Wealth Distribution in the United States

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Anarchy: freedom for everyone, slaves to no one.
The super-rich get richer & the poor poorer.
We feed & house cows & cars.
Plutocrats rule.
Upset the moneychangers.
Abolish money!

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).


Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007

Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%​

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.

Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004, 2007, & 2009).

Source with more info: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[marsmellow]

Haha. I was going to make a similar thread. You beat me. I was collecting graphs and tables earlier...

Basically, we need to redistribute wealth to the majority of the population. Otherwise, we aren't going to have any "middle class" for much longer. We are only going to have a few haves and tons of have-nots. This will cause all sorts of chaos and instability, and will hurt the economy badly. Trickle down policies don't work, because you can have all the businesses you want, but if most people are broke, there will be no demand for the products and services the businesses want to sell.

(Everything in my post is safe for work. These graphs are just huge, so I put them under the tags.)

NSFW:

Those don't show it, but this is actually getting WORSE as time goes on.

I think there are three main reasons why this has happened:

1. The tax system has been made less progressive in the past few decades
2. Union membership has been decreasing
3. We are losing lots of jobs because of globalization and free trade

NSFW:

I think we should try to reverse those three things if we want it to get better. A little bit of inequality in wealth and income is okay, but right now, it's just out of control, and will eventually cause BIG problems if the trend is not reversed.

Here's a story that is closely related to the topic...
No Labor Market Recession For America's Affluent, Low-Wage Workers Hit Hardest: STUDY

The highest group, with household incomes of $150,000 or more, had an unemployment rate during that quarter of 3.2 percent. The next highest, with incomes of $100,000 to 149,999, had an unemployment rate of 4 percent.

Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That's more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Yeah, Mars, I got tired of ppl in other threads bashing the poor for being lazy when it's these plutocrat kings & queens who are the real problem.

20-percent of US, GDP derives from finance, insurance & realestate, only 12% from manufacturing, everyone's pushing papers & not producing anything.

NSFW:

 

[marsmellow]

Yeah, Mars, I got tired of ppl in other threads bashing the poor for being lazy when it's these plutocrat kings & queens who are the real problem.

20-percent of US, GDP derives from finance, insurance & realestate, only 12% from manufacturing, everyone's pushing papers & not producing anything.

Exactly. This is from a different thread:

The reality is: these firms have enormously increased their share of American economic activity in the last twenty to thirty years. At the peak they were making, or perhaps even still, 40 % or more of total corporate profits. They were paying 10 % of total wages. This is vastly out of proportion of the need for financial services in any economy and in a substantially predatory relationship with the rest of economic activity.

These banks are slowly sucking all the money in society up to them. These past few years have been like a silent coup. They are taking over everything. We are all getting enslaved by these Wall Street dictators. And now the Supreme Court has given them the ability to brainwash the American public though unlimited TV ads. We are in for a really dark future if this is not reversed.

 

[DzNutz]

here in the UK the banks are being 'responsible' by becomming involved with schools.

they are comming in and teaching kids from a young age about the economy.. from their own point of view obviously.

they claim they want to teach youngsters the value of money and how to save. after the UK tax payer spent $150bn to keep them afloat its ironic they want to teach people to be prudent.

 

[kandytime]

I can agree that wealth needs to be spread out to a CERTAIN extent. The sad thing is the people in our government are being paid and supported to keep the rich where they are. We don't need a more extreme progressive tax that is stupid. The super rich already are required to pay a great majority of their earnings. We need a NEW TAX SYSTEM. Hence why I made the fairtax post earlier on. The current system we have keeps the rich exactly where they are while punishing the middle class.

Oh the taxes on my $150million dollar house is too much?! I'll just build a $5million dollar house in this state with lower taxes and alternate where I live to avoid being considered a 'residence' in the state, circumventing the taxes.

Shit my taxes are skyrocketing and that massive multi-million dollar income will dwindle away! No problem, I'll just move my earnings and investments off-shores and in other banks/nations with little to no tax burdens.

What my $250million dollar investment will be taxed?! Bullshit! I'll just invest in my project inside a third-world country to avoid them.

See what I mean? The lower 80% doesn't have nearly the same amount of capabilities to move and protect their assets from taxation whereas the super-rich have absolutely no problem doing just that. By the way the first example was an inspiration from Oprah Winfrey's California housing situation. How many days of the year does she live there to avoid the taxes? Look it up.

Our society has a decently progressive tax, it is just the fact that these business decisions usually lead the super-rich to manipulate the system (and their congressional representatives) and avoid them in the first place. We need to fix our broken tax system before demanding the top 20% pay up more, they will just move their assets to take less financial damage.

What is the perfect solution? I do not know but we better find out soon because a great society collapses when the middle class disappears. I believe I have a similar goal in mind as some fo you more liberal posters, we just greatly differ on how to get there. Whether you like it or not, the entire problem doesn't rest on the shoulders of those who make major money. It is up to all of us.

 

[marsmellow]

I can agree that wealth needs to be spread out to a CERTAIN extent.

Okay. Do you think it's too concentrated right now? 20% of the population owns like 90% of the wealth and they earn 60% of the money. The other 80% of people, which is you and me and most people we know, have basically nothing in comparison. Don't you think that is a bit unfair? The rich don't really produce all that wealth by themselves, do they?

Since you are a libertarian/free-market supporter, how do you think this should be remedied? I don't see a free market remedy. That seems to only make things worse. I think the only way is redistribution of wealth. From the rich to everyone who earns less than they do.

This could be done by increasing their taxes and using the money to improve society. This would help rich people too, actually. Imagine if we used it to create national healthcare. Businesses wouldn't have to buy it for their workers anymore and the workers would be healthier. This would give the business more revenue, and make the workers more productive.

The sad thing is the people in our government are being paid and supported to keep the rich where they are.

Yes... this is because the rich are too powerful. They have more money, and closer connections to politicians, which means they are more powerful. Take some of this power away, and our government wouldn't be so corrupt anymore.

We don't need a more extreme progressive tax that is stupid. The super rich already are required to pay a great majority of their earnings. We need a NEW TAX SYSTEM. Hence why I made the fairtax post earlier on. The current system we have keeps the rich exactly where they are while punishing the middle class.


Oh the taxes on my $150million dollar house is too much?! I'll just build a $5million dollar house in this state with lower taxes and alternate where I live to avoid being considered a 'residence' in the state, circumventing the taxes.

Shit my taxes are skyrocketing and that massive multi-million dollar income will dwindle away! No problem, I'll just move my earnings and investments off-shores and in other banks/nations with little to no tax burdens.

What my $250million dollar investment will be taxed?! Bullshit! I'll just invest in my project inside a third-world country to avoid them.

See what I mean? The lower 80% doesn't have nearly the same amount of capabilities to move and protect their assets from taxation whereas the super-rich have absolutely no problem doing just that. By the way the first example was an inspiration from Oprah Winfrey's California housing situation. How many days of the year does she live there to avoid the taxes? Look it up.

So... which is it? Are the super rich paying a great majority of their earnings, or are they evading their taxes?? You can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other.

The fair tax? I already explained how it is a bad idea in your thread about it. The rich save and invest most of their money. Middle class and poor people spend almost all of theirs. That means that the middle class will pay a higher percentage of their money to the government than a rich person. Maybe one would pay 22.5% in taxes, and the other 0.5% in taxes. That is not a good way to equalize wealth in society... it's a good way to make the rich even richer.

Our society has a decently progressive tax

No, no, no. If you just look at the income tax, you are not getting the full picture.

1. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes. Capital gains are how the super rich earn most of their money. Why should income from investments be taxed at a lesser rate than income from work?

2. The FICA tax (AKA payroll tax) stops after about $100,000. That means a billionaire might pay 0.1% but someone who earns $30,000 a year will pay like 15%.

3. Sales taxes are very regressive also. Because like I said, regular workers have to spend almost all of their money to survive. So, almost all of the money they spend gets taxed. Not so for wealthy people. They save and invest most of their money.

4. Our tax code is a massive clusterfuck of loopholes and deductions, and almost all are designed to benefit the wealthy. Most people who are really rich hire special lawyers and accountants to reduce their taxes, so they barely have to pay any at all. Or they hide their earnings from the government, by storing them in offshore bank accounts. Regular people don't have this ability.

We need to fix our broken tax system before demanding the top 20% pay up more, they will just move their assets to take less financial damage.

I have a simple solution to prevent them from doing this. The USA is the richest market in the world. Businesses really want to sell their products here, because Americans have lots of money. If a business owner moves their assets to another country, we could put 500% taxes on everything they sell. That will discourage them from leaving the US. No business owner would want that to happen to their company.

What is the perfect solution? I do not know but we better find out soon because a great society collapses when the middle class disappears.

The perfect solution is this:

We keep the current income tax structure, but add two more brackets. Dollars earned after $500,000 get taxed at 50%, and after 1 million dollars it will be 90%.

We treat all types of income the same. We don't need to separate capital gains and regular income. That is just unfair to people who work for a living.

We get rid of all special interest tax breaks.

We get rid of the cap on FICA taxes.

Estate taxes, gift taxes, and other miscellaneous things will be progressively larger, depending on the size of the estate. I'd say that we could just multiply my income tax brackets by ten and that would be good. BUT I don't think it should affect any estates worth less than 2 million, because I don't want to hurt small businesses too much.

That is all we need to do. That probably won't ever happen. But we could easily do one or more of those things, and it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[kong]

Yes... this is because the rich are too powerful. They have more money, and closer connections to politicians, which means they are more powerful. Take some of this power away, and our government wouldn't be so corrupt anymore.

Wouldn't it be more effective to limit what the government does, i.e. there is less to corrupt? That would mitigate the $800 hammer effect more than trying to reduce their influence by taxing them.

The fair tax? I already explained how it is a bad idea in your thread about it. The rich save and invest most of their money. Middle class and poor people spend almost all of theirs. That means that the middle class will pay a higher percentage of their money to the government than a rich person. Maybe one would pay 22.5% in taxes, and the other 0.5% in taxes. That is not a good way to equalize wealth in society... it's a good way to make the rich even richer.

And we proved you could set up the flat tax up to be just as progressive as the current system with the benefit of a simpler tax code which would be more difficult to evade.

1. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes. Capital gains are how the super rich earn most of their money. Why should income from investments be taxed at a lesser rate than income from work?

You're a Keynsian right? You believe in easy credit correct? Selling stock is just another way companies get a loan, equity instead of interest. Jack up capital gains and the fed will have to loan money at -5% to make up for it.

2. The FICA tax (AKA payroll tax) stops after about $100,000. That means a billionaire might pay 0.1% but someone who earns $30,000 a year will pay like 15%.

Lets not sit here and act like the current tax code isn't extremely progressive. 60% of the people in this country get more out than they put in. Complaining about our system being regressive is hilarious. Instead of figuring out where the wealth is why don't you take a look at who pays all the tax.

Big business sucks, perhaps your government could do a better jobs of employing Americans. Lets give socialism another shot.

I have a simple solution to prevent them from doing this. The USA is the richest market in the world. Businesses really want to sell their products here, because Americans have lots of money. If a business owner moves their assets to another country, we could put 500% taxes on everything they sell. That will discourage them from leaving the US. No business owner would want that to happen to their company.

Tariffs work so well for everyone.8) If our taxes get to high our businesses can't compete. If they can't compete they can't just tough it out and pay more tax. They go under.

The perfect solution is this:

We keep the current income tax structure, but add two more brackets. Dollars earned after $500,000 get taxed at 50%, and after 1 million dollars it will be 90%.

So you don't believe in having companies that make over 1 million dollars? Or individuals who make over 1 million? Fuck all this fair shit, all those people who are broke are going to be way worse off when everything costs three times as much. Economies of scale matter. It is important to hire the best possible people to run large companies.

As a business owner I'm going to say, fuck society, if the marginal benefit of making another widget is basically nothing I'm not going to make it. It will be more expensive and I will employ way less people. Happy now? Maybe your government can take its shrinking tax revenues and hire all the people I no longer employ.

 

[qwe]

That is all we need to do. That probably won't ever happen. But we could easily do one or more of those things, and it would be a step in the right direction.

these sort of things definitely are good steps because as a society we need to be concerned about not just being happy but also our very survival. it is possible for systems to crash. if we want to be prudent, it's sort of silly to have say 5% dying for food and 1% having 9 ferraris, 8 jeeps, a leopard pet, 3 yachts, a bigger GDP than lithuania. anything to reverse the wealth gap will A) relieve stress on the poor, increase the standard of living and B) help the politicians because of A... basically a more sophisticated and useful "bread and circus" technique. which is probably why socialist governments can get so popular in places

 

[marsmellow]

Wouldn't it be more effective to limit what the government does, i.e. there is less to corrupt? That would mitigate the $800 hammer effect more than trying to reduce their influence by taxing them.

No, that would just make it easier for businesses to control the government.

And we proved you could set up the flat tax up to be just as progressive as the current system with the benefit of a simpler tax code which would be more difficult to evade.

Hahaha. You did? I don't remember when this happened. This just defies all logic and common sense. A flat tax is more progressive than the current system? Seriously?

You're a Keynsian right? You believe in easy credit correct? Selling stock is just another way companies get a loan, equity instead of interest. Jack up capital gains and the fed will have to loan money at -5% to make up for it.

Oh well. It is bullshit that capital gains are treated differently than regular income.

Instead of figuring out where the wealth is why don't you take a look at who pays all the tax.

They should pay most of the taxes. One, because they have the most money. Two, because money is less valuable to them. And three, because they have the most that needs protecting.

So, why are they complaining? They are the ones who have benefited most from society... so they should have to pay back the most.

Big business sucks, perhaps your government could do a better jobs of employing Americans. Lets give socialism another shot.

A mix of capitalism and socialism works best. It's best not to get too extreme about either. Just look at Europe, China, the USA during the 50's and 60's. There are tons of examples. There are also tons of examples of laissez-faire policies failing. For example, just look at the USA during the Gilded Age, and what happened in Chile after Augusto Pinochet took over. They are always a disaster for the majority of people.

So you don't believe in having companies that make over 1 million dollars? Or individuals who make over 1 million?

No, I'm talking about individuals there. I'd probably get rid of corporate taxes totally, if I got my other demands. This wouldn't get rid of economies of scale, it would just prevent a small group of people from accumulating such a huge portion of the wealth in society. They don't need it, and all people are created equal.

As a business owner I'm going to say, fuck society, if the marginal benefit of making another widget is basically nothing I'm not going to make it.

Okay, and here's what I would say.

Fuck you. If 1 million a year plus 5% is not enough. Go somewhere else. Greedy selfish pig. There are more than a BILLION people in the world who earn a dollar a day or less. There are 50 million people in the USA who have no health care. There's tens of thousands of people who have no home. Fuck every rich person whining about how their taxes are so unfair, and how a million dollars isn't enough for them. It's plenty.

 

[severely etarded]

These banks are slowly sucking all the money in society up to them. These past few years have been like a silent coup. They are taking over everything. We are all getting enslaved by these Wall Street dictators. And now the Supreme Court has given them the ability to brainwash the American public though unlimited TV ads. We are in for a really dark future if this is not reversed.

Yea the banks manipulate the stock market also and drive prices up and down buying and selling stocks on computer platforms that execute trades with lightning speed and striking accuracy of 85-90% success, how is this fair to someone like you or me who want's to put money in a company's stock. Surely a human being can't beat a computer in selling a stock at the perfect time. The computer always sells a little before driving any other human being investor's profits down. That's not the only way though, many other aspects also.

 

[Unbreakable]

Five Ways American Workers Found Out Today That They’re Screwed


It’s a rare day in America that the government, economists and members of the media establishment will come together and tell Americans that, actually, they’re all screwed. But since today is one of those days, let’s count the ways this recession has permanently altered the American economy for the worse.

1. The poor are far more unemployed than the rich.
It’s not enough that they make more money anymore — despite everything that economics might normally predict, those with higher incomes are less likely to be unemployed during this recession. A new study from Northeastern University shows that among the top 20 percent of households — those making more than $100,000 — the unemployment rate is about 3.5 percent. In the poorest 10 percent of American households — those making under $12,800 a year — the unemployment rate is 30.8 percent. No wonder all those AIG bankers were threatening to leave their jobs in the midst of the recession: For them, there never was one.

2. The jobs that used to exist aren’t coming back.
Economists predict that at least 25 percent of the 8.4 million jobs that have disappeared thus far won’t be coming back no matter how good the economy gets. In fact, with job creation expected to be, at best, 133,000 new jobs per month over the next year — and 100,000 new people entering the work force every month — it will take more than 20 years at this rate to replace all the jobs that were lost in the last two years.

3. Corporations now know exactly how much money they save by firing workers.
And although the employment figures show that the rich stayed employed and the lowest-wage workers — who do most of the productive work in the economy — did not, companies laid off so many lower-paid workers that they are more flush with cash than Scrooge McDuck — to the tune of $1.19 trillion. But since people who kept their jobs have been busting their humps to keep them, productivity rates went up during the recession — which means your corporate overlords know exactly how hard they can work you for how little pay without reducing output. Get used to busting that hump.

4. Job growth is already not meeting economists’ predictions anyway.
Despite economists’ already-less-than-rosy predictions about job growth, only 95,000 jobs were created last month. So, we’re already 38,000 jobs — or more than a month — behind the growth we’d need to make back the 8.4 million lost jobs in 20 years.

5. Even Republicans don’t pretend that living wages exist for many Americans.
Nearly one in eight Americans currently depends on food stamps, and many of those people are working Americans (including some members of the military). Half of the families enrolled in food stamps are working, though fully 90 percent of those receiving benefits are below the federal poverty line. Everyone from Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to George W. Bush and his food stamp administrator Eric Bost to former Wisconsin governor and presidential candidate Tommy Thompson is a food stamp booster for the working poor — the people who make minimum wage but can’t make ends meet. But you can have a job in this country and still go hungry — and some people who acknowledge that think the best solution is just to give companies more tax breaks.

 

[kong]

No, that would just make it easier for businesses to control the government.

If there aren't as many government programs than there aren't as many government contracts and so on...

Hahaha. You did? I don't remember when this happened. This just defies all logic and common sense. A flat tax is more progressive than the current system? Seriously?
Oh well. It is bullshit that capital gains are treated differently than regular income.

Read the thread. You could make it more progressive if you wanted. You just have the government add sales tax back to everyone's check when they get paid. Everyone but evil rich people of course. It isn't that complicated, and was well explained in the last thread. Decide how rich you can be before you aren't poor anymore and go from there.

Oh well? It is bullshit? Lets hear it, what exactly are you saying?

So, why are they complaining? They are the ones who have benefited most from society... so they should have to pay back the most.

Which they overwhelmingly do. Us libertarians get pissed when the giant corporations go through loopholes at the expense of smaller companies, but either way the rich pay most of the taxes in this country so quick crying about a regressive tax system.

A mix of capitalism and socialism works best. It's best not to get too extreme about either. Just look at Europe, China, the USA during the 50's and 60's. There are tons of examples. There are also tons of examples of laissez-faire policies failing. For example, just look at the USA during the Gilded Age, and what happened in Chile after Augusto Pinochet took over. They are always a disaster for the majority of people.

Funny the most laissez-fair society in the history of the world is also the richest society in the history of the world.

Fuck you.

Fuck me? Fuck you!

If 1 million a year plus 5% is not enough. Go somewhere else. Greedy selfish pig. There are more than a BILLION people in the world who earn a dollar a day or less. There are 50 million people in the USA who have no health care. There's tens of thousands of people who have no home. Fuck every rich person whining about how their taxes are so unfair, and how a million dollars isn't enough for them. It's plenty.

Cry baby cry, make your mother sigh...

Its not want I want or what you think I need. You are living in a fantasy world if you think people are going to do any work when there is no marginal gain for their efforts. Believe it or not businesses employ people, and they can pay someone $50,000 without taxing the rest of society $250,000 unlike the government. Some people really are worth a bunch of money. Pull some dude out of a 7/11 and put them at the head of 7/11 and watch what happens. No one gets paid for menial labor at any 7/11 cause there won't be any left.

If you want everyone to quit working once they make 1m a year than fine. They will go live in another country which will end up with a far higher standard of living in the long run than your utopia could ever sustain.

 

[Pander Bear]

They will go live in another country which will end up with a far higher standard of living in the long run than your utopia could ever sustain.

yes, like all those Scandinavian and French millionaires who move here in droves for the lower marginal tax rate. 8) Not all choices can be anticipated by examining a balance sheet.

 

[kong]

yes, like all those Scandinavian and French millionaires who move here in droves for the lower marginal tax rate. 8) Not all choices can be anticipated by examining a balance sheet.

Point taken, but do either of those countries have a 95% tax rate? I looked it up, no they don't. In fact they are dropping high marginal rates like a bad habit. With the exception of Finland (37% in 2002) all those countries are around 50% so it appears their estimation of the laffer curve is t*=50% not 95%.

I'd imagine those countries would be more of a draw in comparison to the U.S. wasteland of applebees and tacobells.

And even if the millionaires stay, they'll quit trying after 1m.

 

[marsmellow]

Read the thread. You could make it more progressive if you wanted. You just have the government add sales tax back to everyone's check when they get paid. Everyone but evil rich people of course. It isn't that complicated, and was well explained in the last thread. Decide how rich you can be before you aren't poor anymore and go from there.

Read my responses in that thread... or this thread. Do you disagree that wealthy people save and invest most of their money?

Oh well? It is bullshit? Lets hear it, what exactly are you saying?

I've said it over and over. Capital gains and regular income should be treated the same. Why should someone who lives off investments be favored over someone who works a regular job? They shouldn't.

Which they overwhelmingly do.

See the graphs and tables in the first two posts of this thread. They obviously are not paying enough.

Funny the most laissez-fair society in the history of the world is also the richest society in the history of the world.

Again, read the first two posts in this thread.

We have a lot of billionaires. But on the other hand, 50% of the population earns less than the Australian minimum wage. Wealth isn't something to brag about when it's concentrated in the hands of a small minority of the country.

Fuck me? Fuck you!

No, not you. I was talking to the hypothetical businessman who was throwing a tantrum because he has to pay taxes.

Cry baby cry, make your mother sigh...

Yeah, fuck all those people anyway. Who cares if they die from the flu and live on the streets eating from dumpsters? They were probably lazy or financially irresponsible. The important thing is that billionaires pay low taxes. 8(

Libertarian solution to all social problems = ignore them

Its not want I want or what you think I need. You are living in a fantasy world if you think people are going to do any work when there is no marginal gain for their efforts.

There is no marginal gain? What about A MILLION DOLLARS a year, and 5% after that? That is a lot of money.

Whatever. If someone really is going to reject that, I'm sure we could find other people who can do the same job, who will happily accept 1 million a year.

But this is all hypothetical anyway. I'm just making a point. It could be 95% or it could be 50%. I don't really care all that much. I just think it's ridiculous that there can be such a huge disparity in wealth in a country where all people are supposedly created equal.

And sorry, but CEO's and investors aren't worth nearly as much as they are paid. Why should they be paid millions when scientists and doctors are only paid like $100,000? Does the CEO really contribute that much more? Does he create all that wealth on his own? No.

laffer curve

Do you know how high our top tax bracket used to be? It was 93% in the 50's. The country was doing really good at that point. It didn't hurt the economy at all.

And nobody knows what the ideal tax rate is, so the laffer curve is basically irrelevant. It says basically nothing besides "don't tax too much, and don't tax too little."

 

[marsmellow]

By the way, what's your solution to the problem in the OP, kong?

Do you think it's too concentrated right now? 20% of the population owns like 90% of the wealth and they earn 60% of the money. The other 80% of people, which is you and me and most people we know, have basically nothing in comparison. Don't you think that is a bit unfair? The rich don't really produce all that wealth by themselves, do they?

Since you are a libertarian/free-market supporter, how do you think this should be remedied?

 

[capstone]

^We cut the bloodlines.

Yeah, Mars, I got tired of ppl in other threads bashing the poor for being lazy when it's these plutocrat kings & queens who are the real problem.

Thank you.:D

Instead of concentrating on the designed welfare state capitalism breeds, we need to be focusing on the top 1% of the top 1%(.01) of those who control the world's wealth. Many of these people don't even appear in Forbes "richest people in the world."

Like the Rothschilds....

Its been said David Rockefeller alone owns 4% of all the world's corporations, and that's with voting power on company policy.

 

[qwe]

but either way the rich pay most of the taxes in this country so quick crying about a regressive tax system

this is stupid. just because they pay more than the poor, does not mean they are paying their relative full share. in fact, his whole point is that they arent. and he's not "crying about it", he's simply pointing out how harmful it is to society/people. libertarians may get mad at the obvious excesses of corporations, but the best interpretation from all of the news ive been seeing is that those in charge are the problem themselves

 

[kandytime]

I just can't see socialism as fixing this problem. Just like communism it all sounds great in theory. Sadly I do not see a socialist society working out nearly as great as it looks on paper. Nothing ever does. Especially a society like the United States where individualism, hard-work, and privacy is ingrained in a large percent of the population. I do realize we are losing ground in this area but where will that take us? A country as large and powerful as the United States have never tried a socialist government so going that direction could lead us to greatness or to our demise.

That's why I think it is imperative to attempt to fix our current system, free-market and all and try to work with it. After all it is how we got so powerful in the first place. We just need to have a competitive advantage versus other nations. Our workforce is very productive now we just need to use it as best we can!