Jump to content

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


DKW 86

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

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

 

Not necessarily.  The investor class in this country is larger than it ever has been.  The wealthiest people in this country are almost exclusively people who earned the money.  Both of those measures indicate to me that the access to wealth is not determined at birth, and is largely a product of your individual efforts. As long as that does not change, the problem is not as serious as portrayed. 

The fact government controls so much control over commerce opens it up to manipulation by those controlling wealth does concern me.  

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. - P. J. O'Rourke

Will you now answer my questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





2 hours ago, Howard Roark said:

Not necessarily.  The investor class in this country is larger than it ever has been.  The wealthiest people in this country are almost exclusively people who earned the money.  Both of those measures indicate to me that the access to wealth is not determined at birth, and is largely a product of your individual efforts. As long as that does not change, the problem is not as serious as portrayed. 

The fact government controls so much control over commerce opens it up to manipulation by those controlling wealth does concern me.  

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. - P. J. O'Rourke

Will you now answer my questions?

If you don't believe there's a problem, why are you nagging me for solutions?

I explained why I am not responding to your questions regarding specifics - such as what rates I think are appropiate.  I am not qualified to do that.  Why is that so difficult for you to accept?  You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight.

Instead, you need to examine the base question, which is the effect of extreme income and/or wealth disparity on our society.  There's plenty on the subject if you just look.  

And if you don't see a problem, there's certainly no point in hounding me for my ideal tax rate. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting table that provides a little perspective on the history of the highest marginal income tax rate.   (Not to suggest taxes are the only solution.)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/taxfacts/content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you don't believe there's a problem, why are you nagging me for solutions?

I explained why I am not responding to your questions regarding specifics - such as what rates I think are appropiate.  I am not qualified to do that.  Why is that so difficult for you to accept?  You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight.

Instead, you need to examine the base question, which is the effect of extreme income and/or wealth disparity on our society.  There's plenty on the subject if you just look.  

And if you don't see a problem, there's certainly no point in hounding me for my ideal tax rate. :-\

You joined the conversation on your own. Sorry you don't like being asked to present well thought out arguments. 

The real problem I have is people throwing out meaningless statements about income disparity and wealthiest 1%, etc.  Income redistribution is incredibly bad and dangerous. When done without any real defined goal it can be catastrophic. History has numerous lessons. Read those books for a change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

You joined the conversation on your own. Sorry you don't like being asked to present well thought out arguments. 

The real problem I have is people throwing out meaningless statements about income disparity and wealthiest 1%, etc.  Income redistribution is incredibly bad and dangerous. When done without any real defined goal it can be catastrophic. History has numerous lessons. Read those books for a change. 

What banal thinking.  :no:

This isn't about socialism.  It's about the difference between a democracy and a plutocracy. This country can not survive without a middle class.  It would behoove us to understand why our's is disappearing.

And frankly, I don't care if you have a "real problem" with understanding that or not.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

What banal thinking.  :no:

This isn't about socialism.  It's about the difference between a democracy and a plutocracy. This country can not survive without a middle class.  It would behoove us to understand why our's is disappearing.

And frankly, I don't care if you have a "real problem" with understanding that or not.  

 

 

Your theory is the middle class is disappearing because the "1%" is hording cash?  First there is not a fixed pool of money that we are all trying to get, the economy actually grows. The piece of pie economic view is ridiculous. Second where did the manufacturing jobs go? Well unions, lawsuits, and heavy handed regulations chased them overseas. Those are all major tenants of the Democrat's platform. Finally the government has deincentivized work to the point almost 50% don't even have an income tax liability. 

Fleecing the rich is not going to fix any of that. 

If you don't care, why are you continuing to engage on the subject?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Howard Roark said:

Your theory is the middle class is disappearing because the "1%" is hording cash?  First there is not a fixed pool of money that we are all trying to get, the economy actually grows. The piece of pie economic view is ridiculous. Second where did the manufacturing jobs go? Well unions, lawsuits, and heavy handed regulations chased them overseas. Those are all major tenants of the Democrat's platform. Finally the government has deincentivized work to the point almost 50% don't even have an income tax liability. 

Fleecing the rich is not going to fix any of that. 

If you don't care, why are you continuing to engage on the subject?

 

My "theory" is that you are an ignorant jerk. :-\ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

My "theory" is that you are an ignorant jerk. :-\ 

Gosh how can respond to such a well reasoned argument?

How about ...

I know you are but what am I?

Or ...

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Are your arguments so shallow all you are left with after a few brief exchanges is elementary school level name calling?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 8:07 AM, Howard Roark said:

Gosh how can respond to such a well reasoned argument?

How about ...

I know you are but what am I?

Or ...

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Are your arguments so shallow all you are left with after a few brief exchanges is elementary school level name calling?  

Well how about this:

First, you dismiss the proposition that a severe and growing wealth distribution is at least a long term threat to our economic system. To me, this is so self-evident that shear common sense would dictate it be recognized. Such a growing wealth disparity necessarily implies a trend toward an oligarchy if not an outright plutocracy, which is the basis of violent political upheaval (aka as revolution).

On a more prosaic basis, wealth disparity affects everyone in terms of crime rate and the number of people who depend on the social safety net. Although one can make the argument that income disparity is not the problem, the problem is simply poverty.

The immediate problem associated with wealth disparity is the damping effect it has on economic growth. Growth cannot occur without a relatively large consuming class, aka, the middle class.

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of doubt in calling you ignorant, assuming you hadn't educated yourself to these facts. But, in hindsight, it's pretty much common sense, so maybe your problem isn't ignorance, but something else.

Secondly, you insist on attributing exaggerated characterizations of my position - i.e.: “soaking the rich”, "Your theory is the middle class is disappearing because the "1%" is hording cash?" - when in fact, I simply pointed out that our tax system should be more progressive than it currently is.

Even Warren Buffet agrees with that (search “Buffet secretary”). I also provided data that demonstrates we have had much higher maximum marginal tax rates during periods of prosperity in the past, which indicates tweaking the rates is not a radical proposition. Regardless, such insistence on attributing such exaggerated positions to your opponent during the course of a debate is the tactic of a weaseling jerk. The proper response is to confirm or ask for clarification, not rephrase it in your own terms.

And I never suggested “income redistribution” forms the basis of what I think we should do. Changing the tax rates to reflect what I (and Warren Buffet) feel would be a more just distribution of the tax burden is not an endorsement of confiscatory political systems you allude to. In fact, I see it as more of an effort to reduce the deficit than to reward the poor.

Any general plan to reverse the trend in wealth disparity will include a large number of elements, including education, training and health care. Other policy examples could include establishing mandatory retirement savings accounts, encouraging emergency savings accounts by linking them to tax savings and providing credits to first time home buyers to encourage more poor and minority families to buy homes. Perhaps we need to look at ways to mitigate the effects of free global trade. Companies are not being driven out by unions (which can be argued created the middle class in this county in the first place. They are pursuing dirt cheap manufacturing wages common in less developed countries.

All of the above is presented in the context of Republican “trickle-down” tax policy which assumes that if rich people are made even richer, they will create jobs even though the consumer demand doesn't exist. If such a demand existed, they would be creating jobs now. Corporate profits are already at a record high. The reason jobs aren't being created is lack of demand. The only way to stimulate the economy is from the bottom up, by focusing tax cuts on the poor and middle class. That would perhaps improve our rate of upward mobility which currently lags behind many of our democratic peers. That is even more disturbing than income disparity.

 

References:

http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/case-studies/consequences-economic-inequality

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-corrosive-impact-of-the-wealth-gap/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/#43256e4463d9

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/12/18/101790/as-income-inequality-rises-americas-middle-class-shrinks/

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well how about this:

First, you dismiss the proposition that a severe and growing wealth distribution is at least a long term threat to our economic system. To me this is such a self-evident fact that shear common sense would dictate it be recognized. Such a growing wealth disparity necessarily implies a trend toward an oligarchy if not an outright plutocracy which is the basis of violent political upheaval (aka as revolution).

On a more prosaic basis wealth disparity affects everyone in terms of crime rate and the number of people who depend on the social safety net. One can make the argument that income disparity is not the problem, the problem is simply poverty.

The immediate problem associated with wealth disparity is the damping effect it has on economic growth. Growth cannot occur without a relatively large consuming class, aka, the middle class.

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of doubt in calling you ignorant, assuming you hadn't educated yourself to this fact. But, in hindsight, it's pretty much common sense, so maybe your problem isn't ignorance, but something else.

Secondly, you insist on attributing exaggerated characterizations of my position - i.e.: “soaking the rich”, "Your theory is the middle class is disappearing because the "1%" is hording cash?" - when in fact, I simply pointed out that our tax system should be more progressive than it currently is.

Even Warren Buffet agrees with that (search “Buffet secretary”). I also provided data that demonstrates we have had much higher maximum marginal tax rates during periods of prosperity in the past, which indicates tweaking the rates is not a radical proposition. Such insistence on attributing such exaggerated positions to your opponent during the course of a debate is the tactic of a weaseling jerk. The proper response is to confirm or ask for clarification, not rephrase it in your own terms.

And I never suggested “income redistribution” forms the basis of what I think we should do. Changing the tax rates to reflect what I (and Warren Buffet) feel is a more just distribution of the tax burden is not an endorsement of confiscatory political systems you allude to. In fact, I see it as more of an effort to reduce the deficit than to reward the poor.

Any general to reverse the trend in wealth disparity will include a large number of elements, including education, training and health care. Other policy examples could include establishing mandatory retirement savings accounts, encouraging emergency savings accounts by linking them to tax savings and providing credits to first time home buyers to encourage more poor and minority families to buy homes. Perhaps we need to look at ways to mitigate the effects of free global trade. Companies are not being driven out by unions (which can be argued created the middle class in this county in the first place. They are pursuing dirt cheap manufacturing wages common in less developed countries.

All of the above is presented in the context of Republican “trickle-down” tax policy which assumes that if rich people are made even richer, they will create jobs even though the consumer demand doesn't exist. If such a demand existed, they would be creating jobs now. Corporate profits are already at a record high. The reason jobs aren't being created is lack of demand. The only way to stimulate the economy is from the bottom up, by focusing tax cuts on the poor and middle class. That would perhaps improve our rate of upward mobility which currently lags behind many of our democratic peers. That is even more disturbing than income disparity.

 

References:

http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/case-studies/consequences-economic-inequality

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-corrosive-impact-of-the-wealth-gap/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/#43256e4463d9

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/12/18/101790/as-income-inequality-rises-americas-middle-class-shrinks/

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

 

homey, that was very well done, I wont even quibble about he small stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:07 AM, Howard Roark said:

Gosh how can respond to such a well reasoned argument?

How about ...

I know you are but what am I?

Or ...

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Are your arguments so shallow all you are left with after a few brief exchanges is elementary school level name calling?  

Amen bro. You're relatively new in this forum but you caught on to homie in a hurry. Of course that's pretty easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Amen bro. You're relatively new in this forum but you caught on to homie in a hurry. Of course that's pretty easy.

I think he should ignore me.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether someone accumulates wealth or not in a prosperous country like the US is in large part their own decision.  I know that sounds uncaring and lacking in empathy for the non wealthy, but some people are savers and some people aren't. From my own family experience, I have seen my siblings and my dad make much more $ than I did but they hardly accumulated any wealth. They are spenders.  They get money, they spend it.  Then there is the little brother (me) that was always a saver and now at 55, is in the top 6% of wealth holders in the US.  If I kept working, I could probably become part of the despised and evil rich people so many complain about but I have enough to keep me happy so I don't really have to work anymore.  I worked for about 30 years, continued to educate myself, especially on financial matters, saved/invested my money, lived modestly, and stayed married.  In the interest of full disclosure, I will add that I have inherited 79K over the years, which is more than I earned from working in any given year.  My wife worked and cracked 100K in her last two or three years of work and we each took two years off to raise our son while the other spouse kept working.  The wife has been retired now for almost 5 years.  I taught my 21 year old son what I have learned.  He will make mistakes as I did but on the verge of turning 22, after four years in the military, he has a net worth higher than 40% of Americans.  I helped him along the way but he has made many good decisions (also made his share of boners) that have increased his wealth rather than decrease it.  He is a saver.

The point of all this is to say that wealth accumulation in a prosperous, capitalist country is in large part the result of each individual's efforts.  Most (80%) millionaires in the US, are first generation.  They got there by working hard, living below their means and investing in themselves (education) and/or in equities.  If you redistributed all the wealth in the US to all the citizens today, the majority of the wealth in the US would be back in the hands of the savers in one generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ikubak said:

Whether someone accumulates wealth or not in a prosperous country like the US is in large part their own decision.  I know that sounds uncaring and lacking in empathy for the non wealthy, but some people are savers and some people aren't. From my own family experience, I have seen my siblings and my dad make much more $ than I did but they hardly accumulated any wealth. They are spenders.  They get money, they spend it.  Then there is the little brother (me) that was always a saver and now at 55, is in the top 6% of wealth holders in the US.  If I kept working, I could probably become part of the despised and evil rich people so many complain about but I have enough to keep me happy so I don't really have to work anymore.  I worked for about 30 years, continued to educate myself, especially on financial matters, saved/invested my money, lived modestly, and stayed married.  In the interest of full disclosure, I will add that I have inherited 79K over the years, which is more than I earned from working in any given year.  My wife worked and cracked 100K in her last two or three years of work and we each took two years off to raise our son while the other spouse kept working.  The wife has been retired now for almost 5 years.  I taught my 21 year old son what I have learned.  He will make mistakes as I did but on the verge of turning 22, after four years in the military, he has a net worth higher than 40% of Americans.  I helped him along the way but he has made many good decisions (also made his share of boners) that have increased his wealth rather than decrease it.  He is a saver.

The point of all this is to say that wealth accumulation in a prosperous, capitalist country is in large part the result of each individual's efforts.  Most (80%) millionaires in the US, are first generation.  They got there by working hard, living below their means and investing in themselves (education) and/or in equities.  If you redistributed all the wealth in the US to all the citizens today, the majority of the wealth in the US would be back in the hands of the savers in one generation.

I agree 100%. 

That's exactly why I oppose taxing wealth instead of income - with the excepton of the inheritence tax, which has an exemption of $11 million.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 10:45 AM, homersapien said:

Well how about this:

First, you dismiss the proposition that a severe and growing wealth distribution is at least a long term threat to our economic system. To me, this is so self-evident that shear common sense would dictate it be recognized. Such a growing wealth disparity necessarily implies a trend toward an oligarchy if not an outright plutocracy, which is the basis of violent political upheaval (aka as revolution).

The problem with having government decide how money should be distributed is  "self-evident"  and backed by history.  The trust you and others put in a ruling class to decide our economic fortunes is at best foolish, at worst dangerous. 

On a more prosaic basis, wealth disparity affects everyone in terms of crime rate and the number of people who depend on the social safety net. Although one can make the argument that income disparity is not the problem, the problem is simply poverty.

The immediate problem associated with wealth disparity is the damping effect it has on economic growth. Growth cannot occur without a relatively large consuming class, aka, the middle class.

Your previous comment was more accurate, the problem is poverty and not wealth distribution.  The "social safety net" has increased dramatically in this country at the same time wealth disparity has grown. The primary predictor of poverty in this country is being in a single parent home.  There is a lot of merit to the argument that safety nets instituted in the 1960s disincentivize the family structure that is so important to preventing poverty. 

Your implication that wealth distribution is CAUSING a shrinking middle class  is more correlation than causation.  Again it is the idea of an economic pie that if I have more, you have less that is completely wrong.  The most important question is social mobility.  If people have the opportunity to grow economically and choose not to, how can you blame those who do choose to grow? As stated in this Harvard study:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/01/new_harvard_study_where_is_the_land_of_opportunity_finds_broken_families.html

Finally, consistent with the diagnosis of Messrs. Obama and Krugman, Chetty and his team note that income inequality within communities is correlated with lower levels of mobility. However, its predictive power—measured in their study by a Gini coefficient—is comparatively weak: According to their results, in statistical models with all of the five factors they designated as most important, economic inequality was not a statistically significant predictor of absolute or relative mobility.

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of doubt in calling you ignorant, assuming you hadn't educated yourself to these facts. But, in hindsight, it's pretty much common sense, so maybe your problem isn't ignorance, but something else.

Really, more name calling? 

Secondly, you insist on attributing exaggerated characterizations of my position - i.e.: “soaking the rich”, "Your theory is the middle class is disappearing because the "1%" is hording cash?" - when in fact, I simply pointed out that our tax system should be more progressive than it currently is.

Almost 50% of the population pays nothing in income tax as it is.  The top 1% of income earners pays more than the bottom 95%.  How much more progressive does it need to be? I know you are no expert, so how much would it need to be for you to feel it is enough, because tax policy is not going to change anything? 

Even Warren Buffet agrees with that (search “Buffet secretary”). I also provided data that demonstrates we have had much higher maximum marginal tax rates during periods of prosperity in the past, which indicates tweaking the rates is not a radical proposition. Regardless, such insistence on attributing such exaggerated positions to your opponent during the course of a debate is the tactic of a weaseling jerk. The proper response is to confirm or ask for clarification, not rephrase it in your own terms.

Right, I should just call you names.  Again correlation is not causation.  Ignoring all of the other issues effecting growth during those times, what matters is the effective tax rate.  When the top marginal rate was 70%, the effective rate was still very low.  What would happen if you significantly raised the effective rate?

1aaa.png

And I never suggested “income redistribution” forms the basis of what I think we should do. Changing the tax rates to reflect what I (and Warren Buffet) feel would be a more just distribution of the tax burden is not an endorsement of confiscatory political systems you allude to. In fact, I see it as more of an effort to reduce the deficit than to reward the poor.

So you believe the debt is the primary diver of poverty in this country?  I ask this because my assumption is you want wealth disparity resolved by raising the bottom rung up and not just lower the top rung. If my assumption is right, what makes you think politicians will spend it on debt reduction and not funnel it to cronies like the "stimulus" under Obama? I maintain we have a spending problem in this country and not a taxing problem.  I would not give Congress more money spend until they can demonstrate they can responsibly manage what they currently get. 

Any general plan to reverse the trend in wealth disparity will include a large number of elements, including education, training and health care. Other policy examples could include establishing mandatory retirement savings accounts, encouraging emergency savings accounts by linking them to tax savings and providing credits to first time home buyers to encourage more poor and minority families to buy homes. Perhaps we need to look at ways to mitigate the effects of free global trade. Companies are not being driven out by unions (which can be argued created the middle class in this county in the first place. They are pursuing dirt cheap manufacturing wages common in less developed countries.

Other than the comment about Unions, I have no issue with these ideas, but everything should be on the table.  You can't have a solution to the problems when one party argues against entitlement reform by running a commercial with the Speaker of the House pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff. So I do think the idea we could get anything near what you posted is a pipe dream. 

All of the above is presented in the context of Republican “trickle-down” tax policy which assumes that if rich people are made even richer, they will create jobs even though the consumer demand doesn't exist. If such a demand existed, they would be creating jobs now. Corporate profits are already at a record high. The reason jobs aren't being created is lack of demand. The only way to stimulate the economy is from the bottom up, by focusing tax cuts on the poor and middle class. That would perhaps improve our rate of upward mobility which currently lags behind many of our democratic peers. That is even more disturbing than income disparity.

No the idea behind trickle down economics is if you let people / corporations keep more of their own money, the economy will expand and grow more jobs. When capital is freed up it will create wealth.  Investment cannot happen when taxes a regulation tie it up.  Jobs are created by those with money when they invest in growth.  You might want to read Hayek.  

References:

http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/case-studies/consequences-economic-inequality

The consequences listed or the result of poverty so the basic tenet is that income inequality causes poverty.  The number one driver is family make up, not income inequality.  One note, how bad are things in America when one of the problems listed is that people below the poverty suffer from obesity. I bet there are a bunch of countries that wish they had that problem. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-corrosive-impact-of-the-wealth-gap/

Again it is about poverty not income disparity.  But one point, the numbers they use talk about world wide income inequality.  Comparing economics across countries is full of problems.  Lumping high population third world countries in with first world countries is intended to create big disparities that everyone knows cannot be addressed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/#43256e4463d9

Does not open

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/12/18/101790/as-income-inequality-rises-americas-middle-class-shrinks/

Think Progress is a political organization with an open leftist agenda.  Did not bother to read it. 

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

I went and read the report this article is based on and they talked about all the same themes contributing to poverty - race, income, education - but they never discussed the family's make up impact on income.  The basic tenet is if the dad is successful, then the child will be.  Of course that ignores so many factors they cannot be listed. 

Looking only at an outcome does not get to a root cause.  The overall theme of these articles is that there is income disparity and there is poverty.  I don't see anything showing income disparity is the cause of poverty only income disparity has risen and poverty is bad.  Great I can overlay increased government spending on social programs with the break down of the family, and if broken families are the biggest predictor of poverty, by the logic of these articles we can say government safety nets re causing poverty. 

 

See my inline comments above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

I agree 100%. 

That's exactly why I oppose taxing wealth instead of income - with the excepton of the inheritence tax, which has an exemption of $11 million.  

Won't that disincentivize investment? It would also push capital accumulation off shore. There are serious consequences to all of these policies.  Wouldn't you be better served by a consumption tax on non necessities? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...