The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[rdean]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wealth Distribution/Redistribution = Code for Socialism/Communism.

Taking 1/6th of the economy and placing it under government control (ObamaCare) won't help.

Reduce the size and scope of government. Conservatives pay less taxes, Liberals get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a win/win situation.

 

[Oddball]

Wealth isn't distributed...It's earned and accumulated, despite gubmint's best efforts to expropriate as much of it as possible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, but what percent of scientists are Republicans?

 

[Big Fitz]

Hey Hairnet... you ducked out on my question in another thread, but since it is still appropriate here again I ask:

At what point does a person's property stop being theirs and become the government's property? Or now in this framing YOUR property?

What did you do to EARN someone elses property?

Jason Lewis the other day put this example to better visual accuity. He pointed out that Government right now believes itself entitled to about 20% of the average wage earner's pay. So, does the government believe that 20% of your house is theirs? It must if 20% of your income is theirs. Which rooms would it take? Or what days does it get to open your house to the public?

The absurdity that you don't own what you earn is palpable. (that means you can feel it, Hairnet.) The government has no ownership of your property. It takes what is not theirs to give to those who have not earned.

 

[hortysir]

Hey Hairnet... you ducked out on my question in another thread, but since it is still appropriate here again I ask:

At what point does a person's property stop being theirs and become the government's property? Or now in this framing YOUR property?

What did you do to EARN someone elses property?

Jason Lewis the other day put this example to better visual accuity. He pointed out that Government right now believes itself entitled to about 20% of the average wage earner's pay. So, does the government believe that 20% of your house is theirs? It must if 20% of your income is theirs. Which rooms would it take? Or what days does it get to open your house to the public?

The absurdity that you don't own what you earn is palpable. (that means you can feel it, Hairnet.) The government has no ownership of your property. It takes what is not theirs to give to those who have not earned.

I think, these days, it's $250K


I'm not understanding the fascination with who has how much.
Isn't wealth accumulation core to the "American Dream"?

 

[loosecannon]

Wealth isn't distributed...It's earned and accumulated, despite gubmint's best efforts to expropriate as much of it as possible.

earnings and accumulation are other forms of redistribution. That's a fact, Jack.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong, tovarich.

Earned and accumulated wealth comes from volition in a free and decentralized marketplace.

"Distribution" presumes a central point from which things are distributed, along with a central distributor....That's a fact of linguistics, jack.

The further fact that envious and covetous control freaks like you long to be said central distributors, doesn't change the meanings of words.

 

[Samson]

Wealth isn't distributed...It's earned and accumulated, despite gubmint's best efforts to expropriate as much of it as possible.

earnings and accumulation are other forms of redistribution. That's a fact, Jack.

OK "other forms of redistribution."

"Redistribution" based on competition between enterprises that drives up quality and drives down cost.

 

[Big Fitz]

Economics is a form of DISTRIBUTION based on trade value which is the core of societal existence. Value for value and both parties gain. RE-DISTRIBUTION is not a value for value exchange. It is a gain/loss without intrinsic value but political motivation where one party is penalized for another party's gain. It is inherently unfair.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Earned and accumulated wealth comes from volition in a free and decentralized marketplace.

"Distribution" presumes a central point from which things are distributed, along with a central distributor....That's a fact of linguistics, jack.

The further fact that envious and covetous control freaks like you long to be said central distributors, doesn't change the meanings of words.

Economics is a form of DISTRIBUTION based on trade value which is the core of societal existence. Value for value and both parties gain. RE-DISTRIBUTION is not a value for value exchange. It is a gain/loss without intrinsic value but political motivation where one party is penalized for another party's gain. It is inherently unfair.

Repped!

(Yes, I know that's not Kruschev in the drawing)

 

[MitchMan]

All you right wingers have it all wrong as usual. You seem to be spewing the same old tired and specious rants about 'big government' is the boogie man, following the specious Ronald Reagan slogan "..government is the problem" which is his simple minded conclusion to everything.

I am absolutely for capitalism and a market economy. A system that provides sufficient and adequate profit incentive to create, invent, to operate efficiently, to innovate, to produce needed commodities, to efficiently allocate capital and resources, and even to grow your business is what an economic system and a society absolutely needs. BUT, there is something that you right wing hobbits have to understand, and that is that our current economy has a massive flaw which is the nature of capitalism by default. Even your mercenary guru Milton Friedman admitted that and so did Adam Smith. That flaw is that capitalism and market economies result in boom and bust cycles and a lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the very top. In fact, the USA is the second worst country in the world on the latter.

The top 1% own 34% of the country's wealth, the top 10% own over 71% of the wealth, the top 15% own 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 60% own only 4% of the wealth and the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the wealth.

Now, if you think that is wonderful and that income taxes aught to lowered in spite of the truth, then you are as dumb as the people that voted for George Bush twice and feel that Sarah Palin would make a fine president.

BTW, all you 'cons' do not realize that the actual distribution of wealth happens early on in the economic process. Just as an example, everytime a surgeon gets $6,000 for a three hour heart operation, that's a distribution of the patient's wealth. Every time you pay $150 for a professional basketball game's tickets, that's a distribution of your wealth, everytime you pay a CPA $350 to do a simple itemization on your 1040, that's an inequitable distribution of your wealth, every time you pay an attorney $400 an hour for his time, that's a distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $200 to go to a rock concert, that is an inequitable distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $90 for a prescription medication that is sold in Europe or Canada for $20 USD, that's a distribution of your wealth. And, every time you got a $100,000 home loan that was packaged in a mortgage backed security that was sold to an investor for $120,000, that was a distribution of your wealth.

There are many, many more examples of the distribution of wealth that the common Republican does't get. Actually, it happens to a greater extent in the aggegate in the many small things that we pay for such as cable TV, cell phone service, and internet service or when you pay $3.50 for a box of crackers at Vons instead of $2.50 at Trader Joe's.

If you argue with what I say because you feel your "freedom" to be swindled is being attacked, and you buy all the right wing tripe that all your 'con' pundits keep telling you (verbatim it seems), then you are supporting an agenda that is absolutely against your own best interest (but then again, you probably voted for George Bush twice, like Wanda Sykes said after he falsely led us into an unfounded and deficit building war with Iraq that unnecessarily killed over 3,000 American soldiers and over 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis, "you knew he was stupid when you voted for him").

Review the stats that I cited above and contemplate where you fit in the prosperity pie. Explain to me why the existing lopsided concentration of wealth and income is good and just for the country.

 

[California Girl]

All you right wingers have it all wrong as usual. You seem to be spewing the same old tired and specious rants about 'big government' is the boogie man, following the specious Ronald Reagan slogan "..government is the problem" which is his simple minded conclusion to everything.

I am absolutely for capitalism and a market economy. A system that provides sufficient and adequate profit incentive to create, invent, to operate efficiently, to innovate, to produce needed commodities, to efficiently allocate capital and resources, and even to grow your business is what an economic system and a society absolutely needs. BUT, there is something that you right wing hobbits have to understand, and that is that our current economy has a massive flaw which is the nature of capitalism by default. Even your mercenary guru Milton Friedman admitted that and so did Adam Smith. That flaw is that capitalism and market economies result in boom and bust cycles and a lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the very top. In fact, the USA is the second worst country in the world on the latter.

The top 1% own 34% of the country's wealth, the top 10% own over 71% of the wealth, the top 15% own 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 60% own only 4% of the wealth and the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the wealth.

Now, if you think that is wonderful and that income taxes aught to lowered in spite of the truth, then you are as dumb as the people that voted for George Bush twice and feel that Sarah Palin would make a fine president.

BTW, all you 'cons' do not realize that the actual distribution of wealth happens early on in the economic process. Just as an example, everytime a surgeon gets $6,000 for a three hour heart operation, that's a distribution of the patient's wealth. Every time you pay $150 for a professional basketball game's tickets, that's a distribution of your wealth, everytime you pay a CPA $350 to do a simple itemization on your 1040, that's an inequitable distribution of your wealth, every time you pay an attorney $400 an hour for his time, that's a distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $200 to go to a rock concert, that is an inequitable distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $90 for a prescription medication that is sold in Europe or Canada for $20 USD, that's a distribution of your wealth. And, every time you got a $100,000 home loan that was packaged in a mortgage backed security that was sold to an investor for $120,000, that was a distribution of your wealth.

There are many, many more examples of the distribution of wealth that the common Republican does't get. Actually, it happens to a greater extent in the aggegate in the many small things that we pay for such as cable TV, cell phone service, and internet service or when you pay $3.50 for a box of crackers at Vons instead of $2.50 at Trader Joe's.

If you argue with what I say because you feel your "freedom" to be swindled is being attacked, and you buy all the right wing tripe that all your 'con' pundits keep telling you (verbatim it seems), then you are supporting an agenda that is absolutely against your own best interest (but then again, you probably voted for George Bush twice, like Wanda Sykes said after he falsely led us into an unfounded and deficit building war with Iraq that unnecessarily killed over 3,000 American soldiers and over 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis, "you knew he was stupid when you voted for him").

Review the stats that I cited above and contemplate where you fit in the prosperity pie. Explain to me why the existing lopsided concentration of wealth and income is good and just for the country.

"All you right wingers"? Man, what a pathetic entrance to the board. Right wingers are individiuals (you may refer to a dictionary if you don't know what that word means). Please don't embarrass yourself further.

 

[Oddball]

All you right wingers have it all wrong as usual. You seem to be spewing the same old tired and specious rants about 'big government' is the boogie man, following the specious Ronald Reagan slogan "..government is the problem" which is his simple minded conclusion to everything.

I am absolutely for capitalism and a market economy. A system that provides sufficient and adequate profit incentive to create, invent, to operate efficiently, to innovate, to produce needed commodities, to efficiently allocate capital and resources, and even to grow your business is what an economic system and a society absolutely needs. BUT, there is something that you right wing hobbits have to understand, and that is that our current economy has a massive flaw which is the nature of capitalism by default. Even your mercenary guru Milton Friedman admitted that and so did Adam Smith. That flaw is that capitalism and market economies result in boom and bust cycles and a lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the very top. In fact, the USA is the second worst country in the world on the latter.

The top 1% own 34% of the country's wealth, the top 10% own over 71% of the wealth, the top 15% own 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 60% own only 4% of the wealth and the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the wealth.

Now, if you think that is wonderful and that income taxes aught to lowered in spite of the truth, then you are as dumb as the people that voted for George Bush twice and feel that Sarah Palin would make a fine president.

BTW, all you 'cons' do not realize that the actual distribution of wealth happens early on in the economic process. Just as an example, everytime a surgeon gets $6,000 for a three hour heart operation, that's a distribution of the patient's wealth. Every time you pay $150 for a professional basketball game's tickets, that's a distribution of your wealth, everytime you pay a CPA $350 to do a simple itemization on your 1040, that's an inequitable distribution of your wealth, every time you pay an attorney $400 an hour for his time, that's a distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $200 to go to a rock concert, that is an inequitable distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $90 for a prescription medication that is sold in Europe or Canada for $20 USD, that's a distribution of your wealth. And, every time you got a $100,000 home loan that was packaged in a mortgage backed security that was sold to an investor for $120,000, that was a distribution of your wealth.

There are many, many more examples of the distribution of wealth that the common Republican does't get. Actually, it happens to a greater extent in the aggegate in the many small things that we pay for such as cable TV, cell phone service, and internet service or when you pay $3.50 for a box of crackers at Vons instead of $2.50 at Trader Joe's.

If you argue with what I say because you feel your "freedom" to be swindled is being attacked, and you buy all the right wing tripe that all your 'con' pundits keep telling you (verbatim it seems), then you are supporting an agenda that is absolutely against your own best interest (but then again, you probably voted for George Bush twice, like Wanda Sykes said after he falsely led us into an unfounded and deficit building war with Iraq that unnecessarily killed over 3,000 American soldiers and over 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis, "you knew he was stupid when you voted for him").

Review the stats that I cited above and contemplate where you fit in the prosperity pie. Explain to me why the existing lopsided concentration of wealth and income is good and just for the country.

I believe you mumbled something about spewing out the same tired old partisan hack rants?

Oh, Harriet!

 

[MitchMan]

Oddball, earned and accumulated? Ever heard of 'unearned income'? Actually, the Treasury and the IRS have used the term to mean dividend and interest income as 'unearned income'. The point being that the casual use of the term 'earned' falsely connotes an active earning process, which is not really the case with those who receive dividends or interest income or captial gain income. BTW, the very top money earners receive less and less 'earned' income and more and more 'unearned income'.

The point is that the more you accumulate wealth on wealth, the less you proportionately earn, actually, the less you need to earn. For those who have so much wealth that they do not do anything to earn income, they become parasitic to the rest of society. I would hope that our society doesn't view success at capitalism as a means to ultimately become idle and not produce anyhing but simply exist and consume stored wealth. Is that healthy, wholesome, or even productive? Is being a wealthy, idle, consumer even moral?

 

[Oddball]

How much of the total of incomes taxed is from unearned income?

In any case, that money is being utilized for production, rather than just being expropriated and doled out to people who produced absolutely nothing...Those are the real parasites, tovarich.

 

[mudwhistle]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.

I would like to see a chart on how much wealth belongs to the rich in other countries like Mexico, China, Russia, or any other country in comparison. This chart proves nothing other then the rich have opportunities here. Opportunities the Democrats are trying to dry up causing the rich to outsource.

It doesn't matter how rich the rich are. What matters is that the rest of us aren't poor. We may look poor in comparison to the rich but we really aren't compared to the poor in South and Central America.

The rich will spread there wealth here if the conditions are right. Remove those favorable conditions and our economy will stagnate and we will lose everything we have or everything we could have. The American Dream will be shipped off to China, India, etc.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hey Hairnet... you ducked out on my question in another thread, but since it is still appropriate here again I ask:

At what point does a person's property stop being theirs and become the government's property? Or now in this framing YOUR property?

What did you do to EARN someone elses property?

Jason Lewis the other day put this example to better visual accuity. He pointed out that Government right now believes itself entitled to about 20% of the average wage earner's pay. So, does the government believe that 20% of your house is theirs? It must if 20% of your income is theirs. Which rooms would it take? Or what days does it get to open your house to the public?

The absurdity that you don't own what you earn is palpable. (that means you can feel it, Hairnet.) The government has no ownership of your property. It takes what is not theirs to give to those who have not earned.

I think, these days, it's $250K


I'm not understanding the fascination with who has how much.
Isn't wealth accumulation core to the "American Dream"?

That's GROSS earnings.

$200k for singles.

 

[Trajan]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.

I wonder what the "nation" would estimate if they were asked about whom pays taxes by what income quintile and % etc....

 

[daveman]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.