Wealth Inequality in America

[HuskerShark]

In a capitalist economy, there are going to be people who have great amounts of wealth, those who don't have much of anything, and those who fall somewhere in the middle. There is not a solution because there does not need to be.

I find it amazing, and somehow completely unsurprising that you are championing unfettered greed after debates in other threads. Kinda proves my point though

 

Who's championing greed, and what point would that prove? The reason that the wealthy people are so wealthy is because they are the SOURCE of the money. They either came up with something revolutionary and made a killing off of it (Bill Gates), they run HUGE, multi-national companies (Warren Buffet), or a combination of both. OR they inherited the money/assets from their father, grandfather, great grandfather who fit the other categories. That's all I'm saying. Wealthy people create jobs, middle-class citizens work those jobs, and middle-class citizens go to the store and buy products that were produced by the wealthy people. That's how the world works. Welcome to life.

 

I think the point currently being made is that the "wealthy people create jobs" line is bunk. WE create jobs by purchasing, using, etc. The wealthy people are hoarding their wealth, taking exorbitant salaries from their companies, and then claiming the companies aren't making enough money to pay for Obamacare. They they go around laying off employees, while raking in money most people can't even fathom.

 

There are definitely those types of people - always have been and always will be - but just like all other generalizations that people make, it isn't true for everybody.

[knapplc]

This economics discussion is WAY over my stupid little head. I've followed along with it as best I can, but I suck at economics. The wife is an accountant - she handles the books.

 

My take on this stuff is this: Like Conga (and others) have said, no rich guy is preventing you from getting rich. No corporate owner, no CEO, nobody is stopping you from inventing the Next Big Thing and becoming a gazillionaire. You're stopping you from doing that. So the rich don't need to get poorer. Let them keep their money.

 

However, I agree with portions of the flip side of that, where it's a Bad Thing for the wealthy to amass wealth, then pull up the ladder behind them so others can't. IF (& I don't know if this is happening, but IF) they're lobbying legislators to change the rules to prevent me from amassing my own wealth, wealth I create, then that's a problem. But if they're not... I have bootstraps I can start pulling on, too.

 

I'm no entrepreneur, nor will I ever be. My lot in life is likely to have been a cog from the day I entered the workforce until the day I die. That's on me, not on anyone else. If I don't like it, it's my job to go get more. Nobody needs to give up what they have so I can have a bigger slice of the pie.

[The Dude]

[Conga3]

Listen, we're debating a core tenant of socialism here...something you obviously subscribe to intellectually and emotionally. I'm not going to change you mind here. I would just suggest you question your firm belief in this concept. It's a bit complicated, but there are explanations how "wealth" is generated in an an economy through productivity/efficiency - aka specialization, etc.

you project way too much on me and do nothing to support your points other than bring up odd analogies that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

what exactly is the 'core tenant of socialism'? and why are you always mentioning how arguments have an emotional component? what the hell are you talking about?

 

what i am talking about is tax reform and the unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the richest.

 

This is simply an example of an unintuitive economic principle about productivity/efficiency that everyone experiences. For some (it appears like yourself included) this example is hard to comprehend. It's an oversimplification of a very complex thing (Walmart prices), but it's meant to illustrate how it's all connected.

do not insult my intellect. and i understand what you are saying, what i do not understand is your point. your example is so negligible, if at all existent, i would love to see some empirical evidence of this effect.

 

yes, efficiency saves money, but it does not create money. so what is your gd point?

 

I don't mean to insult your intellect... my wording isn't optimal cause my English ain't so good.

 

I'm trying to explain the position I'm approaching this topic from - which appears different than yours using "odd analogies" cause that's how my odd brain works. I used to share many of the same beliefs and opinions I see you posting in this thread. Over the years I've studied economics (from watching endless hours of Fox News with my eyelids taped open no doubt) and settled on a different school of thought. I'm trying to recreate examples for you that helped me come to my conclusions... They may seem irrelevant to the topic - but they help represent where I'm coming from.

 

It's difficult to understand/comprehend because we simply are approaching these things from different perspectives.

 

Where we differ in beliefs/principles is on the creation of wealth.

 

You've posted several times you believe money/wealth in finite. An amount of wealth exists that and the size of your slice of pie is determined by the size of someone else's slice. When you see a graph like one in the OP, you feel it's "unfair" (keyword for emotional response btw) and while your methods for correcting this perceived problem could be varied and complex, they derive from your core belief that wealth/money is finite.

 

In other words, in order to raise up the poor - the wealthy must be brought down a notch.

 

This is a core tenant/principle/belief that leads to leftist/socialist thinking when considering solutions to the problem.

 

I believe it to be wrong. Wealth in an economy is not finite. It's based on productivity/efficiency of individuals participating within an economic system. There still exists a pie with slices, but the size of the pie isn't finite, and the size of the slices are not wholly dependent on the size of the other slices - although there certainly is a correlation.

 

We probably share a lot of the same disgust for the economic system that is the US economy, but we likely differ on the causes of the problems - and as a result differ on the solutions as well.

 

Where you might consider the capital gains tax to be "unfair" because some individuals seem to pay less in tax than other who make far less... I would disagree - for several reasons...but they are all based on my core belief that wealth is not finite and is created by individuals.

 

---

 

It's my belief that the relative wealth we see moving away from the middle class and into the top earners is based on competitiveness.

 

Among many social reasons, I also believe much of the loss in competitiveness is due to politicians trying to "fix" the economic system to help exactly those that are being hurt.

 

As the central planners try to regulate equal outcomes for individuals on a basis of "fairness", they end up sterilizing a once vibrant aspect of our economy where individuals were allowed to invest their capital in attempts to grow their wealth -- with the risk of losing it all. It's this churning engine of our economy that is responsible for the overall growth in wealth for everyone who participates. It's where individuals lean new skills and become more productive. It's where new methods are found and efficiencies are gained. It's where wealth is generated.

[BigRedBuster]

This economics discussion is WAY over my stupid little head. I've followed along with it as best I can, but I suck at economics. The wife is an accountant - she handles the books.

 

My take on this stuff is this: Like Conga (and others) have said, no rich guy is preventing you from getting rich. No corporate owner, no CEO, nobody is stopping you from inventing the Next Big Thing and becoming a gazillionaire. You're stopping you from doing that. So the rich don't need to get poorer. Let them keep their money.

 

However, I agree with portions of the flip side of that, where it's a Bad Thing for the wealthy to amass wealth, then pull up the ladder behind them so others can't. IF (& I don't know if this is happening, but IF) they're lobbying legislators to change the rules to prevent me from amassing my own wealth, wealth I create, then that's a problem. But if they're not... I have bootstraps I can start pulling on, too.

 

I'm no entrepreneur, nor will I ever be. My lot in life is likely to have been a cog from the day I entered the workforce until the day I die. That's on me, not on anyone else. If I don't like it, it's my job to go get more. Nobody needs to give up what they have so I can have a bigger slice of the pie.

 

 

[sd'sker]

conga3, fair enough. i appreciate your response.

 

simply put, i see this as a tax structure problem that favors the rich at the expense of the not rich. in my view, this threatens the entire economy because the strength of the economy comes from the middle-class. i believe in enlightened self-interest. a tax code that helps the middle-class and requires the rich to pay their share creates a better environment for everyone, including the rich, in the long run. i just worry about the long term economic effect of the disappearing middle-class and the lack of upward mobility.

[sd'sker]

i think this best portrays my concerns:

 

no joke, this was playing at a k-mart recently over the pa. i was so confused, unsure of what year i was in.

[tschu]

I quit watching in the first few seconds when it was 500 people were asked how they though wealth was distributed. I'm sick of this. Wealth is not distributed. It's earned. If you dont like what you earn, then find a way to earn more.

 

No, I didnt watch the entire video and I didnt read any of the thread. The title caugh my eye, and this is my simple opinion. This isnt China or Russia.

Suppose everyone earth was really, really motivated and really really productive. Guess what? There would still be poor people! There is simply not enough money to go around because of the very design of our economic system.

[tschu]

Wealth is absolutely finite. The banks ensure that we are always fighting to pay them back more money than actually exists at any one time.

 

(the money supply itself fluctuates wildly though, just wanna add that before someone points out the obvious)

[BigRedBuster]

You know what? The banks do nothing to you. If the bank is making you pay more money back, it's because YOU walked into their office and borrowed money. It is completely your choice. Believe it or not, but there are people in this country that have ZERO debt and you wouldn't consider them in the top 2%.

 

Fact is, it was their choice to live that way.

 

It's your choice to borrow money. You know another fact, if you borrow money from me you will pay interest too.

[tschu]

You know what? The banks do nothing to you. If the bank is making you pay more money back, it's because YOU walked into their office and borrowed money. It is completely your choice. Believe it or not, but there are people in this country that have ZERO debt and you wouldn't consider them in the top 2%.

 

Fact is, it was their choice to live that way.

 

It's your choice to borrow money. You know another fact, if you borrow money from me you will pay interest too.

This isn't what I was talking about. Was talking about the economy as a whole.. Also if the banks stopped lending, there would be zero money. All money is bank debt.

[BigRedBuster]

Business debt is a very integral part of any economy. It is not evil. Can it be overt used? Hell yes and we saw that recently. But it isn't this evil virus that you make our sound to be.

 

Also......so......the only rich people are banks now because all the money is theirs? Really?

[tschu]

what?

[BigRedBuster]

Yeah......that's what i thought.

[tschu]

i have no idea what you're saying and you have no idea what I'm saying. probably a good place to just end it