is a system designed to encourage and reward economic skills\skilled laborers. This reward is primarily through wealth accumulation. If you are exceptionally good at a desired skill or simply in the accumulation and use of wealth itself, a capatilistic system will reward you with more money.
According to Wiki/Census Bureau 2004 the top 20% encompass nearly 22,629,000 households, earn a minimum of $88,030 and have two income earners per household. Add this to the data that Big provided that these individuals own 85% of all wealth in the U.S. as of 2007.
So, 20% own 85% of all wealth.
Let's add two other facts: US Census stats put the post high school education levels in the U.S. at about 27.7% with BS degrees or higher. Since that includes the less marketable degrees like fine arts majors(lol, Glass); this is not a guaranteed measure of success, but it does increase the 'likely' earning potential.
With this, add the aforementioned fact that only 1.6% of Americans inherit more than $100,000. That means that that rest of the top 20% earned their money themselves.
Based on these facts: we have less than 20% (guesstimate) of the population with post highschool education in marketable skills and we have 20% of the population that owns 85% of the country's wealth....odd that those two numbers are simlilar...
Maybe not so odd when one considers that education level is one of the prime factors in desireable job aquisition and thus earning potential. If a household has two income earners, each with a BS degree or higher education, it is almost guaranteed to place it within this 'wealthy' quintile.
For the next part of this discussion, is this concentration of wealth good\bad and getting more or less concentrated I want to first compare us to the rest of the world. One measure of wealth inequality is what's called a Gini coeffiecient. It ranks from 0 to 1. 0 being entirely equal distribution (everyone has the same wealth) and 1 being total inequality (one person holds all wealth).
posted
Capitalism is not what we practice here though.
I agree with your argument if this was a capitalist society. But it's not. We are a society based on debt. There is no possible way for any of us to aquire enough to ever be free of debt.. Ask Wesely Snipes.
The disparity of wealth whether real or fake in this nation is not getting better.. The working class is falling further from freedom every day.
The only answer is to bring forth a system based upon the purest form of capitalism. Base our currency on something tangible.. be it gold, silver, french fried frog nuts for all I care.. Anything but corporate issued debt notes.
This will not happen without some major event out of the control of the rulers of our society.. Pray for an asteroid.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Capitalism is not what we practice here though.
I agree with your argument if this was a capitalist society. But it's not. We are a society based on debt. There is no possible way for any of us to aquire enough to ever be free of debt.. Ask Wesely Snipes.
The disparity of wealth whether real or fake in this nation is not getting better.. The working class is falling further from freedom every day.
The only answer is to bring forth a system based upon the purest form of capitalism. Base our currency on something tangible.. be it gold, silver, french fried frog nuts for all I care.. Anything but corporate issued debt notes.
This will not happen without some major event out of the control of the rulers of our society.. Pray for an asteroid.
I think that super sleeper volcano in Yellowstone would do the trick.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was National Geogrpahic that had a special on it. It was good.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the problem SF is that even tho the top 20% own 85% of the wealth it's the top 10% that own 71%,
hence my point that i am in the top 20% and while i am not complaining? i am most definitely not wealthy... i am also not one of those people that thinks i have been unfailry treated, i could be in the top 5% right now with a little better luck (for lack of better word) even tho i really don't like the word luck.
the problems really are that the top 1% has been increasing it's concentration of liquid wealth and their abiltiy to manipulate markets.
the top 1% own 38%, or over half of what the top 10% owns... the wealth does concentrate and it ends up being replaced intot he economy by paper dollars simply to keep the poor in the economy.
Freedom really does mean the right to choose NOT to participiate in the economy. it's only been since the depression that we have drawn the majority of the rural peoples in tot eh economy. prior to that? most rural dwellers had to struggle to pay their land taxes. They still had what they NEEDED to survive. The difference today between need and want is very different from what it was in the 1920's.
the mere fact that these guys and gals in the uppermost 1/4%ile are planning to redistribute their own wealth ought to give you pause. They have played the (capitalist) game and won and moved on....
they are becoming "little govenrmnets" of their own and choosing for the,selves how to manipulate not just markets, but society in general. now add tot hat fact that they all tend to be Liberals and you may not like what they do with that power that they have accumulated.
Taxing them puts that power back into the Republican form of power. Remember we are not a Democracy.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to try a different approach to make my point. Let's look at the premise, that wealth in the U.S. is concentrated in the top 20% of income earners and that this concentration is increasing.
My view on this? Yes...and yes(with a mild qualification)...and it's a good thing.
Like I said Seek, you made a pretty good argument there. I acknowledge your points that a two income household with well educated workers can likely expect to get into the top 20% of earners in America sometime in their working lives.
I also accept that our wealth distribution doesn't look too bad when compared with many 2nd and 3rd world countries.
I would say that for the greatest nation on earth to be using the economics of say, Sierra Leone- where many of the poor have literally only the clothes on their backs, to validate their ratio's probably isn't a worthwhile gesture but I get your point.
It doesn't validate the argument that the rich should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class though just as ....WOAH...sorry...got really distracted by the 'Make my Baby' banner for a sec...That's a weird one.
It doesn't validate the argument that the rich should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class though just as translating that percentage into a dollars number doesn't.
Indeed, the way our capitalist economics system is set up at the moment we 'Have To' make government mandated wage increases and social payments to the lowest tiers because the private sector is not putting enough money back there for the system to be stable on that alone.
Perhaps that will change when Buffet's 50% friends divest themselves into the charities of America. Until then I challenge you to find one of them who would state that a 40% tax rate would cause an undue burden on their business and leisure lifestyles.
I'm not looking for a 0 on the Gini ratings nor do I believe in the right to income without qualification as the article you quoted in your new thread states. I do believe is sustainable models. I think you would too. Once set up sustainable models need very little tweeking from governing forces.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wealth and income are two different things...
a household income of only 90K$ puts you in the top 20%...
160K$ puts you in the top 5%
200K puts you in the top 3%....
In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes.
however, if you add on social security that changes because SS has ceiling of around 100K$:
In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes.
now remember that this was before the tax cuts...
it would be nice if the lowest half of wage earners could pay taxes, but after they pay SS? they just don't have much money left to pay them with. They often get an earned income credti to displace the SS taxes they did pay..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
some newer figures: In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
AGI is bad number to use tho. One of the resaons its so bad is because the more money you make? the more (as a percentage ) deductions you have available...
In sum, between 2000 and 2007, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 50 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 29 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
there's the flat proof of wealth concentration increasing,
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $160,041 or more in 2007 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $410,096 or more, the first time that this threshold has exceeded $400,000. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495.
In order for one to break into the top 0.1 percent, one would need an AGI of over $2.15 million.
quote:I'm not looking for a 0 on the Gini ratings nor do I believe in the right to income without qualification as the article you quoted in your new thread states. I do believe is sustainable models. I think you would too. Once set up sustainable models need very little tweeking from governing forces.
Before I continue with this one, Big, I would like a little clarification on your post.
If you were 'king for a day', what changes do you think would make our current economic situation 'sustainable'?
posted
If I were king for a day we would be in a monarchy and I'd have a whole lot of things to change.
First off I'd make everyone wear faux-fur coats and declare August 12th Bigfoot appreciation day. Then I would install body sized hairdryers in all government buildings and give government funding to the 'Big and Tall' store. Then I would send a brochure about the Great Lakes to my friend Nessie and...well...enough of that.
Seriously though? We have too many mega businesses. They should never have been allowed to grow so large and now they need to be broken apart. Reduce the amount of companies that have Multi-Billion dollar quarterly earnings and you reduce the amount of corps that think 80Mil+ in compensation for its head is not an unreasonable number when compared to revenues. This will increase the number of businesses which will create jobs, not just Walmart level jobs but executive and middle management level jobs as well.
More businesses will increase competition in the marketplace and as there won't be the giants of industry ready to stomp on anyone who doesn't allow themselves to be bought out that will lead to more innovation and customer centered economics (i.e. lower prices, better service).
More jobs, more competition, fewer high paid CEO's equals the percentage that is holding the largest concentration of wealth increases from the top 20% to the top 25% maybe even 30%. This in turn will increase the amount of individuals able to pay for goods which will increase consumerism which will create more Walmart level jobs and increase the amount of wealth trickling down to the lower percentages. Does it stop the poor from being poor? No, but having wealth spread through out a larger portion of our society will stabilize the liquidity of our economy and allow more in-roads for those who seek to grow. I would like to see the lists eventually have to get down into the top 40% before they could have 80-85% of all US wealth accounted for.
Next our stocks, bonds, commodities, and derivatives. The road to wealth that is paved in gold and littered with the corpses of the naive, the foolhardy, the ignorant, the arrogant, and the prey of the snakes that lie in the grass waiting for the starry eyed and unwary.
Our beautiful marketplace is out of control. Large amounts of derivatives that no one knows exactly what they are. Large percentages of commodities bought and sold by those who never have any intention of taking possession. Large amounts of stock and stock options gifted to executives as a ploy to reduce tax basis. In-and-out milli-second trading, naked shorts, junk bonds, mbs packages made specifically to fail. All of this, ALL of it is antithetical to why the market exists.
Regulation is, of course, necessary. However, to regulate one must have a regulator which costs money and one must trust that the regulator is diligent. In order to ensure diligence the regulator must be regulated by someone who oversees his work. That regulator must also be watched and his work evaluated. Enter: Bureaucracy.
How oh how do you keep a well maintained market without the piles of paper pushers which proved oh so ineffective in warding off the schemes that helped crash our economy? Remove a part of the profit motive and try to instill a sense of ownership in investors. Tier capital gains to size of profit and the snakes will be less inclined to make grand schemes. Oh, you worked with Goldman Sachs to sell an MBS package specifically designed to fail and made Billions when it crashed? Well, we will be taking 40% of that now and our investigators will be taking to you about the other 60% soon. You bought 10,000 barrels of crude? Good for you! It will be delivered on September 23. You can put it back on the market again if you like after you have taken ownership of it.
Oil ran up and crashed because a group of investors saw the profit in running it and crashing it. The stock market crashed because a group of seasoned investors saw the profit in crashing it and did it. The housing market crashed because our government allowed it to be run up and a group of investors saw the profit in crashing it. If you structure the system to instill ownership and remove the quick profit motive from large investors then they will work with the market, not against it.
That ought to be enough to bite on for the moment. I'll leave off there for now.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were king for a day we would be in a monarchy and I'd have a whole lot of things to change.
First off I'd make everyone wear faux-fur coats and declare August 12th Bigfoot appreciation day. Then I would install body sized hairdryers in all government buildings and give government funding to the 'Big and Tall' store. Then I would send a brochure about the Great Lakes to my friend Nessie and...well...enough of that.
August 12th isn't Bigfoot appreciation day?!?!?
What the hell have I been celebrating then?
On the serious note, at the risk of sounding like Glass and Tex's echo, that's a good set of ideas. I like some of them but I think others ignore the fact that we're part of a global economy now. Today promises to be busy but I'll try and continue this discussion tonight when I get home.
posted
Ok, finally got a second to sit down and continue this one, so here goes...
quote:Like I said Seek, you made a pretty good argument there. I acknowledge your points that a two income household with well educated workers can likely expect to get into the top 20% of earners in America sometime in their working lives.
Think about that for a moment, Big. By definition, what has this example family demonstrated as what it values?
Two income household vs single wage earner + child rearing parent?
Well educated workers vs high school drop outs?
In this example they have shown, through their own examples, that this is a family that values hard work, education and achievement. All three are needed to achieve the top quintile in a society that rewards such via monetary compesation. Statistically speaking, this family is nearly assured such a place.
quote:I would say that for the greatest nation on earth to be using the economics of say, Sierra Leone- where many of the poor have literally only the clothes on their backs, to validate their ratio's probably isn't a worthwhile gesture but I get your point.
There is an unanswered question hiding in that statement though, Big. How did the U.S. attain that 'greatest nation on earth' status(as it relates to this discussion)? Would a forced 'equalization' of wealth have helped or hindered that rise? Would it help us or hinder us from here forward? I'll come back to this, but keep these questions in mind.
Let's go back to given number 4:
Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
The top two of these categories are within the top 1% for the U.S. Now compare that to the chart about what happened to the top 1% during those same years. They (top 1%) LOST .2% of the share of total wealth. How then, did the number of households worth $5 million increase by 500% and those worth $10 million increase by 600%?
The only answer that allows for both these facts is that money from the ultra-rich (high end 1%) was distributed via market principles to these households (mid to low end 1%). This displays a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration. Granted this is still among the top 1%, but this shows a gradual homogenization of wealth within this group rather than a slow exclusion.
Ok, so what explains the shift in wealth from the bottom 80% to the second 19% over that same period of time?
Let's add a couple more educational facts to the mix and see if that helps us figure it out:
Did you know that the 18–22-year-old full-time undergraduate student represents only 16% of the higher education population?
Today's students:
40% study part time.
40% attend two-year institutions.
40% are age 25 or older.
58% are age 22 or older.
Fewer and fewer young students are going to college. Those seeking higher education are those that are already established wage earners seeking to improve their abilities\marketability. This expands the wage earning potential of those already within this 19% and thus pulls more of the wealth into it. Hence we see a move of total wealth percentage into this group during the years in question.
Just for fun, let's look at some Labort stats from 2009 for the younger age group:
In October 2009, 70.1 percent of 2009 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was a historical high for the series, which began in 1959. Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in October 2009 were more likely than enrolled graduates to be in the labor force (70.0 compared with 42.1 percent).
Those entering the workforce were nearly twice as likely to NOT have any higher education nor even enrolled in attaining it. Those attempting to achieve it were half as likely to be out earning while learning. This again means less money making potential for those entering the workforce for this age group, AGAIN shifting the wealth percentage upward.
The 'wealth concentration' that is being belabored so greatly is not some evil capitalistic conspiracy to enslave the poor. It is a natural and inevitable shift of control of wealth to those that are educated\skilled from those that aren't. The world is shifting from a labor based economy to a knowledge based economy. The automazation(is that even a word?) of our factories is an obvious indicator of this trend. This shift, if allowed to progress naturally (without government interference), will reward the skilled\educated. That reward is wealth control.
Minor point- Less than 50 years ago it was considered family values to have mom at home raising the children and the family supported on father income alone.
Besides, I agree it is better to have two parents raising a child than one.
Getting into crazy time here. May not be able to respond in a timely manner for a while but I will try.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still agree with the minor point, Big. That's why my wife and I decided that she would work from home while the kids are young so they don't grow up in daycare. She has turned down several job offers that would have doubled what she makes now...at the cost of sending the kids to daycare. We made the choice and we make our budget according to that choice/our values. (Shrug)
No rush on the response, last week has been full and I start fall semester next week so I understand busy.
posted
The top two of these categories are within the top 1% for the U.S. Now compare that to the chart about what happened to the top 1% during those same years. They (top 1%) LOST .2% of the share of total wealth. How then, did the number of households worth $5 million increase by 500% and those worth $10 million increase by 600%?
The only answer that allows for both these facts is that money from the ultra-rich (high end 1%) was distributed via market principles to these households (mid to low end 1%). This displays a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration. Granted this is still among the top 1%, but this shows a gradual homogenization of wealth within this group rather than a slow exclusion.
Ok, so what explains the shift in wealth from the bottom 80% to the second 19% over that same period of time?
SF, you are mixing apples and oranges so much that it is impossible to even clarify the argument anymore.
for starters? earning power is not wealth.
being in the top 20% of wage earners in not the same as being in the top 20% of wealth holders. holding wealth takes a lifetime, being in the top 20% of earners takes only a couple years of grad school...
as to the top 1 % losing .2% of the total wealth? that is statistically irrelevant. It most certainly does not show " a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration."
the number of millionaires adn multimillionaires increasing is more a display of real inflation. housing was doubled from 1992 to 2003 and is now back to 2003 levels... that's more or less the same across the inflatioanry board.
you are setting up a paper tiger in this claim:
The 'wealth concentration' that is being belabored so greatly is not some evil capitalistic conspiracy to enslave the poor. It is a natural and inevitable shift of control of wealth to those that are educated\skilled from those that aren't. The world is shifting from a labor based economy to a knowledge based economy
the "truth of the claims against concentration of wealth are in this chart right here:
the facts are simple, Americas "Golden Age" occurred when CEO's made less money compared to their employees.
the arguments are not about "evil capitalism" the arguments are about what works for the WHOLE ECONOMY" which as raybond pointed out makes us sound like "Gods" arguing.
the argument against paying CEO's too well is very simple. They can make enough money in a couple years to actually walk away away witht heir golden parchutes and the company can be damned to hell from their actions as CEO and it is happening with regularity, not just to specific co's but to our whole Country....
this is not about wealth re-distribution versus Capitalism. It is about how Capitalism can work in the BEST possible way for the Country as a whole.
After all? That is the job of Govenrment. To look after the whole Country , not just the wealthy.
The honest truth is that we do not want to have a Lottery mentality. Whether the Lottery is a box of pingpong balls with numbers on them or getting the cherry job is absolutely irrelevant.
When a CEO has no choice but to dedicate his/her whole professional career/life to making Co. successful they will take a longer term aproach to the value of the company. The fact is that in Captialism the goal is always to make profit right? Profits come short term or long term and our tax code should be set up to encourage LONGTERM profitability to insure that our Country and its economy is stable.
You must ask yourself this: Is The United States a Casino or is it a Productive Nation? Right now? We are a Casino. Ths sad part is that in legit casinoes? The State Regulators always require the house to keep enough cash in house to cover every single chip (cash) on hand to cash out every single chip issued....
the US does not even do that and hasn't since the Fed was created.. But when people start preaching to me about he Founders and how Great they were? I have no choice but to point out that they did not cover the chips either.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world is shifting from a labor based economy to a knowledge based economy.
i seperated this out because it deserves it's own topic.
this idea is a myth.
the lie begins when you try to define labor. Thomas Edison put it very well.
Being busy does not always mean real work. The object of all work is production or accomplishment and to either of these ends there must be forethought, system, planning, intelligence, and honest purpose, as well as perspiration. Seeming to do is not doing. Thomas A. Edison
and again:
Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. Thomas A. Edison
labor is not properly defined if you try to make it a white collar V blue collar issue.
Scientists (i am intimately familiar with their world) are Labour, they wear white lab coats so what? they are still part of the Labour pool today, even among scintists we have White Collars versus Lab Coats....
the Lab Coats make more than the Janitor does, but their bosses (often not scientists at all) are the ones that still make 100 or more time what they do... it's a different pay scale, but the relativity is still the same.
In oil? When you have non-engineers making 100 times what the engineers amke? (we do) You get the bosses beleiving they are better than the engineers, their big paychecks actually convince them that htey know more than they do. That's how you get BP oil spills and other sad facts of life....
that's the real evil.... it's not Captitalism, it's misappropriating value of benefits to certain "workers" (white collar labor) and making their position the equivalent of pulling the insidecard to fill the Straight Flush.
I have friends in overalls whose friendship I would not swap for the favor of the kings of the world. Thomas A. Edison
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:SF, you are mixing apples and oranges so much that it is impossible to even clarify the argument anymore.
for starters? earning power is not wealth.
I think they are both inherently related, Glass. You literally cannot aquire the latter without a solid form of the former. The greater your earning potential is over your mandatory needs the more you are 'able' to aquire\hold\grow wealth. If you are barely earning enough to make ends meet, you really don't have a great deal of opportunity to expand.
quote:being in the top 20% of wage earners in not the same as being in the top 20% of wealth holders. holding wealth takes a lifetime, being in the top 20% of earners takes only a couple years of grad school...
Again, Glass, you are highly unlikely to ever find yourself in the latter group unless you first move yourself into the former group.
quote:as to the top 1 % losing .2% of the total wealth? that is statistically irrelevant. It most certainly does not show " a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration."
Alone that is true. Thankfully for my position, I did not use that fact alone to make my point. As Big was nice enough to point out earlier, 20% cannot ever be more than 20%. If the population only grew 30%, and the number of households worth $5 million and $10 million increased by 500% and 600% respectively without changing the total net worth of the top 1% (which they belong to), the numbers dictate that the money came 'down' the chain...not 'up'. That is a distribution of wealth, not a concentration.
quote:the "truth of the claims against concentration of wealth are in this chart right here:
The CEO pay scale is seriously out of touch with reality, Glass. I'll concede that one mostly without qualification. However, it's an extreme example though. Let's go back to my Gini ratings link and see two other pieces of information there:
If you compare the average income in the poorest 10% to the average of the richest 10% you only get a factor of 15.9. Not the 300ish that you show on your chart. If you expand that commparison to include the poorest and richest 20% that number drops to only 8.4x. Remember that both these comparisons include those in abject poverty as well as the multi-billionaires.
Are there 'rich' people like Buffet and Gates? Sure. But they are by far the extremes. Are examples such as the CEO pay comparisons maddening for most people? Sure. But they are used by many to show what is meant to be understood as the rule rather than the exception. And that's just not the case.
quote:After all? That is the job of Govenrment. To look after the whole Country , not just the wealthy.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. -John Adams
This is why I'm in favor of a flat tax over a progressively increasing tax. If you're going to accept the fact that we must give of our income to sustain this great nation, so be it. But do so in a manner that doesn't punish success nor allow any to benefit from that freedom without contributing to it.
quote:You must ask yourself this: Is The United States a Casino or is it a Productive Nation? Right now? We are a Casino.
No, we're not, Glass. We're becoming a bread line. We're being told that we must 'equalize' things for it to be 'fair'. Our system was never meant to be fair. It was meant to give everyone a fair 'chance'.
posted
i'll tel you what, when you are ready to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges? i'll respond.
you are making this into nonsense trying to compare wealth to income, your reasons do not matter, they are very differnt and they do not exchange freely in this discussion. The US Govt does not tax wealth, except upon death, and i disagre with death taxes.
If you compare the average income in the poorest 10% to the average of the richest 10% you only get a factor of 15.9. Not the 300ish that you show on your chart. If you expand that commparison to include the poorest and richest 20% that number drops to only 8.4x. Remember that both these comparisons include those in abject poverty as well as the multi-billionaires.
you are not even grasping what real wealth is and i cannot make you grasp it.
the CEO's and hedge fund managers that pay the lowest taxes are not 10%ers... they are 1%ers and up- i am in the top 10% on income and the top 20% of wealth and i am NOT WEALTHY.
remebr that we are talking about why the rich are not overtaxed...
i don't know how else to put this, but you seem to me have an unusually low expectation of what wealth really is...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. -John Adams
and what is it the poor are needing protecting exactly? they do not have anything to steal.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Our system was never meant to be fair. It was meant to give everyone a fair 'chance'.
then you beleive we are a Casino too, and quite frankly i have no respect for that concept or people that hold it.
this is the "no regulations" mantra and that is in fact Anarchy....
No, Glass, I don't believe we're a Casino. If I had to come up with a metaphor for this thread I'd say the U.S. is a business. It asks what you can do, offers you a job based on that and a paycheck to match it.
In other words, if you got skillz, we pay you to use them. If you don't got skillz; well, we pay you accordingly.
quote:the CEO's and hedge fund managers that pay the lowest taxes are not 10%ers... they are 1%ers and up- i am in the top 10% on income and the top 20% of wealth and i am NOT WEALTHY.
Really, Glass? You're not wealthy compared to who? Those 'evil' 1%-ers? Or the other 90% of the country? How hard is this recession hitting you? Are you eating out of garbage cans yet? Had the sell the family car to pay the rent?
quote:the CEO's and hedge fund managers that pay the lowest taxes are not 10%ers... they are 1%ers and up- i am in the top 10% on income and the top 20% of wealth and i am NOT WEALTHY.
Really, Glass? You're not wealthy compared to who? Those 'evil' 1%-ers? Or the other 90% of the country? How hard is this recession hitting you? Are you eating out of garbage cans yet? Had the sell the family car to pay the rent?
Seriously, Glass? What do you consider 'wealthy'?
to be honest? the recession has not hit me much at all. i called the very top right here when we hit it. i bailed. my losses when the market tanked were nothing. We bought our house in '05 and instead of mortgaging ourselves to the hilt we bought about half what we could have afforded; primarily due to the fact that i was already skeptical about the housing runup.
the only thing i can complain about is that my price points on my products have dropped considerably. I anticipated this and made more less expensive products, rather than fewer higher priced products so my sales are up. I don't find it as gratifying to make less expensive peices cuz they are not as challenging, but that's hardly something to complain about is it?
seriously? this is a result of hard work, planning and paying attention to details.
but no i am not wealthy. i would be right now, were it not for two twists of fate where i simply made the wrong choice. actually i guess it's three chances i've had to make it that i've completely blown so far... no big deal, this is America and i'll keep on trying. EVEN IF they raise my taxes. LOL... get it? i'm in the game, and sorry but i like the game, and i won't complain if it get's a little tougher...
when you can earn 100grand per yer after taxes on your investments without serious risk you are wealthy IMO.
that would basically take about 2.X million in CD's or a little less in tax free bonds...
1.5 million in power co stocks would also do the trick, but it's a little more risky... there's farmers here that are very wealthy because they have their land paid for, but they are risking a million year to make two.
these evil CEO's and hedge fund mangers as you put it, are making 5 million per year and up. So, basically in one year they are able to retire on thier income from their pay and retire as welthy people. One year. Thats the "lottery" i speak of. I am not suggesting they are evil people, i am suggesting thatthe system we have DRIFTED into over the last two decades promotes and encourages evil behaviour.
there are about 3 million millionaires (cashwise) in the US,
there are almost 10 million millionaire households in the US out of about 100 million households... but liquidating a millionaire household is difficult right now, and if we were to allow fannie and freddie to collpase? the number would drop dramatically.... because house prices will collapse
Obama has suggested raising taxes on couple making over 250K or indivduals making over 200K...
that raise is only 3%. This is not redistribution of wealth. Those households making that much money are in the top 1.5% of income earners.
if you equate that to wealth? the top 1.5% would have 5 million in wealth. you keep telling us this number of people grew rapidly and i keep telling you that we just printed so much more money that they grew their wealth... So many more people have 5 million dollars because of infaltion. The top 1.5% has always been the top 1.5%.
how many years does it take you, earning 250K per year, to put 5 million aside? raising their tax by 3% may make that figure an extra year, or three...
one more thing? i've been around enough corporate people to know what it takes to be a CEO, and i don't have it. I don't like to lie.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:and what is it the poor are needing protecting exactly? they do not have anything to steal.
So, just because everyone doesn't benefit 'to the fullest extent' equally it means we shouldn't protect anyone?
huh? if you want laws to respect property? you have to pay to have them enforced. since 70 o r80 percent of the wealth is in the hands of the top 10%? they should pay equitably for the sytem that protects that wealth.
The French Aristocracy learned that lesson as did the Russian....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
