The Top Fifth

[teachercd]

I don't think there is much of any difference between the entitlement of the upper quintile and the entitlement of the lower two quintiles. Both groups feel somewhat entitled, one to the money they earn (even though some of it is due to outsize influence) and the other to others people's money. It's pretty much two sides of the same coin. Once again, the people that don't have a side on that coin, the middle class. They don't reap the benefits of the rich and they don't get the handouts of the poor. It's utopian wishing to think things could be much different.

Very true.

[BigRedBuster]

No.

 

It's pointing out that the Top 5th's advantages are calcified precisely because they work so hard to lock them in. They are buoyed by a myth of meritocracy -- i.e, they gained these advantages through deserved effort and not through holding outsize power over policy in order to benefit their caste. As a result, public policy functions to serve their interests at the expense or ignorance of those below, a fact that does not elude those below the upper middle. This is a natural source of resentment and allowing the cycle to continue is dangerous.

 

"This is offensive" has always struck me as an odd way to dismiss a valid point.

So, it is all about those big mean evil rich people.

[zoogs]

I'm impressed and saddened by your convictions.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm just interpreting what you are typing. I fail to see how it is any other way.

[zoogs]

Yes, it's clear from the start that suspicions of rich-hating are strongly ingrained in you. I don't know why that is; I'll just say that such suspicions are very politically useful for a certain camp.

 

I assure you that I'm not interested in personally demonizing the wealthy. This is all about where public efforts should be going. They should be targeted at where they’re needed most. Instead they’re often used to calcify higher status. The argument made here at least is that this is fact; that we have in place powerful drivers of inequality and social stratification (an example of which, touched upon here, is the legacy-driven Ivy League school) that are hard to remove. With awareness, perhaps, we can work towards replacing and redirecting these efforts.

 

OR we could accept that people just unreasonably have it out for the rich and lock in the status quo.

[JJ Husker]

I don't think that's really comparable. We're talking about one group feeling entitled to the lion's share of public benefits and another group being 'entitled', if you can call it that, to basic necessities and opportunity. If these are two sides of the same coin, it's one heck of an oddly-shaped coin.

 

A fair chunk of the middle class is included in the top quintile, which I think is the point of this article: to say the fairly unpopular thing that much of the middle class does reap public benefits. It's also not wishful thinking to say things could be different, because things are quite different in many places that aren't the United States. This, again, is the point: it does not have to be this way. Equality of opportunity means not locking in the top 5, or 10, or 20% across generations and making it increasingly harder for anyone else to get there.

I think the biggest difference here may be using the word entitled. I think it's a stretch to say that the top 20% feel entitled. They may very well like the status quo but I think the only "entitlement" they may feel is that they earned that money and they are entitled to keep a good portion of it. But yeah, they may not fully acknowledge how much of it came to be their money through circumstance rather than hard work. Alternatively, I think entitled is the perfect word to use for people who get benefits based solely on their circumstance. Not sure what else to call it when they do nothing in return for receiving it. It is simply handed over because of their situation. They want the money supply to continue just the same as the top wants to continue keeping what they earn. Doesn't seem like an odd shaped coin to me.

[zoogs]

It’s odd-shaped because ‘entitled’ suggests a bit of unearned frivolity. Some things are basic human rights and dignities, like healthcare.

 

Also, I think one of the focal points here is how wealth redistribution works. When we ask the Top 1% to pay more of a share, is it right that the Top 20% fights to lock themselves into advantage?

 

There are all these variations of “the poor don’t deserve this” whenever it comes to the halting or rolling back of social programs that mark the United States’ backwardness relative to the rest of the first world.

[knapplc]

When 40% of America's wealthy have inherited their wealth, we can't glom the upper fifth of people into a unit and say they don't feel entitled because they earned their wealth. Those 40% of people feel just as entitled to their wealth as the generational welfare families.

[teachercd]

When 40% of America's wealthy have inherited their wealth, we can't glom the upper fifth of people into a unit and say they don't feel entitled because they earned their wealth. Those 40% of people feel just as entitled to their wealth as the generational welfare families.

I agree...if my family was rich (sadly they are not) I would, when they passed away, feel entitled to that money. I think most of us would. I bet Buffets kids are more than a little pissed that he is going to give away 99% of his wealth when he dies. Do the kids need it? Probably not, but I am sure they want it.

[JJ Husker]

When 40% of America's wealthy have inherited their wealth, we can't glom the upper fifth of people into a unit and say they don't feel entitled because they earned their wealth. Those 40% of people feel just as entitled to their wealth as the generational welfare families.

 

What group in percentages are you referring to by "40% of America's wealthy"?

Is that 40% of the top 5% or what? Just curious so I know what specific group you are referring to.

 

I agree that the upper fifth of people is a wide ranging group and they should not be glommed together. There is a significant difference between the top 2% or 3% and the people who fall in the 80% to 97% range.

[BigRedBuster]

Yes, it's clear from the start that suspicions of rich-hating are strongly ingrained in you. I don't know why that is; I'll just say that such suspicions are very politically useful for a certain camp.

 

I assure you that I'm not interested in personally demonizing the wealthy. This is all about where public efforts should be going. They should be targeted at where they’re needed most. Instead they’re often used to calcify higher status. The argument made here at least is that this is fact; that we have in place powerful drivers of inequality and social stratification (an example of which, touched upon here, is the legacy-driven Ivy League school) that are hard to remove. With awareness, perhaps, we can work towards replacing and redirecting these efforts.

 

OR we could accept that people just unreasonably have it out for the rich and lock in the status quo.

 

 

So, if I write an article and it's published talking about how black people feel entitled to the government programs paid for by other people and how if they would simply work to get off welfare and stop getting hooked on drugs and making 10 babies with 12 dads, do you think I would be labeled racist and people would claim I hate black people?

 

After all, a much higher percentage of black people are sitting home collecting government help than anyone else.

 

As Diaco has pointed out. The way the word "entitlement" is used and other phrases takes away from any real point the author is trying to make. So......someone earning money and wanting to pay as low of taxes as possible to keep as much as possible is suffering from an "entitlement" attitude? If so, almost every single tax payer in the US is suffering from an "entitlement" attitude. I sure do and I'm not ultra rich top 1%er.

 

Now, I'm sure Diaco would also agree that everyone (including the wealthy) should be paying their fair share of the burden. But, when you have 1% of the population that is already paying almost 50% of the income tax in the US , you don't think they have a right to question where that money is being spent? Should they have total control? Hell no. And, they probably should have less control than they do.

 

 

Oh...and I loved your little dig that I'm some how falling into the Republican's trap by feeling this way.

[knapplc]

 

When 40% of America's wealthy have inherited their wealth, we can't glom the upper fifth of people into a unit and say they don't feel entitled because they earned their wealth. Those 40% of people feel just as entitled to their wealth as the generational welfare families.

 

What group in percentages are you referring to by "40% of America's wealthy"?

Is that 40% of the top 5% or what? Just curious so I know what specific group you are referring to.

 

I agree that the upper fifth of people is a wide ranging group and they should not be glommed together. There is a significant difference between the top 2% or 3% and the people who fall in the 80% to 97% range.

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

 

The Forbes top 400 list.

 

There's also this article which talks about the privileges many - but obviously not all - of America's wealthy start off with.

 

http://toomuchonline.org/the-self-made-myth-our-hallucinating-rich/

[JJ Husker]

It’s odd-shaped because ‘entitled’ suggests a bit of unearned frivolity. Some things are basic human rights and dignities, like healthcare.

 

Also, I think one of the focal points here is how wealth redistribution works. When we ask the Top 1% to pay more of a share, is it right that the Top 20% fights to lock themselves into advantage?

 

There are all these variations of “the poor don’t deserve this” whenever it comes to the halting or rolling back of social programs that mark the United States’ backwardness relative to the rest of the first world.

I agree that some things are basic human rights. I would say people are entitled to some basic bare necessities. I would not say that anyone is entitled to unearned frivolity. I guess that is why see a difference in using that word with these groups. IMO, entitlement is not the correct phrase or word to use for people who try to lock in their advantage. It probably amounts to much the same thing but there has to be a better word for it.

 

I think the question is how do we separate the top 1% or 2% from the next 18%. IMO that would be the key to stopping 20% or 40% from fighting for the privilege of the 1% or 2%.

[BigRedBuster]

I don't believe there is anyone in this thread that doesn't believe the majority of the wealthy people in this country started off in a decent position.

[zoogs]

“So, if I write an article and it's published talking about how black people feel entitled to the government programs paid for by other people and how if they would simply work to get off welfare and stop getting hooked on drugs and making 10 babies with 12 dads, do you think I would be labeled racist and people would claim I hate black people?”

 

...yes?

 

I’m not sure why you’re gearing up for this passionate defense of the 1%. To begin with, they not only have the right to question, they’ve the power to change and have used this extensively.

 

Second and more importantly, the focus of this article isn’t on the top 1% but the upper middle class below them — and their demonstrable resistance to policy that would send public help from the top 1% to further below.

 

I don't mean to take a personal dig at you. The idea that the poor are the entitled ones with public policy on their side and that the wealthy are but hapless, unfairly maligned victims is *required* to maintain policy that sustains inequality. The reality is the reverse this. To be clear, I think the challenge this article makes is that resistance is bipartisan. Its strongest language was reserved for progressives -- a challenge to walk their talk.