This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[MikeK]

don't lie. you DO.

the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.

which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[MikeK]

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?

Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?

Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?

If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.

Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.

And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!

 

[RKMBrown]

Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources.

Why does that make you uncomfortable?

Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.

It is affordable. It is available. It is portable. Duh.

Better minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.

Only "modest" success? ROFL What would be great success in your mind? Free? ROFL

As for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.

blah blah blah the sky is falling we are all gonna die of thirst... blah blah blah

Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.

Huh? WTF Why should I provide you with free power? Are you some sort of Marxist?

Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.

And? Please explain your alternative to working for someone, everyone for themselves? ROFL Ok by me. I don't need to work for the man.

I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty.

Yeah that's pretty much how nearly every single American lives. Everyone has a big screen TV, computers, video games, microwave ovens, nearly everyone in this country has a wireless phone. Even the "poor" folks are over weight because of this life of leisure and plenty. What did you think this life of leisure and plenty would include, that the poorest of this country do not have aplenty? Did you think money would grow on trees or would not be used any more like star trek?

I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.

Bull shit. Paychecks for engineers sky rocketed during the dot com era. Now they have scaled back a bit, but it's still way over what it was pre dot com. What goes up comes down. Get over it. Or talk to your representatives about the offshoring and inshoring efforts they are allowing.

 

[DiamondDave]

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Control freak... it should not be limited at all... you invest more, risk more, work more, and gain/accumulate more because of it.. or even if you hit the ******* lotto.. more power to you...

NONE of it is OWED to society for any 'fair share' because some asshole like you thinks you have more than what you need or should be able to use

 

[Vox]

Ok, this is from your link:

Table 1
Change in CBO Comprehensive Income by Income Group and Time Period
Change in
average income
Bottom20 percent
Middle60 percent
Next19 percent
Top1 percent
before tax (1979-2007) 37% 32% 64% 266%
after tax (1979-2007) 41% 39% 69% 304%
before tax (1979-2009) 35% 26% 50% 133%
after tax (1979-2009) 45% 37% 58% 155%

strange table as it provides 2 sets of figures. gthe first provides the data up to 2007 and then the same group - until 2009.

from the set is it is obvious that ALL groups grew until 2007 and that the biggest hit in 2008 was on the top 1% - their income dropped from 304% of 1979 level to 123% of that level - which is almost 3 times - which is understandable, since that is the group which plays the markets and therefore got hit really hard. Those are the people who make money on investing - they play hard, earn big, but loose big as well.


ALL the groups experienced growth in income - 45% for the bottom 20%, 37% for the middle 60% and 58% for the upper middle 19%, if compared from 1979 to 2009


If one takes into consideration the amount of taxes and who is carrying the burden - it is obvious, that the burden is carried mostly by the upper middle class, since their benefit disparity in the income change before and after taxation is the smallest.

So what is the problem?

 

[JoeNormal]

Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources.

Why does that make you uncomfortable?

Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.

It is affordable. It is available. It is portable. Duh.


Only "modest" success? ROFL What would be great success in your mind? Free? ROFL


blah blah blah the sky is falling we are all gonna die of thirst... blah blah blah


Huh? WTF Why should I provide you with free power? Are you some sort of Marxist?


And? Please explain your alternative to working for someone, everyone for themselves? ROFL Ok by me. I don't need to work for the man.

I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty.

Yeah that's pretty much how nearly every single American lives. Everyone has a big screen TV, computers, video games, microwave ovens, nearly everyone in this country has a wireless phone. Even the "poor" folks are over weight because of this life of leisure and plenty. What did you think this life of leisure and plenty would include, that the poorest of this country do not have aplenty? Did you think money would grow on trees or would not be used any more like star trek?

I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.

Bull shit. Paychecks for engineers sky rocketed during the dot com era. Now they have scaled back a bit, but it's still way over what it was pre dot com. What goes up comes down. Get over it. Or talk to your representatives about the offshoring and inshoring efforts they are allowing.

Yeah, everybody has a lot of gadgets. Some of them are pretty cool and I'll take some credit for that since I work in consumer electronics. What people don't have (increasingly) are homes that they can own, good medical care, high quality food (no McDonald's doesn't count) and quality education for the kiddies.

Yeah, you want to discount that our economy is so fragile that $4 gas sent it over the tipping point a few years ago. Whatever. If you actually looked around, you'd see a ton of people working long hard hours with not much to show for it and neither time nor energy to change that very much.

 

[Vox]

Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?

Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?

If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.

Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.

And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!

***aggressive stupid commie detected***

it is not up to you, thanks God

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?

Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?

If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.

Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.

And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!

Your feelings are noted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?

 

[JoeNormal]

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?

Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?

Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.

Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah, everybody has a lot of gadgets. Some of them are pretty cool and I'll take some credit for that since I work in consumer electronics. What people don't have (increasingly) are homes that they can own, good medical care, high quality food (no McDonald's doesn't count) and quality education for the kiddies.

Yeah, you want to discount that our economy is so fragile that $4 gas sent it over the tipping point a few years ago. Whatever. If you actually looked around, you'd see a ton of people working long hard hours with not much to show for it and neither time nor energy to change that very much.

Home ownership is high for everyone that wants a home bad enough to work for it. Some people don't share in your desire to own a home. There's nothing wrong with renting.

Homes and Food are better today than they were decades back. As to medical care we have people running around these days who resemble the six-million dollar man. New knees, hips, organs... diseases left and right cured, you have got to kidding me.

You can't force people to learn. They have to want it themselves.

$4 gas is dirt cheap. Check the price of gas based on inflation. It's as cheap now as it has ever been. The dollar's value is lower and we get paid more. Duh. You want the price of gas to be what it was back in the 60s but you want your paycheck to be what it was at the peak of the dot com era. ROFL dude

... "people working long hard hours with not much to show for it"...

Blah blah ... What do you consider long and hard 50hrs a week? 80hrs? 120hrs?

Working hard isn't always smart. Esp. not if you have nothing to show for it.

 

[RKMBrown]

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?

Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.

Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?

Free cars for everyone! Yeah that's it, a kia for everyone! And all the food you can eat and all the health care you want. And free houses. And free utilities. And free gas. And free college. And free smart phones. Literally millions of free dollars. Well, free for everyone that doesn't pay AMT. And no one has to work if they don't want to! Screw the rich!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.

Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?

Free cars for everyone! Yeah that's it, a kia for everyone! And all the food you can eat and all the health care you want. And free houses. And free utilities. And free gas. And free college. And free smart phones. Literally millions of free dollars. Well, free everyone that doesn't pay AMT. And no one has to work if they don't want to! Screw the rich!

If only we could return to those days when we were the only economy not destroyed by WWII, where even high school drop outs could make big bucks tightening a screw in a factory.

 

[JoeNormal]

The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?

Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.

Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?

The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.

Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?

The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.

ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.

 

[JoeNormal]

Yeah, everybody has a lot of gadgets. Some of them are pretty cool and I'll take some credit for that since I work in consumer electronics. What people don't have (increasingly) are homes that they can own, good medical care, high quality food (no McDonald's doesn't count) and quality education for the kiddies.

Yeah, you want to discount that our economy is so fragile that $4 gas sent it over the tipping point a few years ago. Whatever. If you actually looked around, you'd see a ton of people working long hard hours with not much to show for it and neither time nor energy to change that very much.

Home ownership is high for everyone that wants a home bad enough to work for it. Some people don't share in your desire to own a home. There's nothing wrong with renting.

Homes and Food are better today than they were decades back. As to medical care we have people running around these days who resemble the six-million dollar man. New knees, hips, organs... diseases left and right cured, you have got to kidding me.

You can't force people to learn. They have to want it themselves.

$4 gas is dirt cheap. Check the price of gas based on inflation. It's as cheap now as it has ever been. The dollar's value is lower and we get paid more. Duh. You want the price of gas to be what it was back in the 60s but you want your paycheck to be what it was at the peak of the dot com era. ROFL dude

... "people working long hard hours with not much to show for it"...

Blah blah ... What do you consider long and hard 50hrs a week? 80hrs? 120hrs?

Working hard isn't always smart. Esp. not if you have nothing to show for it.

You'll have to show me your source for gas vs. inflation. When I was a kid, my folks paid $20k for a house that now goes for $200k. Gas was 25 cents a gallon. That simple estimate says that gas should be $2.50. Also, commutes were generally miniscule compared to today.

On medical care, sure you can be the six million dollar man if you have six million dollars. It's hard for a lot of people to score some antibiotics.

If your avatar is your actual picture, you're old enough to know that stress has skyrocketed over the last few decades. I put the blame on the people at the top. For whatever reason, you don't want to recognize that.

 

[JoeNormal]

Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?

The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.

ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.

Ok Mr. Independent, where do you think you'd be if the US government hadn't funded developments in VLSI and the internet?

 

[RKMBrown]

The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.

ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.

Ok Mr. Independent, where do you think you'd be if the US government hadn't funded developments in VLSI and the internet?

Much further along than we are now. Govco spending almost always cripples progress. Global warming. ROFL But I'll give you that our war machines are really cool, and we would not have nearly as good a war machine without this war hawk government.

 

[JoeNormal]

ROFL OMG yeah cause their car uses a million times more space on the road than everyone elses' car. And their milk should cost a thousand times more and their water should be priceless cause then we can make them pay for their sin of having more than us! Marx would be so proud of you.

Ok Mr. Independent, where do you think you'd be if the US government hadn't funded developments in VLSI and the internet?

Much further along than we are now. Govco spending almost always cripples progress. Global warming. ROFL But I'll give you that our war machines are really cool, and we would not have nearly as good a war machine without this war hawk government.

ROFL, much further along than we are now. Companies look about 5 years ahead in their R&D. That's not nearly long enough to have made the progress that national labs have in those areas. They look more like 25 or 30 years out. You should see the things they're doing now.

Your attitude is typical for a successful conservative. Use the resources that society has made available to you. Stand on the shoulders of giants in your field. Take some risks knowing that there's something of a safety net if you happen to fall on your ass. Then when it comes time to payback that investment, ***** and moan that you really didn't need it after all.