The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[Skull Pilot]

Doesn't it get tiring to live bathed is such jealousy?

 

[MitchMan]

That's it, another couple of sentences? That's all you've got? Innuendo, that's all? Come on, spell it out! Articulate! Exercise your freedom of speech!

 

[Oddball]

 

[Big Fitz]

I would like to know just how much in total, in the aggregate economy, that families of 3 headed by a woman actually take advantage of all those benefits that yield more disposable income than similar families of three with a household income of $60,000. If this is totality of your defense to everything I said, you need to demonstrate the actual effect to the whole economy, which you have failed to do.

By what right does a family of ANY size, earning minimum wage, for a full time job (14500) a year have to 34k of disposable income brought about by government programs available to them?

Just because you do not accept all the programs does not mean that they are not eligible for them and the money has not been set aside for them.

Why do those who DO work be punished supporting hamburger jockies and bag boys in relative luxury?

 

[MitchMan]

Fitz, not justifying the assistance one way or another. I agree that there is a legitimate issue concerning the right, the propriety, the fairness, or even the morality of such assistance. That is an important and fundamental determination that should be made by society. I take it that you see it as an abomination. I get that.

The morality and fairness of the issue is an important factor to decide on, but I also think that a full perspective on the matter would be to include an objective assessment of the actual dollars and cents economic impact in the aggregate to the economy so that there is a full understanding of the economic and financial magnitude of such assistance. It's important to know the big picture perspective and the actual magnitude. Who knows, this may even bolster your argument against the assistance.

When I assert that the current economic system results in a lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top, your issue of whether or not the single mother of three should wind up with more disposable income than the household with $60,000 income is not on point nor is it relevant as a key argument to the lopsided concentration of wealth that our system encourages.

Your disdain for low income earners is apparent; "...hamburger jockies...", etc. What are you trying to do, foment 'class warfare'?

BTW, if the assistance you argue with has a less than a miniscule effect, so miniscule that it becomes materially irrelevant to anything measurable, then you are wasting time and energy on an issue that has no consequence. If however there is a large affect compared to other significant factors, then you've got something to really talk about.

Your disdain for low income workers is apparent in your comment: "...hamburger jockies...". What are you trying to do, foment "class warfare"?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

What significance should we attach to the fact that the lowest two quintiles (40% of all earners) vanish from the top row of actual wealth distribution in America?

 

[loosecannon]

"What significance should we attach to the fact that the lowest two quintiles (40% of all earners) vanish from the top row of actual wealth distribution in America?"

that wealth has only been redistributed up the ladder in the last few decades

 

[Bern80]

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.

The thing about an argument is that there is more than one side to it. Many sides can be argued, yadda, yadda. But at the very least all side have to agree on the topic of the argument and I don't see any 'righties', if you will, arguing the notion that wealth is not distributed in the way the OP cites. The objection is not so much about the accuracy of the numbers. It's more along the 'what's your point?'

A little more needs to be elaborated on this so called 'flaw' that Friedman and Smith admitted to. I'll agree that wealth distirbution under capitalism will be uneven. But my guess is that Friedman and Smith didn't attribute that to some hidden force that naturally gives a few people wealth and leaves out the rest. They would attribute it to the people in the system. They knew it would happen because they knew not everyone would achieve wealth. The question is do the many not achieve wealth despite their best efforts and capitalism really does contain some invisible force that says 'sorry that's all you can or ever will get'. Or is it because the flaw is in the people in the system not doing their part? Wealth doesn't just happen to people. Most of those that have it had to do something to figure out how to attain it and make the necessary actions to acquire it.

 

[rdean]

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.

Who put them there?

 

[slackjawed]

The theory of "redistribution of wealth" is flawed. The flaw from the outset assumes that wealth is a finite resource. Since the world has gone off the gold standard, wealth is an infinite resource. A demonstration of this is the fact that governments around the world simply print more money when they need it for various reasons.

Anyone, at least in this country, has the opportunity to earn what they will. That in itself is encouragement enough for most to do so.

Those that want wealth redistributed appear to be driven by envy.

 

[Oddball]

Even with a gold standard, the potential for wealth creation is virtually infinite.

 

[slackjawed]

Even with a gold standard, the potential for wealth creation is virtually infinite.

I agree with that, it simply limits the supply of hard currency.

 

[georgephillip]

How does government's tax bias in favor of debt over equity financing factor in to wealth distribution in the US?

 

[Bern80]

How does government's tax bias in favor of debt over equity financing factor in to wealth distribution in the US?

Said another way, using the tax system to essentially pay people to be in debt, I would say poorly.

 

[editec]

IN the 50's the top 1% owned about 25% of all the assets in this nation.

Now they own about 50%.

Throw in the remaining 9% of top earners and that top 10% own more like 66% of all the weath in this nation.

For a democratic republic that lopsided distribution of wealth and income is a death sentence.

I think I understand that some of you cannot understand why that is so, of course.

But if you cannot understand why our children aren't properly educated, why our houses have been reduced in value, why our government continues to give the rivch every davantage and the poor the shaft or if you think that's okay, well then..

Don't keep bitching about the fact that this nation is going down.

You guys support that problem by imagining that the system can work when everybody but the top 10% are feaking poor.

And I guantee you that this nation will not be a superpower if it's economy looks like a feudal kingdom....which is what its is beginning to look like.

WE don;t need socialism to solve this.

We just need honest capitalism and government that supports such a thing.

 

[slackjawed]

IN the 50's the top 1% owned about 25% of all the assets in this nation.

Now they own about 50%.

Throw in the remaining 9% of top earners and that top 10% own more like 66% of all the weath in this nation.

For a democratic republic that lopsided distribution of wealth and income is a death sentence.

I think I understand that some of you cannot understand why that is so, of course.

But if you cannot understand why our children aren't properly educated, why our houses have been reduced in value, why our government continues to give the rivch every davantage and the poor the shaft or if you think that's okay, well then..

Don't keep bitching about the fact that this nation is going down.

You guys support that problem by imagining that the system can work when everybody but the top 10% are feaking poor.

And I guantee you that this nation will not be a superpower if it's economy looks like a feudal kingdom....which is what its is beginning to look like.

WE don;t need socialism to solve this.

We just need honest capitalism and government that supports such a thing.

 

[Bern80]

IN the 50's the top 1% owned about 25% of all the assets in this nation.

Now they own about 50%.

Throw in the remaining 9% of top earners and that top 10% own more like 66% of all the weath in this nation.

For a democratic republic that lopsided distribution of wealth and income is a death sentence.

I think I understand that some of you cannot understand why that is so, of course.

But if you cannot understand why our children aren't properly educated, why our houses have been reduced in value, why our government continues to give the rivch every davantage and the poor the shaft or if you think that's okay, well then..

Don't keep bitching about the fact that this nation is going down.

You guys support that problem by imagining that the system can work when everybody but the top 10% are feaking poor.

And I guantee you that this nation will not be a superpower if it's economy looks like a feudal kingdom....which is what its is beginning to look like.

WE don;t need socialism to solve this.

We just need honest capitalism and government that supports such a thing.

Sure I'll entertain the theory that an overly uneven distribution of wealth would be a bad thing. But what I'm trying to get across is the WHY. WHY our weatlh is unevenly distributed means everything where this debate is concerned. If you don't understand why wealth is unevenly disributed how do you expect to come to a workable solution to make it more evenly distributed?

The problem is fairly identifiable, imho and so is the solution. The issue is no one wants to hear either because no one wants to hear that they are part of the problem and they have to be part of the solution. If this were about wealth distribution in the literal sense of the concept. That is if some benevolent figure sits on high handing out a share of a finite pool of money to everyone and most get some and a few get big stacks, you might have a gripe. But that's not how it is. Capitalism is dependent on the very same thing socialism is dependent in order to actually work. It depends on the individuals in the system understanding the system's rules and participating accordingly. The rules of capitalism are simple. You have the opportunity, through whatever resources you have and/or choose to avail yourself of, to achieve as much wealth as you desire. The unsaid part of that is if you choose NOT to avail yourself of the resources available to you, society owes you nothing. One very possible reason that wealth is unevenly distributed in this country is because a lot of poeple aren't taking the neccessary steps to be wealthy.

 

[MitchMan]

Bern, in your first paragraph, you acknowledge that there is a distribution of wealth early in the economic process just as I described, and you further imply that ‘righties’ do not argue with the existence/occurrence of that distribution either. Whenever the righties use the term ‘distribution of wealth’ it is always in the context that distribution of someone’s wealth is wrong, un-American, inequitable, unfair, unconstitutional, etc., etc., etc. My point is that most people (and that includes both and most all righties and lefties) don’t realize that the real inequitable distributions of wealth can and do occur in the transactions of the market economy itself. So, I guess I should thank you for the support.

In your second paragraph you ‘guess’ that Friedman and Smith don’t attribute ‘uneven wealth distribution’ to some hidden force that naturally and unevenly distributes. Well, guess what? Flash Bang! They do attribute it to an inherent natural force and they were OK with that, just like you are. And they do attribute this unevenness to the people in the economic system in the aggregate, despite the best efforts of the many. This force doesn’t say “sorry” either.

You ask the question if the non-achievement of wealth by the many is due to a natural force in capitalism or is it a ‘flaw’ in the ‘many’ not doing their part in the system. Without directly answering your own questions, you go on to assert that those that have wealth do take necessary actions to get it. The implication is that those that do not have wealth are flawed and are not doing their part in the system. I smell more fomenting of class warfare here.

The bottom 60% in the USA have only 4% of the nations wealth, the bottom 40% have less than 1%, the bottom 85% have less than 15% of the nations wealth. Each stat I just cited reflects a majority of the people in our America. What you have just said by transparent implication is that the vast majority of we Americans are flawed and do not do their part which is the cause of the uneven distribution of wealth in this country.

I consider your post, in pertinent part, a slap in the face of American exceptionalism and reflects an un-American, unpatriotic, disparaging position and attitude toward the vast majority of Americans.

Additionally, you mentioned that most have to figure out and do the actions required to get wealth. Well, I agree that figuring stuff out can lead to wealth in our system. After all, isn’t that what Wall Street shadow banking promoters did, in some cases making hundreds of millions of dollars in one or two years of work, while honest hard working Americans work for under $60,000/yr defending our country in the armed services, maintaining our roads and buildings, in short, doing all the work with their own hands that produces all the real goods and services we use to sustain life, our homes, our families? The vast, vast majority of all hard working truly productive Americans will never ever get even close to making the obscene amounts of money in their life times like Wall Streeters have in one or two years. You have implicated that is OK with you. It is my belief that concentrations of that kind of income is actually very unhealthy for our economy on so many levels.

Where you and I really disagree is in which flaw we identify that leads to ‘uneven’ wealth. In short, you say it’s the people, I say it’s defects in the system itself.

Just looked at some posts since your post. There you guys go again railing against ‘distribution’ the way you do. The biggest error that leads to your collective folly is in your limited understanding of what value is, the different levels at which it exists and at which it is “actually” created, where/how it is stored, how it can be measured, traded, destroyed, consumed, the distinctions between price and value (this one is particularly hard and elusive for the simplistic thinkers, righties beware), and misidentified.

There is some questions I would like to posit: 1) Is the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top healthy or unhealthy for the country? Keep in mind that the USA is the 2nd worst ‘offender’ in the world. 2)Is it possible to modify our current economic system to reduce the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top in such a way that our country would be healthier economically and improve the financial status of the vast majority in the long term?

Editec, you are definitely on the right track.

 

[Oddball]

The bottom 60% in the USA have only 4% of the nations wealth, the bottom 40% have less than 1%, the bottom 85% have less than 15% of the nations wealth. Each stat I just cited reflects a majority of the people in our America. What you have just said by transparent implication is that the vast majority of we Americans are flawed and do not do their part which is the cause of the uneven distribution of wealth in this country.

Maybe they're ill-equipped and/or ill-motivated to go and accumulate some wealth for themselves.

Of course, the question also begs, who is defining "wealth"?

Is it limited to portfolios and bank accounts?...Homes, cars and wine cellars?...You want specifics, how about you getting more specific, rather than just spewing the same stale boilerplate rhetoric of the covetous moocher class?

 

[MitchMan]

Hey, Oddball, still sitting on your porch with a shotgun across your lap, sucking on a dandelion just waitin' for them revenuers to trespass? Or, are you suitin' up to go out into the woods and practice your paramilitary exercises?