Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[Againsheila]

They would be the illegal class, in that they would have all their personal assets hidden in overseas accounts and various international financing schemes.

If I had more than $20M, I would be smart enough not to keep it where some bumbling middle-class bureaucrat could find and confiscate it. Perhaps I would copy senator Charlie Rangel's idea of purchasing a Caribbean Island off-the-books?

They already do keep their money in overseas bank accounts...what you think the wealthy trust the dollar? Not a chance. The Caimen (sp?) islands is where most of them keep their money now a days.

It's "Cayman"
Any proof or just talking out of your ass? Again.

Take a look at your avatar and your sig line.....who's talking out their ass? <excuse my language, I'll put another quarter in the cuss jar>

I did admit I didn't know the spelling. And while I can't post the proof, I know it to be true. My sister and her husband have visited the Caymen Islands and talked to the people there. Many, many businesses list the Caymens as their home office to avoid taxes, do you really think rich people don't do the same thing? I also have read some reports, though I'm not going looking for them now. I have better things to do with my live than prove myself to you. You either believe me, or you don't...it's pretty obvious you don't. I don't care.

 

[The Rabbi]

They already do keep their money in overseas bank accounts...what you think the wealthy trust the dollar? Not a chance. The Caimen (sp?) islands is where most of them keep their money now a days.

It's "Cayman"
Any proof or just talking out of your ass? Again.

Take a look at your avatar and your sig line.....who's talking out their ass? <excuse my language, I'll put another quarter in the cuss jar>

I did admit I didn't know the spelling. And while I can't post the proof, I know it to be true. My sister and her husband have visited the Caymen Islands and talked to the people there. Many, many businesses list the Caymens as their home office to avoid taxes, do you really think rich people don't do the same thing? I also have read some reports, though I'm not going looking for them now. I have better things to do with my live than prove myself to you. You either believe me, or you don't...it's pretty obvious you don't. I don't care.

Ok. So no, you have no proof. You are merely talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about but see them in People magazine so assume they must be true.

 

[MikeK]

What class would that be? It would be the class of people who have one dollar or more less than $20M.

The "class" of above twenty million is the class who have ninety days to dispose of the excess. So call that "class" what you will.

I do not know how you define "excessive" in terms of capital accumulation. Maybe if you can give a definition we can talk about it.

In accordance with the proposal I've made, "excessive" is more than a reasonable amount of wealth. I believe it to be the level at which wealth ends and significant economic power begins, because it enables broad areas of high level bribery -- such as that which has corrupted our existing government. If you don't think more than twenty million is an excessive amount of money you might be affected by the pathologies of gluttony and greed. So tell us why you would want more. What would you do with it? Why would a reasonable, psychologically healthy citizen need more than twenty million dollars?

Twenty million dollars sounds like a lot. But in reality it isn't.

Is isn't? How would you know? Why isn't it? What is it you would wish to do that you can't do with twenty million?

I wont buy a lottery ticket unless the pot is $100M.

The bigger the pot, the lesser the chance of winning. So what does that statement prove?

I really could not do everything I wanted with $20M.

Such as what? Please be specific.

 

[topspin]

I know at lest 20 millionaires and not 1 has a penny anywhere overseas. Maybe criminals do it.

 

[editec]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

We'll point out first that it isnt the same people in the top group from period to period. The actual membership shifts considerably.

First, I rather doubt that and would demand proof to believe it. AND FWIW, I doubt anybody could prove it even if it were since ownership of assets is terribly difficult to fathom.

Secondly, What difference could that possibly make?

Second, why should we extrapolate to the future, assuming that present trends will always continue?

Now THAT is a valid criticism, I think.

Yes, trends in economics change without doubt.

That makes no sense at all.

No it makes some sense to look at such trends as the change in income or asset distribution

In the shorter run, such trends are what is effecting our lives at the moment.

Ignore such trends at your peril.

Finally, why should anyone be bothered by the idea that some people will always do better than others?

I don't know.

That's not what people are complaining about when they insist that the distribution of assets is becoming lopsided and that will not bode well for this society.

 

[The Rabbi]

Check the people on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 1990 and then for 2010. You wont find a lot of the same names. Go back to 1950 and there will be virtually none of the same. It is hard to exhibit much power when wealth accrues and evaporates quickly.

 

[Againsheila]

I know at lest 20 millionaires and not 1 has a penny anywhere overseas. Maybe criminals do it.

Yeah, I love it, everybody thinking millionaires are the "wealthy". The truth is that almost anyone who owns a home today is a "millionaire". Let's talk about the $billionaires.

 

[topspin]

I know at lest 20 millionaires and not 1 has a penny anywhere overseas. Maybe criminals do it.

Yeah, I love it, everybody thinking millionaires are the "wealthy". The truth is that almost anyone who owns a home today is a "millionaire". Let's talk about the $billionaires.

I think you said this before, I don't count my home and not counting friends homes. This is 1MM in stocks/bonds

 

[Againsheila]

The question was what an acceptable level of wealth would be. If the level became "unacceptable" then that would imply some kind of action needed to correct it. That action might be special permits. It might be confiscatory taxes. It could be lots of things.

But all of them would serve to restrict wealth building to certain classes of people. And that's what I oppose.

If a federal ruling were issued that all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars if not disposed of within ninety days will be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service, are you implying that everyone left with that level of wealth, or anyone acceding to that level of wealth in the future, would be inducted into a special social "class." If so, please define that class.

And I don't understand what circumstances would restrict wealth-building to "certain classes of people." What "classes?" And why?

If you, for example, managed to accumulate twenty million dollars in personal assets you would ipso facto belong the the class of wealthy Americans who live in fine homes in the best neighborhoods, drive fine cars, wear fine clothes, send their children to Princeton, Harvard or Yale and never wait longer than ten minutes in doctors' offices. And that is perfectly fine.

I have no problem with wealth and there always be a wealthy class, a poor class and a middle class in a properly administered capitalist democracy. But I have a big problem with the kind of excessive wealth which is capable of undermining the vibrantly healthy economy and social structure which was fostered and nourished by FDR's New Deal. And I believe the way to reverse the destructive economic trend which was set in motion by the dottering corporatist bastard, Ronald Reagan, in 1981, is to impose a limit on how much wealth (power) any individual citizen may control and to confiscate the fortunes which should never have been permitted to accumulate in the first place.

I don't know about you but I presently belong to the lower level of the middle class, where I am quite comfortable. I wish I belonged to the wealthy class where I would be extremely content with twenty million dollars worth of assets. And anyone who wouldn't be content with that kind of wealth is nothing but a greedy, gluttonous sonofabitch!

I believe for a strong economy, we need a strong middle-class. Since the changes in corporate laws in the 70's, our middle-class has been dwindling, not getting stronger, not even maintaining, but getting smaller.

 

[MaggieMae]

I know at lest 20 millionaires and not 1 has a penny anywhere overseas. Maybe criminals do it.

I don't know any who would admit to it. Hello??????

 

[MaggieMae]

CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows
Lawrence Mishel
June 21, 2006

This week's Snapshot previews data to be presented as part of the forthcoming The State of Working America 2006/07.
Snapshot for June 21, 2006. by Lawrence Mishel

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker&#8217;s pay over time, as shown in Figure A. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

[see chart at link]

*Data note:
CEO pay is realized direct compensation defined as the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant, and other long-term incentive award payments from a Mercer Survey conducted for the Wall Street Journal and prior Wall Street Journal-sponsored surveys. Worker pay is the hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory workers, assuming the economy-wide ratio of compensation to wages and a full-time, year-round job.

CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows

 

[MikeK]

Check the people on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 1990 and then for 2010. You wont find a lot of the same names. Go back to 1950 and there will be virtually none of the same. It is hard to exhibit much power when wealth accrues and evaporates quickly.

It is the hammer that drives the nail, not the hand that holds it.

The concern is not with the who but the what, the what being the kind of monetary power that secretly and insidiously influences political decisions. The issue here is distribution of wealth, which facilitates the distinction between monarchy and democracy.

What is happening in America today has happened before. It led to the Gilded Age, the era of the Robber Barons, a de facto American monarchy empowered by possession thus control of the Nation's wealth. It was a three class society consisting of the rich, the poor and the destitute. And if radical steps are not taken to alter the direction America is moving in it is inevitable that the same situation will re-emerge.

The main difference between an actual monarchy and a de facto monarchy is the former is based on blood lines while the latter is based on the control of capital. The purpose of this discussion is for individuals to decide whether they prefer to live in a society that consists of a ruling class and a peasant class or one that consists of an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class.

There are no other choices and the single factor which determines the difference between the two is distribution of the Nation's wealth.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Check the people on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 1990 and then for 2010. You wont find a lot of the same names. Go back to 1950 and there will be virtually none of the same. It is hard to exhibit much power when wealth accrues and evaporates quickly.

Just because Bill Gates became richer than a lot of old rich does not mean their wealth evaporated. They are just farther down the list. But that doesn't mean that Bill Gates is allowed into OLD RICH social circles.

psik

 

[The Rabbi]

Check the people on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 1990 and then for 2010. You wont find a lot of the same names. Go back to 1950 and there will be virtually none of the same. It is hard to exhibit much power when wealth accrues and evaporates quickly.

It is the hammer that drives the nail, not the hand that holds it.

The concern is not with the who but the what, the what being the kind of monetary power that secretly and insidiously influences political decisions. The issue here is distribution of wealth, which facilitates the distinction between monarchy and democracy.

What is happening in America today has happened before. It led to the Gilded Age, the era of the Robber Barons, a de facto American monarchy empowered by possession thus control of the Nation's wealth. It was a three class society consisting of the rich, the poor and the destitute. And if radical steps are not taken to alter the direction America is moving in it is inevitable that the same situation will re-emerge.

The main difference between an actual monarchy and a de facto monarchy is the former is based on blood lines while the latter is based on the control of capital. The purpose of this discussion is for individuals to decide whether they prefer to live in a society that consists of a ruling class and a peasant class or one that consists of an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class.

There are no other choices and the single factor which determines the difference between the two is distribution of the Nation's wealth.

You didn't just write that, did you?
If so, I'd suggest mental health treatment for extreme delusion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Check the people on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 1990 and then for 2010. You wont find a lot of the same names. Go back to 1950 and there will be virtually none of the same. It is hard to exhibit much power when wealth accrues and evaporates quickly.

Just because Bill Gates became richer than a lot of old rich does not mean their wealth evaporated. They are just farther down the list. But that doesn't mean that Bill Gates is allowed into OLD RICH social circles.

psik

Uh, no.
Check out the Brooke Astor story. Old wealth tends to dwindle pretty quickly.

 

[MaggieMae]

Check the people on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 1990 and then for 2010. You wont find a lot of the same names. Go back to 1950 and there will be virtually none of the same. It is hard to exhibit much power when wealth accrues and evaporates quickly.

Just because Bill Gates became richer than a lot of old rich does not mean their wealth evaporated. They are just farther down the list. But that doesn't mean that Bill Gates is allowed into OLD RICH social circles.

psik

Oh ouch. That is so true, and I forgot how true it can be. One of my brothers became quite wealthy (at least by our family's standards) when we were all transplanted to Mississippi because of the NASA Saturn V project going on in Bay St. Louis. He fell in love with a real Southern Bell, whose "old" family lived in a typical antibellum 20-room mansion in Pass Christian overlooking the Gulf. Although they were both in their mid-twenties, her family did not want her seeing my brother because he was not her "kind." They had a typical soap opera affair until he finally moved on. Tragically (off topic), that mansion along with all the others perched along Highway 90 that runs along that section of the Gulf were all destroyed during Hurricane Camille. But I'm sure the old money still exists.

 

[MikeK]

You didn't just write that, did you?
If so, I'd suggest mental health treatment for extreme delusion.

If ad hominem is the best response you can come up with it is time for you to quietly withdraw from this discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didn't just write that, did you?
If so, I'd suggest mental health treatment for extreme delusion.

If ad hominem is the best response you can come up with it is time for you to quietly withdraw from this discussion.

Actually if that last post was the best you can do I'd suggest you apologize to the board for wasting their time and kill yourself.

 

[Againsheila]

You didn't just write that, did you?
If so, I'd suggest mental health treatment for extreme delusion.

If ad hominem is the best response you can come up with it is time for you to quietly withdraw from this discussion.

Actually if that last post was the best you can do I'd suggest you apologize to the board for wasting their time and kill yourself.

Both Topspin and the Rabbi should be banned from this board. To suggest someone commit suicide is way over the top. If someone should be so close to the edge that your words would cause their suicide, how would you feel? I'm sure you'd find some way of excusing yourself, but like those idiots that watched that guy commit suicide online and did NOTHING you would be just as responsible.

Thankfully, we have the ignore function, which they have both earned, I suggest others join me.

 

[topspin]

Shiella stop your whining I never said anything remotely like that. You poor people ate funny. The middle class is way better off than the seventies.