The Top Fifth

[BigRedBuster]

OK...if these rich people who wrongfully feel entitled to keep their money and they manipulate the political arena to vote in people who support that, how do people like Clinton and Obama get elected and how do the Democrats get control of any part of Congress?

 

Aren't they the ones looking out for these poor people?

[JJ Husker]

OK...if these rich people who wrongfully feel entitled to keep their money and they manipulate the political arena to vote in people who support that, how do people like Clinton and Obama get elected and how do the Democrats get control of any part of Congress?

 

Aren't they the ones looking out for these poor people?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[JJ Husker]

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.

I agree with this. Poverty has been the natural state of humanity since day one.

 

It's not because this group is rich therefore this other group is poor. I think it's an issue because we have the means and ability to help those who are less fortunate.

[knapplc]

OK...if these rich people who wrongfully feel entitled to keep their money and they manipulate the political arena to vote in people who support that, how do people like Clinton and Obama get elected and how do the Democrats get control of any part of Congress?

 

Aren't they the ones looking out for these poor people?

This sounds like a stereotype Republicans tell themselves about Democrats. It doesn't really work that way.

 

Obama tried, with debatable success, to be a president for all Americans. He wasn't a champion of the poor, and he wasn't interested in redistribution of wealth.

[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.

I agree with this. Poverty has been the natural state of humanity since day one.

 

It's not because this group is rich therefore this other group is poor. I think it's an issue because we have the means and ability to help those who are less fortunate.

 

And that's cool if a person chooses to aid the poor. I do volunteer work from time to time, but nobody should force me to do that (the nature of volunteer work). If I was Bill Gates wealthy I'd set up a foundation like his and help people out, but there's no way a Bill Gates should have to divest his fortune and live a middle-class life so we could give his money to poor people.

 

There are a million reasons people are poor. Some are poor because they lack life skills. You give that person a million dollars and they'll be poor again in five years. You give Bill Gates a million dollars and in five years he'll turn it into two million. It's not his fault those people suck at life, and there's no helping some people (there is helping others, so we should as we can).

[BigRedBuster]

I'm all for examining what systems are in place to allow people to help themselves get out of poverty.

 

However, what happens when someone just refuses to do what it takes to get out of poverty?

Let's say there are systems in place where coal miners were able to get free training for new jobs and if those jobs were in another part of the country, so the government pays for relocation costs.....but the people say..."I'm not doing that because I like being a coal miner and I don't want to move."...even though there are no jobs in that small town.

 

What then? Do we keep pumping more money into the system and keep taxing the wealthy more and more?

 

At what point do we say something isn't working and look in a totally different direction?

[BigRedBuster]

 

OK...if these rich people who wrongfully feel entitled to keep their money and they manipulate the political arena to vote in people who support that, how do people like Clinton and Obama get elected and how do the Democrats get control of any part of Congress?

 

Aren't they the ones looking out for these poor people?

This sounds like a stereotype Republicans tell themselves about Democrats. It doesn't really work that way.

 

Obama tried, with debatable success, to be a president for all Americans. He wasn't a champion of the poor, and he wasn't interested in redistribution of wealth.

 

You're talking one politician there. What about all the times Democrats had control of congress? There was a period like that actually not that long ago.

 

My point isn't that a politician is or isn't fighting for the poor. It's more of....if the rich are pumping all this money into the system and getting their politicians elected, how do the Dems go through periods of power? Remember, in this discussion, we are only talking about the top 20% of the population....thus....20% of the vote.

[knapplc]

I'm all for examining what systems are in place to allow people to help themselves get out of poverty.

 

However, what happens when someone just refuses to do what it takes to get out of poverty?

 

Let's say there are systems in place where coal miners were able to get free training for new jobs and if those jobs were in another part of the country, so the government pays for relocation costs.....but the people say..."I'm not doing that because I like being a coal miner and I don't want to move."...even though there are no jobs in that small town.

 

What then? Do we keep pumping more money into the system and keep taxing the wealthy more and more?

 

At what point do we say something isn't working and look in a totally different direction?

What evidence do you have that the wealthy are bearing a disproportionately heavy tax burden?

[knapplc]

You're talking one politician there. What about all the times Democrats had control of congress? There was a period like that actually not that long ago.

 

My point isn't that a politician is or isn't fighting for the poor. It's more of....if the rich are pumping all this money into the system and getting their politicians elected, how do the Dems go through periods of power? Remember, in this discussion, we are only talking about the top 20% of the population....thus....20% of the vote.

Well, again, you're falling into stereotypes that aren't realities. Democrats don't represent the poor, historically, any more than Republicans represent the rich. And people are herd animals, meaning they'll vote for their team once that team is established. Look at how few people here are willing to abandon the Republican party despite the blatant evidence that under Trump it's unrecognizable from the party Reagan ran, yet most Republicans (Boomers, especially) identify with Reagan more than anyone.

 

Democrats have, as recently as a generation ago, represented wealthy Southerners as much as poverty-stricken inner-city denizens.

[Moiraine]

Americans' belief in meritocracy is part of the reason Trump got elected.

 

"If you work hard you can achieve anything!"

 

Erego, Trump is a genius and hard-working and the best at everything, 'cause how could he not be with all that money?

 

 

And before anyone chimes in, no, I'm not arguing that lots of wealthy people are stupid or lazy. I'm saying it's possible to be stupid lazy and wealthy. (Although I doubt Trump is lazy. I just think he's stupid).

[zoogs]

To knapplc's analogy, if there are unlimited quantities of wealth the world is nonetheless neatly divided into people who have access to it and people who dont. The argument is precisely that the ladder is being pulled up; we work hard to lock in our privileges. If we do not, why are wealth and poverty so sticky? I would have thought, also, that the consequences of growing inequality have been made quite plain: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-16/how-inequality-hurts-the-economy

 

@BRB I think that's part of the point. This article is directed at upper middle-class progressives who resist progressive policies.

 

Things turn ugly, however, when the upper middle class starts to rig markets in its own favor, to the detriment of others. Take housing, perhaps the most significant example. Exclusionary zoning practices allow the upper middle class to live in enclaves. Gated communities, in effect, even if the gates are not visible. Since schools typically draw from their surrounding area, the physical separation of upper-middle-class neighborhoods is replicated in the classroom. Good schools make the area more desirable, further inflating the value of our houses. The federal tax system gives us a handout, through the mortgage-interest deduction, to help us purchase these pricey homes. For the upper middle classes, regardless of their professed political preferences, zoning, wealth, tax deductions and educational opportunity reinforce one another in a virtuous cycle.

 

...Almost all the benefits of 529 plans go to upper-middle-class families. But when President Obama proposed to end the federal tax break in 2015, uproar ensued, and not just from Republicans. Liberal democrats representing affluent districts killed the idea stone dead.

This is perhaps a more specific passage. Basically, we should scrutinize where public resources are going. If we're going to do wealth redistribution at all, the most urgent recipients seems to me to be the neediest. We don't like to think ourselves as complicit in field-tilting, upward-redistribution tactics and in many ways we are the ones opposing the worst offenders. But there are standards that are higher than "be better than the GOP in this area."

[Mavric]

 

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?

 

Not enough +1s for several of your posts but I'll throw my hat in the ring here and say this is the point that a lot of people don't seem to want to look at.

 

In addition, there is already a fairly sizable redistribution of wealth going on. So someone could argue that there should be more, but all that is going to amount to is quibbling over where the line should be drawn.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

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.

I agree with this. Poverty has been the natural state of humanity since day one.

 

It's not because this group is rich therefore this other group is poor. I think it's an issue because we have the means and ability to help those who are less fortunate.

 

And that's cool if a person chooses to aid the poor. I do volunteer work from time to time, but nobody should force me to do that (the nature of volunteer work). If I was Bill Gates wealthy I'd set up a foundation like his and help people out, but there's no way a Bill Gates should have to divest his fortune and live a middle-class life so we could give his money to poor people.

 

There are a million reasons people are poor. Some are poor because they lack life skills. You give that person a million dollars and they'll be poor again in five years. You give Bill Gates a million dollars and in five years he'll turn it into two million. It's not his fault those people suck at life, and there's no helping some people (there is helping others, so we should as we can).

 

 

I feel like we are in an alternate universe where we have inexplicably switched sides and are being forced to argue against the position we normally hold.

And it feels like you might be doing this on purpose to make some kind of point...

Or I'm wrongly expecting a more typical liberal position on this issue from you. IDK but it seems strange and confusing.

 

Dudeguyy and zoogs are going to have to pick up the slack because my heart just isn't in it.

[knapplc]

Wealth inequality itself isn't the problem - it's when those with wealth advantage use that wealth as a weapon against those who don't. I don't think that's largely the case, which is the point I believe BRB & El D are making in this thread.

 

Maybe I'm having trouble thinking outside my own skin. I have a decent middle-class life. I have a friend who has more cars than I have windows in my house, another whose front porch probably cost more than my whole house, and another who lives in a one-bedroom shitbox apartment. We're all pretty equal together, nobody lords themselves over anyone else, and nobody's better than anyone else. The fact is that my wealthier friends are wealthier because they're better at gaining wealth than I am. It's not a skill I have. That doesn't mean I deserve anything from them, it means they're differently skilled.

[Mavric]

To knapplc's analogy, if there are unlimited quantities of wealth the world is nonetheless neatly divided into people who have access to it and people who dont. The argument is precisely that the ladder is being pulled up; we work hard to lock in our privileges. If we do not, why are wealth and poverty so sticky? I would have thought, also, that the consequences of growing inequality have been made quite plain: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-16/how-inequality-hurts-the-economy

 

@BRB I think that's part of the point. This article is directed at upper middle-class progressives who resist progressive policies.

 

Things turn ugly, however, when the upper middle class starts to rig markets in its own favor, to the detriment of others. Take housing, perhaps the most significant example. Exclusionary zoning practices allow the upper middle class to live in enclaves. Gated communities, in effect, even if the gates are not visible. Since schools typically draw from their surrounding area, the physical separation of upper-middle-class neighborhoods is replicated in the classroom. Good schools make the area more desirable, further inflating the value of our houses. The federal tax system gives us a handout, through the mortgage-interest deduction, to help us purchase these pricey homes. For the upper middle classes, regardless of their professed political preferences, zoning, wealth, tax deductions and educational opportunity reinforce one another in a virtuous cycle.

 

...Almost all the benefits of 529 plans go to upper-middle-class families. But when President Obama proposed to end the federal tax break in 2015, uproar ensued, and not just from Republicans. Liberal democrats representing affluent districts killed the idea stone dead.

This is perhaps a more specific passage. Basically, we should scrutinize where public resources are going. If we're going to do wealth redistribution at all, the most urgent recipients seems to me to be the neediest. We don't like to think ourselves as complicit in field-tilting, upward-redistribution tactics and in many ways we are the ones opposing the worst offenders. But there are standards that are higher than "be better than the GOP in this area."

 

This passage is complete construed to foster the author's world-view and is a large basis for the "Scrooge" accusation that you tried to dismiss earlier.