The Top Fifth

[BigRedBuster]

So, let's say there is a ranch family in the Sandhills of Nebraska. Their family has raised cattle on that ranch since they homesteaded the place in the late 1800s. For generations their family has worked on the ranch and has built it to be a very large operation. The current generation has kids. Is it a bad thing that those kids feel like they should be able to stay there and take over the ranch and continue that ranch in the family? Is that attitude some type of horrible entitlement? Should the government be doing something to break that "wealth" away from what that family built over generations simply because it's passed from one generation to the next?

[zoogs]

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%.

I think the argument is this: if we want to fight for downward wealth distribution, it's a wrongheaded result if it ends up basically being the Top 1/2% subsidizing the next 18%. If the wealthiest in this country are to shoulder a greater burden, it should be principally to help those at the bottom, not those just below them.

 

And if we subscribe to that principle generally, this means that at least some of that next 18% should be sharing in this burden. It's not the 1% vs the 99%. That conveniently excuses a good deal of the relatively well-off from social responsibility.

 

@BRB, I have no idea where you're going with the ranch family example. Is there anywhere here even the implied threat of government stepping in to prevent a family business from being handed down? We're talking about how in a progressive tax scheme it's not just the 1% that has the tax burden.

[knapplc]

BRB has an "Obama's coming for my guns" mentality when it comes to discussions about wealth.

 

 

You're not the bad guy, BRB. Nobody is saying that. Stand down.

[BigRedBuster]

“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%.

Of course I would be..... as I should be.

 

I just have a real problem with lumping groups of people together in a conversation and somehow pointing out....."yea....we need to go after THOSE guys and we need to somehow stop people from supporting THOSE guys".

[zoogs]

We're not "going after" anybody here. Are we?

 

If I can continue trying to summarize it, it’s “Hey, if you’re in the upper middle, you aren’t exactly the 99%. The 1% is not wronging you. You have your own share of the tax burden relative to the rest of the people in this country."

[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.

 

 

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/

 

 

That is interesting but the Top 400 is hardly applicable to the top quintile or even the top 1%.

In actual percentages the top 400 equates to the top .01% of the top 1%, or the top .0001% (sorry if I lost track of any decimal points there)

Using 350M people as a rough population the top 1% would be 3,500,000 people and this list is the top 400.

 

I did like the baseball analogy of where these top 400 started from though.

35% (140) started in the batters box- lower to middle class beginning (you could say these people earned their riches)

22% (88) started on 1st base- comfortable but not rich (probably shouldn't demonize this group either)

11.5% (46) on 2nd base-inheriting a medium sized business or $1M+

7% (28) on 3rd base-inherited more than $50M

21% (84) on home plate-inherited enough to make the top 400 list

3.5% (14) undetermined

 

Would be interesting to see the baseball break down for the top 1%.

[BigRedBuster]

OK...here is a micro economic true story that sort of sums up my feelings on this.

 

In our little small town we have several families that are very wealthy. They support one hell of a lot of stuff that goes on in this town. Some of it is done publicly and a lot of it is done privately. They even have helped a lot of individual people when needed. They are also very glad to do it.

 

I have also been on committees or in meetings for different projects around the community and when fund raising comes up, inevitably, someone always says...."Well, we know we can get Mr and Mrs. XYZ to pump in a bunch of money for this." Now, every once in a while that Mr. and Mrs. XYZ says "no". Also inevitably that will get out and I will hear someone in the community grumble..."Well, they're just rich and don't want to help pay for this".

 

The XYZs are not sitting back and saying...."Screw them, it's my money and I refuse to let go of it with my grubby little hands because those poor people disgust me". No....it's usually simply because they get so tired of constantly being asked for money instead of trying to come up with some other way of the organization raising the money.

 

How does this all relate to national government and the top 20% or 1%?

 

Let's take healthcare. It seems like every time something came up with funding of the program it's always...."The rich can pay for it". Think about it. It was mandated through employment that employers have health insurance..."Business owners (rich) pay for it.) Oh....people can't afford the premiums???? We'll subsidize the premiums with income tax dollars. So....rich people who pay taxes are going to pay for it. Government needs a lot more record keeping on health care? Oh...yeah...we will just have corporations do that for us (adding cost to business owners).

 

And people are aghast that they fight back over this?

We're talking about the top 80-97% fighting for the top 1%??? That's because that 80-97% feel this too.

 

Something I always respected Clinton and Gore for in office was that they talked A LOT about cutting cost in government and using that as a major point in balancing the budget. That makes it much more palatable to then go say...."Rich, we need to raise your taxes".

 

Back to healthcare. When was the last time anyone saw anyone from Washington actually talking about CUTTING COST OF HEALTHCARE!!!!!! I can't remember the last time that happened.

[zoogs]

@ED - Yes! It’s much easier to focus on just the Top 1%, or the Top 0.1%. But they’re not the only group separating from everyone else.

 

Whether or not the upper middle class supplies resistance to truly progressive policies that redistribute wealth down to the areas where they’re most needed should be objectively evaluable. The article lays out a case with a few examples. The rising and again, calcifying gap … and the general lack of such policies even at state and local levels in the United States suggest this isn’t an imagined phenomenon.

 

This isn’t a character profile. Nobody has suggested the Scroogey characterizations you present; nor is the argument waylaid by anecdotes of personal integrity or charity. The policies favored by the author are dead in the water, by and large, and someone’s to account for this. The other argument is that this is fine. (Is it?)

 

To return to my first paragraph here, is that a problem? Do we combat it, or would that be victimizing some very nice people?

[teachercd]

OK...here is a micro economic true story that sort of sums up my feelings on this.

 

In our little small town we have several families that are very wealthy. They support one hell of a lot of stuff that goes on in this town. Some of it is done publicly and a lot of it is done privately. They even have helped a lot of individual people when needed. They are also very glad to do it.

 

I have also been on committees or in meetings for different projects around the community and when fund raising comes up, inevitably, someone always says...."Well, we know we can get Mr and Mrs. XYZ to pump in a bunch of money for this." Now, every once in a while that Mr. and Mrs. XYZ says "no". Also inevitably that will get out and I will hear someone in the community grumble..."Well, they're just rich and don't want to help pay for this".

 

The XYZs are not sitting back and saying...."Screw them, it's my money and I refuse to let go of it with my grubby little hands because those poor people disgust me". No....it's usually simply because they get so tired of constantly being asked for money instead of trying to come up with some other way of the organization raising the money.

 

How does this all relate to national government and the top 20% or 1%?

 

Let's take healthcare. It seems like every time something came up with funding of the program it's always...."The rich can pay for it". Think about it. It was mandated through employment that employers have health insurance..."Business owners (rich) pay for it.) Oh....people can't afford the premiums???? We'll subsidize the premiums with income tax dollars. So....rich people who pay taxes are going to pay for it. Government needs a lot more record keeping on health care? Oh...yeah...we will just have corporations do that for us (adding cost to business owners).

 

And people are aghast that they fight back over this?

 

We're talking about the top 80-97% fighting for the top 1%??? That's because that 80-97% feel this too.

 

Something I always respected Clinton and Gore for in office was that they talked A LOT about cutting cost in government and using that as a major point in balancing the budget. That makes it much more palatable to then go say...."Rich, we need to raise your taxes".

 

Back to healthcare. When was the last time anyone saw anyone from Washington actually talking about CUTTING COST OF HEALTHCARE!!!!!! I can't remember the last time that happened.

This is a homerun. Period.

 

Working in schools and coaching as long as I have I see the same thing play out when it comes to doing fundraisers. God forbid if certain people don't give...

[TGHusker]

Interesting discussion. Nothing to add at this point so I'll just:

[JJ Husker]

@ED - Yes! It’s much easier to focus on just the Top 1%, or the Top 0.1%. But they’re not the only group separating from everyone else.

 

Whether or not the upper middle class supplies resistance to truly progressive policies that redistribute wealth down to the areas where they’re most needed should be objectively evaluable. The article lays out a case with a few examples. The rising and again, calcifying gap … and the general lack of such policies even at state and local levels in the United States suggest this isn’t an imagined phenomenon.

 

This isn’t a character profile. Nobody has suggested the Scroogey characterizations you present; nor is the argument waylaid by anecdotes of personal integrity or charity. The policies favored by the author are dead in the water, by and large, and someone’s to account for this. The other argument is that this is fine. (Is it?)

 

To return to my first paragraph here, is that a problem? Do we combat it, or would that be victimizing some very nice people?

 

Oh, I think something does need to be done about the widening wealth inequality. I'll return to my previous point about separating the top 1% or 2% from the top 10% or top quintile if we want to make headway on the problem.

 

It may be reasonable to deal with the lower 80% in terms of fifths or quintiles but it does a great disservice to lump the top quintile together. From my point of view, the people in the 80% to 90% range are in a vastly different situation than those in the top 5 or 2 or 1%. If you want to reduce the amount of people advocating for the truly rich then we need to quit demonizing and threatening larger numbers with outrageous tax increases they cannot afford. There probably needs to be about ten more groups within that top quintile if we want to begin a valid discussion. It's mighty easy if you're in the bottom half to just point at the top 20% but many in that group really are not hardly any better off.

 

I'm not sure where I fall but I think it's somewhere in that 80th to 95th percentile and I can tell you that I will absolutely oppose any increase that affects me personally. And I don't say that just as a knee jerk reaction to potentially having to pay more in taxes. I firmly believe that my personal situation is currently overtaxed unfairly. So, if you lump me in with the top 10%, I am going to advocate for that group even though I do believe many in the top 5% should be paying more. And the point BRB made earlier about cost cuts being made part of any tax increase talks, needs to be accepted by a much wider audience as well. IDK, maybe we just have more poverty than we can actually afford....

 

Or maybe in some other's POV I'm just too entitled? If that is really the position people want to take, good luck getting me to change my mind.

[knapplc]

I think something does need to be done about the widening wealth inequality

I'm going to display my ignorance and ask what may be a stupid question: What is the problem with wealth inequality?

 

Unless there's some way the wealthy are actively preventing me from developing my own wealth, how does (for example) Bob being a billionaire affect my life? We shop at different stores and have a largely different lifestyle, but Bob's money, like mine, is basically virtual. We're not on the Gold Standard anymore, and currency is almost nonexistent, so it's not like there's a finite pool of money and Bob has way too much and I don't have enough.

 

When I hear "wealth inequality," it makes me think there's $100 out there, total, and Bob the Billionaire is hoarding $99 of it and all the rest of the knapplc's out there are making do with the other $1. But that's not the case - there isn't just $100, or $1,000 - there's unlimited amounts of money, or nearly so for the purposes of this conversation.

 

How is that not the case, and how am I drastically misunderstanding this? Can't Bob have billions and billions and I can have my tens and tens and we all just live our happy lives?

[JJ Husker]

 

I think something does need to be done about the widening wealth inequality

I'm going to display my ignorance and ask what may be a stupid question: What is the problem with wealth inequality?

 

Unless there's some way the wealthy are actively preventing me from developing my own wealth, how does (for example) Bob being a billionaire affect my life? We shop at different stores and have a largely different lifestyle, but Bob's money, like mine, is basically virtual. We're not on the Gold Standard anymore, and currency is almost nonexistent, so it's not like there's a finite pool of money and Bob has way too much and I don't have enough.

 

When I hear "wealth inequality," it makes me think there's $100 out there, total, and Bob the Billionaire is hoarding $99 of it and all the rest of the knapplc's out there are making do with the other $1. But that's not the case - there isn't just $100, or $1,000 - there's unlimited amounts of money, or nearly so for the purposes of this conversation.

 

How is that not the case, and how am I drastically misunderstanding this? Can't Bob have billions and billions and I can have my tens and tens and we all just live our happy lives?

 

Simplistically, because those tens and tens may not be enough for you to actually live your happy life. It's pretty obvious the detrimental affects of poverty on society. Substandard schools, crime, etc. I think there are plenty of people in this country who do not have the basic necessities. And I think there are some who have way more than needed.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask if you want a very aggressive defense of wealth transfer and socialist policies. Zoogs....

[Danny Bateman]

 

I think something does need to be done about the widening wealth inequality

I'm going to display my ignorance and ask what may be a stupid question: What is the problem with wealth inequality?

 

Unless there's some way the wealthy are actively preventing me from developing my own wealth, how does (for example) Bob being a billionaire affect my life? We shop at different stores and have a largely different lifestyle, but Bob's money, like mine, is basically virtual. We're not on the Gold Standard anymore, and currency is almost nonexistent, so it's not like there's a finite pool of money and Bob has way too much and I don't have enough.

 

When I hear "wealth inequality," it makes me think there's $100 out there, total, and Bob the Billionaire is hoarding $99 of it and all the rest of the knapplc's out there are making do with the other $1. But that's not the case - there isn't just $100, or $1,000 - there's unlimited amounts of money, or nearly so for the purposes of this conversation.

 

How is that not the case, and how am I drastically misunderstanding this? Can't Bob have billions and billions and I can have my tens and tens and we all just live our happy lives?

 

 

I think the counter-argument is that Bob has enough resources to shape the policies the government institutes to his benefit. By throwing big money around to help elect specific representatives with policy planks he agrees with, he thus shapes the Congressional makeup to his liking.

 

It may seem fine in the interim, but if the cycle repeats itself long enough, that gap is going to just continue to widen. That leaves Bob and the other Bobs out there to continue pouring their disproportionate resources back in, thus worsening the feedback loop. Some people aren't comfortable with that going on while watching others struggle to eat, afford healthcare or can't send their kids to decent schools. It's hard to watch the pols Bob support just ignore that latter group or actively take from them in order to help the Bobs.

[knapplc]

I don't think people in poverty are there because wealthy people are wealthy is what I'm saying. Maybe there are wealthy people pulling the ladder up behind them after they've climbed up, but in general I don't think that's the case. They're not rich because we are poor, and we aren't poor because they're rich.