The Top Fifth

[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).

 

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.

 

I promise you these are my real, firmly-held (EDIT - but admittedly uneducated on this subject) beliefs. Not trying to trick anyone at all.

 

I just don't see how I'm hurt by Bob the Billionaire. Maybe that's why I'm not a billionaire - I'm too stupid to realize I'm being screwed.

 

But for real, I think I'm doing fine, and some poor people are going to get out of it, and some are going to stay poor because they suck at life. We can't all be wealthy.

[JJ Husker]

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."

 

 

I can admit that this is reality.

We live precisely in the neighborhood where we do because it gave our kids access to the best elementary school in town.

And, when that was no longer the case for middle school (because the town wildly manipulated home school regions to give the poorer kids access to better schools), we open enrolled our kids in what were the best middle school options at the time. Our eldest went across town and our youngest we actually transported to another nearby town. We also opted out of our high school district and open enrolled where we felt the best opportunity was.

We were able to do this primarily because we had the money and time to forego school bus transportation and drive our kids to the best opportunity. Many poorer people don't have that option because they have lower paying, inflexible jobs or no job at all. Walking or riding the bus are their only options.

 

Are we evil or did we do something wrong? All we did was what was in the best interest of our kids and I would do it again a thousand times.

Is this the type of upper class entitlement we are discussing here? It seems it is and I can tell you that it's never going away.

[Mavric]

I can admit that this is reality.

We live precisely in the neighborhood where we do because it gave our kids access to the best elementary school in town.

And, when that was no longer the case for middle school (because the town wildly manipulated home school regions to give the poorer kids access to better schools), we open enrolled our kids in what were the best middle school options at the time. Our eldest went across town and our youngest we actually transported to another nearby town. We also opted out of our high school district and open enrolled where we felt the best opportunity was.

We were able to do this primarily because we had the money and time to forego school bus transportation and drive our kids to the best opportunity. Many poorer people don't have that option because they have lower paying, inflexible jobs or no job at all. Walking or riding the bus are their only options.

 

Are we evil or did we do something wrong? All we did was what was in the best interest of our kids and I would do it again a thousand times.

Is this the type of upper class entitlement we are discussing here? It seems it is and I can tell you that it's never going away.

I don't think it's what's being talked about here - or what's being tried to be talked about here.

 

Because the entire article is based on the premise of the upper class actively making it tougher for anyone in the lower class to join them. That's not at all what you are doing. You're making the best use of the resources you have. Which is what (basically) all people in all classes are doing. You - and many others - happen to have the resources available that allow you to take advantage of situations that others do not. But that's not what the article is talking about.

[zoogs]

Are we evil or did we do something wrong? All we did was what was in the best interest of our kids and I would do it again a thousand times.

There's nothing Scroogey or evil about it.

 

Perhaps let it just be a call to shoulder more responsibility when it comes to social welfare. Something I read in Husker Football recently spoke of acting "for the greater good". A lot of political messaging can be condensed to: "You're getting screwed and I will make the government work better for you." Much of this is targeted towards middle and upper middle class families, who, to be clear, don't have it easy by a long shot.

 

My hope is we'll start demanding more politics that is about making a (limited) government work better for those who are in less position to help themselves. We do have the power to, over time and little by little, direct more public energy towards the needy. This also means the burden to supply these resources do not rest with the 1% alone. It's ludicrous to say "Yeah, we'd need this and that social program and let the multi-millionaires fund it."

 

...some poor people are going to get out of it, and some are going to stay poor because they suck at life. We can't all be wealthy.

Huh. I'm surprised.

[Mavric]

Somewhat tangential question:

 

For those who advocate for "less income inequality", what would be the "ideal" discrepancy between, say, those in the 80th percentile and those in the 20th?

[Moiraine]

 

 

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."

I can admit that this is reality.

We live precisely in the neighborhood where we do because it gave our kids access to the best elementary school in town.

And, when that was no longer the case for middle school (because the town wildly manipulated home school regions to give the poorer kids access to better schools), we open enrolled our kids in what were the best middle school options at the time. Our eldest went across town and our youngest we actually transported to another nearby town. We also opted out of our high school district and open enrolled where we felt the best opportunity was.

We were able to do this primarily because we had the money and time to forego school bus transportation and drive our kids to the best opportunity. Many poorer people don't have that option because they have lower paying, inflexible jobs or no job at all. Walking or riding the bus are their only options.

 

Are we evil or did we do something wrong? All we did was what was in the best interest of our kids and I would do it again a thousand times.

Is this the type of upper class entitlement we are discussing here? It seems it is and I can tell you that it's never going away.

Regardless of whether it's what the article is about, I like this post because it gets to the problem. There is nothing wrong with you doing that.

 

There is something wrong with how schools are funded. I suppose I'm okay with some schools being better than the others, but should some schools have ipads or laptops for students while another can't even provide decent textbooks and have students sharing them? (I read about schools like this recently)

 

Should kids be at a disasvantage at school just because their parents are poor? This could probably lead to a school choice discussion now but I don't know a lot about that. I think I'd prefer it if the crappy schools that had low funding were better funded so kids didn't have to be shipped away.

[JJ Husker]

 

I can admit that this is reality.We live precisely in the neighborhood where we do because it gave our kids access to the best elementary school in town.And, when that was no longer the case for middle school (because the town wildly manipulated home school regions to give the poorer kids access to better schools), we open enrolled our kids in what were the best middle school options at the time. Our eldest went across town and our youngest we actually transported to another nearby town. We also opted out of our high school district and open enrolled where we felt the best opportunity was.We were able to do this primarily because we had the money and time to forego school bus transportation and drive our kids to the best opportunity. Many poorer people don't have that option because they have lower paying, inflexible jobs or no job at all. Walking or riding the bus are their only options. Are we evil or did we do something wrong? All we did was what was in the best interest of our kids and I would do it again a thousand times.Is this the type of upper class entitlement we are discussing here? It seems it is and I can tell you that it's never going away.

I don't think it's what's being talked about here - or what's being tried to be talked about here.Because the entire article is based on the premise of the upper class actively making it tougher for anyone in the lower class to join them. That's not at all what you are doing. You're making the best use of the resources you have. Which is what (basically) all people in all classes are doing. You - and many others - happen to have the resources available that allow you to take advantage of situations that others do not. But that's not what the article is talking about.

I think that is exactly what that article is talking about. People who have an advantage doing everything in their power to maintain that advantage. I'm not ashamed, that is exactly what we did. We had the resources to do it while others do not. In fact, to some degree, we did it to get away from those who couldn't. Maybe not directly just to get away from them but that is basically what it amounted to.

[zoogs]

I don't have a number in mind, though perhaps I'm just not that well-read and academics on income inequality do have optimal numbers proposed in their studies. It seems plain that it's both too high and widening right now. Steps can be taken to at least curb that.

 

We do not merely "happen to have" resources and opportunity. Policy at all levels can and does shape this. Our world is full of policy perks that can be taken advantage of far more by some than others. There's nothing wrong with having a government that works for us; that's what it's supposed to do. But I think it’s a fair question whether these efforts should continue to be concentrated in the areas they are.

 

People who have an advantage doing everything in their power to maintain that advantage. I'm not ashamed, that is exactly what we did.

I don't think there's anything condemnable about this, either. As Mavric said, you have to try and do the best for you with the resources you are given.

 

Collectively, we can try to change the game so it's not quite like this. I don't believe that such a world is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the relative comfort and prosperity the U.S. enjoys.

[Mavric]

I don't have a number in mind, though perhaps I'm just not that well-read and academics on income inequality do have optimal numbers proposed in their studies. It seems plain that it's both too high and widening right now. Steps can be taken to at least curb that.

This is the problem I have with arguments like this. It's easy to talk in vague generalities to try to appeal to people's emotions and get them to think you (general you, not you specifically) just want everything to be sunshine and rainbows. The less you have to actually get down to specifics and talk about what needs to be changed and how, the easier it is to hide behind a great-sounding argument and ignore the reality of the situation.

 

The author does a great job of this in the article.

[zoogs]

You don't need a fixed target point to know what is too high. The disparity statistic is not the problem being addressed. I think you've posited a question that is academically unknowable, and you're using this to enforce a status quo that *has* been evaluated, repeatedly, to be untenable.

[RedDenver]

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.

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth.

 

Somewhat tangential question:

 

For those who advocate for "less income inequality", what would be the "ideal" discrepancy between, say, those in the 80th percentile and those in the 20th?

I don't think it's about the distribution of the wealth, but rather the effects of that distribution. For example, if all children had equal opportunities growing up (food, shelter, education, healthcare), then I don't think the distribution matters. The problem IMO is when those who have the money can create a system in order to keep their money (e.g. pay less taxes) at the expense of the opportunities of others.

[Danny Bateman]

Let me just say that I wouldn't begrudge JJ or anyone else for doing what they think is right for them or their kids. I would do the same thing in that situation. I guess my issue here is less at the individual level and more at the systemic one... particularly as it relates to our democracy.

 

I don't have a problem with people trying to do what's right for their families. I DO have a problem if the ultra-wealthy have a ton of money to dump into elections at many different levels of government in order to back candidates that benefit them personally. It's a bit of a slippery slope argument, because any individual can donate to a politician they think will help them - but the money doesn't go as far as the dark money backing some candidates and we all know it. Occasionally, someone can Ossoff in Georgia or Bernie can compete or come very close to competing with big donor money given to their opponents by way of individual donations, but that's the exception to the rule, IMO.

 

Huge funds rolling in from special interests and wealthy donors is just fundamentally not how our democracy is meant to function, in my estimation. I realize the laws and court opinions that have led us to where we're at and that is completely legal, but I still think it is wrong.

 

Particularly when I see those who I see to be the upward wealth-distributors trying to take forms those on the poorer among us to give to the wealthy without giving much of anything back.

 

A lot of your opinion on this will inevitably depend on where your opinions lie on the Capitalism vs. Socialism spectrum in the first place.

 

Like, as a thought experiment: Trump's taxes. He's incredibly wealthy and they're probably incredibly complicated. Of course we don't actually know. But from what I've read, Trump knows very little about the American income tax structure. He just pays a very good accountant to maximize his savings using whatever credits and tax loopholes available, sometimes resulting in paying effectively 0 by writing off losses.

 

Is that right or wrong? It's entirely subjective.

[Mavric]

You don't need a fixed target point to know what is too high. The disparity statistic is not the problem being addressed. I think you've posited a question that is academically unknowable, and you're using this to enforce a status quo that *has* been evaluated, repeatedly, to be untenable.

 

So what is "too high"?

[Mavric]

 

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.

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth.

 

Somewhat tangential question:

 

For those who advocate for "less income inequality", what would be the "ideal" discrepancy between, say, those in the 80th percentile and those in the 20th?

I don't think it's about the distribution of the wealth, but rather the effects of that distribution. For example, if all children had equal opportunities growing up (food, shelter, education, healthcare), then I don't think the distribution matters. The problem IMO is when those who have the money can create a system in order to keep their money (e.g. pay less taxes) at the expense of the opportunities of others.

 

 

"Pay less taxes" than what?

[zoogs]

So what is "too high"?

This. This is too high. I'm happy to hear your rebuttals in defense of the status quo.

 

When you talk about tax policy, do you ask for a golden number, too? Every time someone proposes that taxes be lowered, do you require a target number or is the mission statement enough?

 

Do you have an ideal number of your own? Inaction is much the same as action -- unless you aren't arguing that the status quo is at an optimum so much as expressing your resistance to the direction of the proposed change, and searching for the easiest ways to try and discredit the author.