Wealth Inequality in America....

[Hoog]

Why? So you can go all "Sea Six" on me?

Originally Posted by Sea Six

The problem is, who gets to decide how much is too much for someone to earn?

It is an individual's decision on how much is "enough", based on his or her own moral compass. What they do past that threshold is also their decision...reinvest, donate, sponsor....hoard. I think those decisions are a measure of one's morality.

It's also human nature (I suppose) that we will look at others and decide if they are "doing it right".

Is it clear now why I'm not biting on the rest?

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Hoog

Why? So you can go all "Sea Six" on me?



It is an individual's decision on how much is "enough", based on his or her own moral compass. What they do past that threshold is also their decision...reinvest, donate, sponsor....hoard. I think those decisions are a measure of one's morality.

It's also human nature (I suppose) that we will look at others and decide if they are "doing it right".

Is it clear now why I'm not biting on the rest?

Forcibly taking something wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is the height of immorality in my opinion.

[Ol Timer]

Where in that study is the statistic that shows how much the top category of the wealthy contribute to charities, have charitable foundations, plow into the economy, etc?

Who gets to decide how much we should earn?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Also, I don't bemoan a CEO making millions. They have BIG responsibilities.

I have a problem with that 1%? that is on the right there, the ones off the charts.....they are the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, DuPonts, Fords, etc of the world, toss in a few other names, Pew, Mellon, Hurst......Hell, you maybe even include someone like Gene Autrey the singing cowboy of decades past, he owned about 1/2 the state of Ca. by time he kicked...they set up good, BET on it.....

and it's not so much ownership which they DO, it's the iron fisted control they have, interlocking directorates, holding companies, and so it is NOT going to change, they have WAY to many corporate lawyers and upper level accountants that even IF the infamous K st. NW Wash DC, turned on them, with congress, there is nothing DC can DO to change a damn thing...

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Forcibly taking something wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is the height of immorality in my opinion.

Who would argue this point except perhaps Coool?

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Ol' Timer

Who gets to decide how much we should earn?

Oh, you were wondering that too, huh?

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Who would argue this point except perhaps Coool?

You can say THAT again.

[Hoog]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

Forcibly taking something wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is the height of immorality in my opinion.

I tend to lean that way, but only to a point. Do you believe in social programs at any level? Is Medicaid immoral (for example)?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

Forcibly taking something wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is the height of immorality in my opinion.

I agree with your statement, as it exists, BUT when the richest families pass down power and control for hundreds of years, like the Rothschilds of Europe banking fame, they eventually own 1/2 of Europe, like the Rockefellers and others do HERE, these families are largely intermarried these days, it's not the MONEY, it's the power/influence and iron fisted control....like I said before....

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Hoog

I tend to lean that way, but only to a point. Do you believe in social programs at any level? Is Medicaid immoral (for example)?

I believe that there should be no Federal programs at all that are wealth redistributors using money taken forcibly.

Private churches and charities, using donations that are freely given, should take care of the needy, after their own families have done all they can to help.

[Kevin_73]

In the end this entire issue comes down to just one word: Fairness

Life is not fair and it never will be, but for some reason liberals continually try to "even the playing field".

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

Forcibly taking something wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is the height of immorality in my opinion.

And there lies the problem with your side.

You see that every single wealthy person has "earned" their money. The reality is that the wealthy have access and many of them pay to rig the system in their favor.

Take the recent Hostess fiasco for example. When that story broke last year almost all of the people posting in the thread immediately blamed the union for destroying that company. Never mind that every one of Hostess's competitors were also unionized, that Hostess had essentially stolen money from the employee pension fund to hand out million dollar bonuses to its executives, and that creditors were complaining to the bankruptcy judge not about the employees, but the management.

Take the housing bubble as another example. Thousands of Wall Street brokers packaged up bad loans, lied about their values and then sold them for billions in profit knowing full well their actions would destroy the life savings of millions of Americans invested in the stock market. Not a one of them paid a nickel of that money back or spent so much as a minute in a jail cell.

But then lets look at where the vast majority of the wealthy got their money. They inherited it. They fell out of the golden vagina. They did nothing to earn the money, they simply had a pile of it dumped in their lap. They live in estates owned for generations taxed at absurd grandfathered rates and pay 15% in taxes because all of their money comes in from investments. I'm supposed to feel sorry for some asshole playing golf all day because his 15% tax rate is being threatened to go up to the same rate as people who actually work for a living? Never mind that the ONLY reason it got down as low as 15% is because the wealthy had the capital to pay politicians to drop the rates for them in the first place.

I never hear conservatives complain that rich people rig the system to pay less than their fair share, only that the poor bastard mopping floors for a living gets food stamps to keep his family from starving. The rich people rigging the system cost this country many times more than the guy we give food stamps to.

So "earned" is a dubious word at best for many if not most of the wealthy in this country.

And taxing the wealthy isn't a redistribution of wealth. Higher taxes on the wealthy means more money circulated back into the economy. The economy needs money to circulate. It's the lubricant that makes the economy work. The more money moves from one hand to another, the more transactions involved, the healthier it is, and the better it works.

That is why trickle down doesn't work. First, and foremost. The uber wealthy don't let it trickle down. They hoard it. That is how they have been wealthy for generations.

The best thing for an economy is to inject cash and capital at the lowest level through higher wages. Because from there it passes through the most hands, poor people buy food in local shops, local shops buy other services from local suppliers. Some of that money eventually, and inevitably, works its way to the big corporate companies, and from them, back into the hands of their wealthy stockholders.

But once its with the rich, most of them don't spend it. they don't want to, don't need to, and can avoid doing so until its absolutely necessary.

Just look at the economy today. The big corporations are making record profits. But they are not investing that money back into the economy. They are not creating jobs. Record corporate profits + low employment = proof that trickle down is a myth.

Money given to the rich mostly goes dead. Sits in assets, savings, cash on hand. Money given to the poor, goes straight back into the economy buying goods and services.

Want to help the economy. Cut taxes for the middle class, offer benefits to the needy poor, and demand that the uber rich pay their share. And for me that's a compromise. If it were up to me I'd have a 100% death tax on all estates over a million dollars.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

They inherited it. They fell out of the golden vagina

So they're women! I knew I never stood a chance. Shit.

[DAB]

i earned every dime i have.

we have no kids, our plan is to spend it all eventually. if we do it right, the last check to the funeral home will bounce.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

And there lies the problem with your side.

You see that every single wealthy person has "earned" their money. The reality is that the wealthy have access and many of them pay to rig the system in their favor.

...

Money given to the rich mostly goes dead. Sits in assets, savings, cash on hand. Money given to the poor, goes straight back into the economy buying goods and services.

Want to help the economy. Cut taxes for the middle class, offer benefits to the needy poor, and demand that the uber rich pay their share. And for me that's a compromise. If it were up to me I'd have a 100% death tax on all estates over a million dollars.

I suppose by "rigging" it you don't mean anything illegal or immoral, you just mean doing smart things that make them richer. I agree with your analysis of the Hostess thing; I don’t agree with anything else.

Giving rich people’s money to poor people to buy food and services for nothing in return doesn’t stimulate anything. Giving rich people’s money to poor people to buy food and services for labor is called working for a living and that stimulates the economy.

Giving a tax cut to the middle class doesn’t make any sense, they already pay little or no tax.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Giving a tax cut to the middle class doesn’t make any sense, they already pay little or no tax.

Huh? I mean HUH?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So they're women! I knew I never stood a chance. Shit.

Long ago, my father was doing good in the life insurance business,......one of his quotes was that some 60% of the wealth in this nation was actually owned by women.....husbands died off earlier, and left it to the wife, much less when a life insurance policy paid off, adding another significant pile of cash to the estate or just paid to wife directly.....

NOW NOTE, I said OWN......not controlled, that is done through various means and managed by professionals.....depending on how high up the food chain one is.....

[Sea Six]

Joecoool,

I never said our Capitalist system was perfect. In fact, switching to a Fair Tax system would go far to make things better in my opinion, and would also serve to get some of those "hoarded" dollars to work fueling the economy (creating more wealth for everybody).

But as imperfect as it may be, our Capitalist society is much more successful than any Socialist government has produced, past and present. Under Capitalism there will be people who don't have as much. But the opportunity is there for those willing to pursue it.

Someone who is an employee but isn't willing to increase their own education, or risk money in investments, or start their own venture with their own money or the capital of investors will have to be content with where they're at. Just don't come and steal money out of my pocket because they are unwilling to try to get themselves into a better situation.

[FasterTraffic]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I struggle with CEO's making millions per year while the guy on the broom can't get a buck an hour raise.

I believe some of the executive compensation issue is a result of the last time the government meddled with executive compensation, specifically in the tax treatment of CEO salaries. Back then, CEOs "earned too much." Look where we are now.

On the other hand, there are issues with how CEO pay is determined and how well boards tie that compensation to performance and shareholder value. Some do it better than others.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

But then lets look at where the vast majority of the wealthy got their money. They inherited it. They fell out of the golden vagina. They did nothing to earn the money, they simply had a pile of it dumped in their lap.

You have something to support that? My understanding is that inherited wealth is down as a factor. Fifty years ago, certainly, but not so much now.

[wicked_c6]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

The right to pursue happiness does not guarantee everyone will have equal outcomes.

The only thing that will guarantee equal outcomes is the redistribution of wealth, which will never work.

Here's why redistribution of wealth will never, ever solve the "problem" of wealth inequity.

You could take all the money in the world, redistribute it equally to every person on the planet... and within a few short years, all of that money would be right back in the same hands it was in the first place.

Knowing how to become wealthy, and conversely, not knowing how to handle money in the first place, is why rich people are rich and poor people are poor.

Even perpetual redistribution of wealth will never change that simple fact.

Chris Rock had a really good skit on the difference between rich and wealthy. Kinda true in many aspects...I don't subscribe to the racial undertone of it...people without money isn't a black/white/brown thing. Its a choice thing. Strong language.

Very Funny Chris Rock About Wealth - YouTube