Richest 1% own half the world's wealth, study finds

[DKW 86 7,410]

Richest 1% own half the world's wealth, study finds

[TitanTiger 20,471]

On 11/14/2017 at 12:07 PM, DKW 86 said:

Richest 1% own half the world's wealth, study finds

Amazing how the same folks who decry Darwinism in biology are the most ardent social Darwinists.

[alexava 6,973]

Went out to a bar to see an old friend play music after the Kick Ass game. Talked a lot of smack. Then another golf buddy and i got on this very subject. A few people in the bar thought we were going to fight. We get riled then laugh about it. I told a lady sitting beside us to relax. we do this with golf clubs in our hand all the time. He's a dipshit bammer too. Trump is his GOD. Real _______ loser but i love him. 

This is the most concerning issue we face as a country. Some let things like abortion get in  the way of the real issues. It's scary. 

[Howard Roark 195]

On 11/14/2017 at 1:07 PM, DKW 86 said:

Richest 1% own half the world's wealth, study finds

So...

What do you propose, confiscating it?  We have a ton of evidence as to how that works out.  When you try to level things out all you can do is guarantee a great deal more poor people with far less freedom and a handful of rich politicians. 

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

24 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

So...

What do you propose, confiscating it?  We have a ton of evidence as to how that works out.  When you try to level things out all you can do is guarantee a great deal more poor people with far less freedom and a handful of rich politicians. 

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. 

And your proposal would be what? Just let this continue until the 1% own 75% of the world's wealth?

[Howard Roark 195]

31 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And your proposal would be what? Just let this continue until the 1% own 75% of the world's wealth?

As long as it is a free market, yes.  The alternative is much more dangerous. 

Here is a list of the 10 riches people in the world:

http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/

Notice anything common about them?  Almost all of them MADE their own money.  That means this list has changed dramatically over the years.  With free markets, this list will change again over the next 20 years.  In your world, it never changes. Kings, emperors,   dictators, tyrants,  they tend to hang around until someone kills them. Here is a lovely picture of that hero of the people Fidel Castro wearing TWO Rolex watches.  I wonder how many Cubans own a single Rolex. 

 

Now back to you, do you propose confiscation?  You did not answer the question.

 

 

[DKW 86 7,410]

Not confiscation, but raised taxation and more fair rules for equalization. The system has been purchased by the 1%. it is how they got to their present circumstances. It is fair nor free in any context of the words. We do not have free markets at all. We have highly rigged markets and circumstances that are purchased by and for the 1%. Talking about free markets today is not really relevant. If the price of admission into a market is out of reach of 95% of the market, then it is only "free" to the 5 %. Rules are made to monopolize and institutionalize these disadvantages. Trying to discuss a theoretical makes no sense when the theoretical can no longer exist.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Haven't the wealthiest few owned most of the wealth from the beginning of time?

[homersapien 11,353]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Haven't the wealthiest few owned most of the wealth from the beginning of time?

I was about to make the same point.  I suspect one could make the argument that such an outcome is natural in human society, at least since the end of the hunter/gatherer era and the beginning of agriculture.

Having said that, it would be interesting to examine data regarding the distribution of wealth in the modern era.  I wonder if and how much the ratios have changed.

[Howard Roark 195]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Not confiscation, but raised taxation and more fair rules for equalization. The system has been purchased by the 1%. it is how they got to their present circumstances. It is fair nor free in any context of the words. We do not have free markets at all. We have highly rigged markets and circumstances that are purchased by and for the 1%. Talking about free markets today is not really relevant. If the price of admission into a market is out of reach of 95% of the market, then it is only "free" to the 5 %. Rules are made to monopolize and institutionalize these disadvantages. Trying to discuss a theoretical makes no sense when the theoretical can no longer exist.

Who did they "purchase" it from? Who created the rules "made to monopolize and institutionalize these disadvantages"? 

Politicians, the very same people you want to fix the "problem" with "raised taxation and more fair rules for equalization". How in the world do you think the people who caused the "problem" will be the best ones to trust to fix it? 

What is your plan sinc the "theoretical" is a waste of time?  What are some of these "fair rules" you believe can be passed? What is the appropriate tax rate?  Are you going to "tax" wealth as well as income?  Since this is not "confiscation", how are you going to get people to pay if there is no threat to their liberty or well being?  You are very concerned with equality measured across all countries, how are you going to institute this world wide? 

  

[DKW 86 7,410]

If you are engaging an enemy that uses tanks, i suggest you get your own tanks or get ready to lose. The ballot box can and will allow for more revolutions. So while I do not for a moment think that the same politicians that are bought and owned by the 1% will ever change, they intuitively wont, then we need to organize and do away with those pols as well...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If you are engaging an enemy that uses tanks, i suggest you get your own tanks or get ready to lose. The ballot box can and will allow for more revolutions. So while I do not for a moment think that the same politicians that are bought and owned by the 1% will ever change, they intuitively wont, then we need to organize and do away with those pols as well...

Love you man but you are fighting a losing battle. History is not on your side by a long shot.

[Howard Roark 195]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If you are engaging an enemy that uses tanks, i suggest you get your own tanks or get ready to lose. The ballot box can and will allow for more revolutions. So while I do not for a moment think that the same politicians that are bought and owned by the 1% will ever change, they intuitively wont, then we need to organize and do away with those pols as well...

And I was being theoretical? Lol

I asked several questions, but I guess you wanted to avoid those. I get it, answers to specifics are hard, sloganeering is much easier. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

And asking for more of the same when it is failing 80%+ doesnt sound like a valid choice to me either.

And Yes, Noone Really Answers Nothing Dialogs... 

[Howard Roark 195]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

And asking for more of the same when it is failing 80%+ doesnt sound like a valid choice to me either.

And Yes, Noone Really Answers Nothing Dialogs... 

Maybe I have not been on this site long enough, but I don't really follow your post. Does it mean you don't answer questions?  Are you just not able or do you just feel above answering? 

Oops there I go again asking questions, my bad.  I thought the point of this forum was political discussion, I guess I misunderstood. Hopefully I did not trigger you. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

Lets see. You have been on here 23 posts worth of content. You refer to "triggering me" like you have been here for years. You use a screen name after a character of Ms Rand's making. Seems just a lil suspicious that maybe all this more than slightly trollish. You remind me of a former poster here that was always trying to out smart everyone on the board. He usually got caught in short order. 

But to answer you directly, Reagan put forth a lot of what Conservatives claim to support these days. However, RR would probably tell you that his ideas worked for that time frame and that just blindly applying them to every situation would not be too bright. I have changed my thinking on this after some real heart wrenching evidence involving people that I love, admire, and respect. Do i want the fed govt to take over everything? Oh no! But we cannot allow the greed machine to run amok either.

Call me a Teddy Roosevelt thinker. We can moderate the bad and promote the good. It is a fine line that must be continually managed. There is no destination. It is a journey.

[Howard Roark 195]

18 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Lets see. You have been on here 23 posts worth of content. You refer to "triggering me" like you have been here for years. You use a screen name after a character of Ms Rand's making. Seems just a lil suspicious that maybe all this more than slightly trollish. You remind me of a former poster here that was always trying to out smart everyone on the board. He usually got caught in short order. 

But to answer you directly, Reagan put forth a lot of what Conservatives claim to support these days. However, RR would probably tell you that his ideas worked for that time frame and that just blindly applying them to every situation would not be too bright. I have changed my thinking on this after some real heart wrenching evidence involving people that I love, admire, and respect. Do i want the fed govt to take over everything? Oh no! But we cannot allow the greed machine to run amok either.

Call me a Teddy Roosevelt thinker. We can moderate the bad and promote the good. It is a fine line that must be continually managed. There is no destination. It is a journey.

Sorry I am not a troll. I don't post anything I don't believe. I abandoned another Auburn site after many years primarily because of the football forum.  This one is much better.

The thing you fail to understand (that our Founding Fathers understood so well) is that humans are easily corruptible especially those who seek public office. We are not governed by angels. The government (i.e. politicians) is actually the primary source of the problems you want it to correct. If any conglomerate has advantages, it is because they "purchased" them from the government.  Please name me one of the companies or individuals who is not intimately involved with the government. 

The government's role should be to ensure free and open markets.  It should block monopolistic behaviors.  It should guarantee execution of contracts and prosecute fraud / other criminal behaviors.  The idea a bunch of politicians will "fairly" redistribute wealth has no precedence in human history.  Limited government is as timeless as human corruption. 

I would be happy to discuss the specific proposals you think would "fairly" redistribute the wealth accumulated by the "1%", if you would just list them. I would love to hear what you think the tax rate would should be and I would really like to hear how you or anyone proposes to make this happen on a worldwide scale. I have never engaged in a debate about this topic where these questions were answered or even explained how it would be different this time unlike all the other times it has been tried. 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

3 hours ago, Howard Roark said:

I would be happy to discuss the specific proposals you think would "fairly" redistribute the wealth accumulated by the "1%", if you would just list them. 

Well, for starters, having a progressive tax rate and an estate tax.

Of course, there's always violent revolution, but that's seldom "fair".

[Howard Roark 195]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, for starters, having a progressive tax rate and an estate tax.

Of course, there's always violent revolution, but that's seldom "fair".

We have both already.  I assume you would want a different rate than currently used, what would it be?

Here is the current breakdown of who pays taxes:

The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans pay 39 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. 

The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.

Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.

 

[homersapien 11,353]

20 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

We have both already.  I assume you would want a different rate than currently used, what would it be?

Here is the current breakdown of who pays taxes:

The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans pay 39 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. 

The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.

Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.

 

You asked for policies that redistribute wealth in a fair way and I gave you two.

Not being an economist, I am not going to address the details as any tax package must be considered as a whole regarding it's effect on the economy and general welfare.  I wouldn't presume the competence in economics to specify such a comprehensive tax plan. 

(Although I do feel fairly competent in recognizing a proposal that doesn't address our economic problems, such as the current GOP tax bill.  It will only make things worse.) 

In principle, I would reduce and/or eliminate corporate taxes and instead, tax corporate dividends and capital gains only after they are distributed.  (But this means personal income tax rates might go up.) Corporations are not people. They are legal mechanisms which serve as machines for economic investment and growth.

Of course, I would also require that corporations get no voice (by contributing money) in politics.

[homersapien 11,353]

19 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

We have both already.  I assume you would want a different rate than currently used, what would it be?

Here is the current breakdown of who pays taxes:

The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans pay 39 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. 

The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.

Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.

 

So what's your point?   

Such a distrubution is exactly what one would expect from a progressive tax system, or even a "flat tax" system for that matter.

You can't expect to operate a functional, capitalistic society based on everyone paying the same amount in taxes. Besides the issue of fairness, it's econonically impossible.  You can't get blood from a turnip.

[Howard Roark 195]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So what's your point?   

Such a distrubution is exactly what one would expect from a progressive tax system, or even a "flat tax" system for that matter.

You can't expect to operate a functional, capitalistic society based on everyone paying the same amount in taxes. Besides the issue of fairness, it's econonically impossible.  You can't get blood from a turnip.

The point is you want progressive tax to "resolve" income inequality, we have a pretty drastic progressive tax now and still you see a problem.  I just wonder how much more do you think would need to be taken from the "top 1%" until income distribution is "fair"?  

[homersapien 11,353]

43 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

The point is you want progressive tax to "resolve" income inequality, we have a pretty drastic progressive tax now and still you see a problem.  I just wonder how much more do you think would need to be taken from the "top 1%" until income distribution is "fair"?  

Nothing will ever "resolve" income inequality.  But a progressive tax minimizes it and is a fair way of funding our government. 

First, the term "fair" is highly subjective (as is the term "drastic").  I would use a term like "healthy" or "optimum" in regards to our society.  The trend in income disparity we have been witnessing is neither healthy or optimum.  

Again, not being an economist, I don't know what rates would be optimum for our economy, but they have been much steeper in the past and we did just fine.

 

[Howard Roark 195]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nothing will ever "resolve" income inequality.  But a progressive tax minimizes it and is a fair way of funding our government. 

First, the term "fair" is highly subjective (as is the term "drastic").  I would use a term like "healthy" or "optimum" in regards to our society.  The trend in income disparity we have been witnessing is neither healthy or optimum.  

Again, not being an economist, I don't know what rates would be optimum for our economy, but they have been much steeper in the past and we did just fine.

 

OK I'll change my question, I agree, "fair" is highly subjective, but I did not introduce it as an economic objective DKW did.  I find it a very dangerous word, but I also find "healthy" and "optimum" subjective as well.  The only way this works is to define a desired state and then discuss how to achieve it.  The problem is the desired state is always described in vague or subjective terms.  That is not actionable.  My point to you was the prescriptions you recommended are already in place, but apparently they are not working as well as some would like.  Without a predetermined acceptable state, the solutions will not ever really fix anything because the bar will keep moving.  Like you said, there will never be income equality, so what is an acceptable level inequality?  Without defining that, you are not proposing a solution, you are just suggesting we punish "rich" people economically because it makes you feel better.   

[homersapien 11,353]

23 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

OK I'll change my question, I agree, "fair" is highly subjective, but I did not introduce it as an economic objective DKW did.  I find it a very dangerous word, but I also find "healthy" and "optimum" subjective as well.  The only way this works is to define a desired state and then discuss how to achieve it.  The problem is the desired state is always described in vague or subjective terms.  That is not actionable.  My point to you was the prescriptions you recommended are already in place, but apparently they are not working as well as some would like.  Without a predetermined acceptable state, the solutions will not ever really fix anything because the bar will keep moving.  Like you said, there will never be income equality, so what is an acceptable level inequality?  Without defining that, you are not proposing a solution, you are just suggesting we punish "rich" people economically because it makes you feel better.   

Do you acknowledge extreme (and growing) wealth disparity as a problem for our society?