OT – Bottom 50% of America holds 1% of wealth

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]
Our extreme wealth distribution is no where near the extreme wealth distribution in asia.

And if you want an example of forcefully trying to redistribute wealth and allowing a bloated government pig, look no further than…Greece..[/quote]

I’m certainly not arguing for forceful redistribution of wealth through allowance of bloated government pig.

the problem of socialism is very apparent. it absolutely creates economic stagnation and for the lack of better word, laziness. the problem of capitalism is also very apparent in that the default is eventually you end up with extreme wealth distribution. and extreme wealth distribution then lead to revolutions.

I don’t think just calling the US the United Socialist States of America really help the matter.

At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.

[an]

[quote=flu]Our extreme wealth distribution is no where near the extreme wealth distribution in asia.

And if you want an example of forcefully trying to redistribute wealth and allowing a bloated government pig, look no further than…Greece..[/quote]
Totally agree. Also keep in mind that a lot of countries in Asia don’t really have a social safety net like we do. So, the poor over there area really poor. The poor over here are living much better than middle class people in Vietnam and Cambodia. While the rich over there have Billions in their Swiss account.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.[/quote]
I’m not sure if extreme wealth distribution is what hurt people. I think the poverty of the people at the bottom was what brought on Vietnam, Cambodia, and other revolutions/wars. I’m pretty sure Communism wouldn’t have taken hold in Vietnam if the North Vietnamese had food, clothing, and jobs. The war didn’t happen because the rich were extreme wealthy. The war happened because the poor in the north were so poor (no food, no job, etc) that they gravitate to what Ho Chi Minh said. I’m almost certain that if they had jobs,food, and clothing, they wouldn’t have bothered with Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit.

[briansd1]

Actually, I think foreign intervention in China, Vietnam, Cambodia is what brought on revolution. Without the destabilizing factors of foreign intervention, there would have been more continuity.

Russia was a different. The aristocracy could have reformed; but they even opposed reform attempts by the Emperor.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ocrenter]
the key is a system in place to prevent the extreme wealth distribution. it is good for everyone, especially the wealthy.[/quote]

That is why estate taxes (yes death taxes) are good. Along with transfer taxes and gift taxes when you start passing wealth thru trusts to the next generation

The republican base are morons on the estate tax issue.

[Hobie]

How can you have a discussion with such a warped way of thinking?

Any why is the govt better qualified to distribute the after tax savings that I earn?

[briansd1]

[quote=no_such_reality]

The republican base are morons on the estate tax issue.[/quote]

considering how so few people pay the estate tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/who.cfm
TPC estimates that 8,600 individuals dying in 2011 will leave estates large enough to require fil-ing an estate tax return (estates with a gross value under $5 million need not file a return in 2011). After allowing for deductions and credits, an estimated 3,270 estates will owe tax. Roughly 90 percent of these taxable estates will come from the top ten percent of income earn-ers and nearly half will come from the top one percent alone (see table).

[KSMountain]

Zimbabwe is trying redistribution of the farms right? How’s that working out?

[flyer]

So true, davelj.

As I know I’ve mentioned before, the net worth stats are alarming–and graphically show the great divide between the “haves” and “have nots.”

There will, no doubt, be a revolution of some kind someday if things continue as they are. That’s why I’m trying to use my wealth to make sure my family and extended family have most of what they’ll need for as long as possible–that’s really all any of us can do.

[davelj]

[quote=Hobie]How can you have a discussion with such a warped way of thinking?

Any why is the govt better qualified to distribute the after tax savings that I earn?[/quote]

Because it’s the government’s enforcement of laws, property rights, etc. that allowed you to accumulate the wealth in the first place?

[To be clear, I don’t think many folks are in favor of high taxes on estates of a few million dollars, but… once you start getting above $10 million – and particularly the really large fortunes – personally I think pretty high tax rates are in order. In the vast majority of cases, after all, you’ll find the government’s fingerprints, in one form or another, all over the accumulation of those fortunes. One wistfully wonders where Mark Zuckerberg and most of the other internet billionaires would be if the government – and our tax dollars – hadn’t developed the internet…]

[an]

[quote=davelj]One wistfully wonders where Mark Zuckerberg and most of the other internet billionaires would be if the government – and our tax dollars – hadn’t developed the internet…][/quote]
They’ll probably be right about where they are. These are truly brilliant guys and if there’s no internet, they’ll just invent something else. After all, Bill Gates got his Billions from Windows, not MSN/Bing.

[Arraya]

The problem gets solved one way or another. From collapsing empires to bloody revolutions. Extreme wealth disparity has marked the end of every empire.

There are a handful of experts on what might be called the holistic, interdependent nature of complex societies. Most with, the exception of Jared Diamond, would classify global capitalism in catabolic collapse already, Diamond thinks western civilization has a 51% change of surviving – I would not be so generous.

[Hobie]

[quote=davelj]Because it’s the government’s enforcement of laws, property rights, etc. that allowed you to accumulate the wealth in the first place?[/quote]

That simply protected what the private party created. Which is a benefit of the tax collected.

Again, why is govt better qualified to distribute earnings? So if they made the road, they didn’t invent the new concept.

[davelj]

[quote=AN][quote=davelj]One wistfully wonders where Mark Zuckerberg and most of the other internet billionaires would be if the government – and our tax dollars – hadn’t developed the internet…][/quote]
They’ll probably be right about where they are. These are truly brilliant guys and if there’s no internet, they’ll just invent something else. After all, Bill Gates got his Billions from Windows, not MSN/Bing.[/quote]

I disagree completely. (And Nassim Taleb is with me here, for what it’s worth.) What I see is a thin layer of very smart, hard working folks – none not particularly different from the others. The only real difference between them is “luck” and the degree of said luck. For example, take the top 25% of the graduating class of Wharton, Harvard Business School, or Pick a Class (the name and major is not important). All of these folks are very smart, motivated and hard working… the dramatic difference in outcomes is largely the result of luck. Some went into the right field, others didn’t; some met the right people, others didn’t, etc. But the great disparity in outcomes between them is not something inherent or the result of “harder work” or “more intelligence,” it’s … luck (or as Taleb would put it, “randomness”).

Even the “winners” will attest to this – they all have stories of many folks who were smarter and harder working then themselves who didn’t end up in the same place.

[davelj]

[quote=Hobie][quote=davelj]Because it’s the government’s enforcement of laws, property rights, etc. that allowed you to accumulate the wealth in the first place?[/quote]

That simply protected what the private party created. Which is a benefit of the tax collected.

Again, why is govt better qualified to distribute earnings? So if they made the road, they didn’t invent the new concept.[/quote]

That’s why the tax isn’t 100%… we all recognize the “individual” played a very important role… but let’s not deceive ourselves into believing that the individual did this on his/her own… it’s preposterous.

[Author]

Posts