Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[The Black Forrest]

Lobbyists can't force a politician to vote a certain way. Their role traditionally (and usefully) was to try to persuade politicians a certain way. The corruption of the process is in campaign funding

If they have that wealth, someone else doesn't.

So much wealth is concentrated in so few hands that there are a hundred million poor people in the US. You can't say they're all lazy and you can't say they can all become rich by luck, skill or hard work though that may be true of any single one of them. Because the structure of capitalism is that if that million people somehow get richer, someone else gets poorer. The poor aren't getting richer, they're getting poorer.

Surely at some extreme you must acknowledge that it's a problem. For instance, if ONE person owned EVERYTHING ... and try to imagine that without assuming that one person would be you (the odds of that are 1 in 7 billion).

Bro, sorry to break your bubble, but the poor are definitely getting richer.

Bit of a stretch there Bra.

The standard of living has been so raised by innovators in the past (Edison, Jobs, etc.), who, might I add, got rich because of their innovations, that what was unheard of or incredibly expensive before has now become immensely cheaper.

The poor couldn't afford Edison. What exactly did Job's innovate?

For example, back at the Turn of the Century (and by that, I mean the start of the 20th century, no one had TV. Now, TV is a pretty nifty invention, and those who created, and are improving, TVs do quite well in general. Back when TVs were invented, they were rather expensive, to the effect that only the rich could afford them (until cheaper methods of production were invented by those who wished to become rich). This has become so expanded now that almost every single household in America, even those below the nominal poverty line, has at least one TV, and often many more. This would not have been feasible at all back when TV was invented.

Standard of living has risen for all, even in (GASP) a capitalistic society.

And yet we have people dying from lack of medicine and proper diets.

[Shallowell]

Bro, sorry to break your bubble, but the poor are definitely getting richer.

Please don't call me "bro".

Let's talk about the last 30 years, and stay focussed on the affordability of NECESSITIES. I couldn't give a damn about luxuries like televisions since all they achieve is to make people into soulless consumers of other people's experience (and usually fictional other people at that).

I don't have much problem with the levels of wealth inequality which prevailed in the 50's and into the 60's in the US. I've said several times that there is an acceptable level of inequality, so don't pretend I'm a communist or something.

Do you acknowledge that wealth inequality in the US is becoming more pronounced over the last decades?

Do you see any level of wealth inequality which would in fact be bad?

I can respect your wish to not be called "bro," it pisses me off too (I was even considering editing the post because it's so... condescending).
I think that it would be best if every person in the world had the exact same income: infinite maximum. However, this is not really feasible, so it is good to have at least some rich people.

As far as necessities go, food prices have decreased by roughly 50% as a part of the average American's household expenditures (from roughly 30% to about 15% these days).

And perhaps the gap is widening between rich and poor. But in my eyes, that's still OK, because the poor are still getting richer.

[Shallowell]

Bro, sorry to break your bubble, but the poor are definitely getting richer.

1Bit of a stretch there Bra.

The standard of living has been so raised by innovators in the past (Edison, Jobs, etc.), who, might I add, got rich because of their innovations, that what was unheard of or incredibly expensive before has now become immensely cheaper.

2The poor couldn't afford Edison. What exactly did Job's innovate?

For example, back at the Turn of the Century (and by that, I mean the start of the 20th century, no one had TV. Now, TV is a pretty nifty invention, and those who created, and are improving, TVs do quite well in general. Back when TVs were invented, they were rather expensive, to the effect that only the rich could afford them (until cheaper methods of production were invented by those who wished to become rich). This has become so expanded now that almost every single household in America, even those below the nominal poverty line, has at least one TV, and often many more. This would not have been feasible at all back when TV was invented.

Standard of living has risen for all, even in (GASP) a capitalistic society.

3And yet we have people dying from lack of medicine and proper diets.

1. Nah man, not really
2. But now everyone (OK, almost 100% of Americans) has light bulbs, right?
Jobs co-founded Apple, and Apple made computers cheaper.
3. Yes, we do. Which is crap, and also why they make this thing called charity (which is unlike redistribution of wealth by the state in that it is a choice, and therefore does not infringe on the freedoms of the people to do as they wish).

[Gallopfrey and the Pony Republic Therof]

America's "poor people" are usually very rich. Take note of that usually, I'm not going to argue with somebody about that statement. There are many people in America who are truly poor, and I respect them.
Anyway, the poor of America complain about not having the ability to eat out every night and having their cable service shut off. They do this as they recline in armchairs in air conditioned houses, eat meat most days, drink clean water, and read easily. Americans don't get how lucky they are to be in a developed country. Take a look at people in Somalia or Ethiopia, look me in the eye and tell me that you are poor.

[The Black Forrest]

1Bit of a stretch there Bra.



2The poor couldn't afford Edison. What exactly did Job's innovate?




3And yet we have people dying from lack of medicine and proper diets.

1. Nah man, not really
2. But now everyone (OK, almost 100% of Americans) has light bulbs, right?
Jobs co-founded Apple, and Apple made computers cheaper.
3. Yes, we do. Which is crap, and also why they make this thing called charity (which is unlike redistribution of wealth by the state in that it is a choice, and therefore does not infringe on the freedoms of the people to do as they wish).

1. Sure it it. Did you adjust standard of living?
2. That wasn't done for the benefit of the poor. Jobs didn't innovate. At best you can say he allowed to happen. Macs are now the more expensive computers.
3. Charity hasn't and never will handle the problem. However, some do good work. Again some......

[Timsvill]

Nvm

[The Black Forrest]

America's "poor people" are usually very rich. Take note of that usually, I'm not going to argue with somebody about that statement. There are many people in America who are truly poor, and I respect them.
Anyway, the poor of America complain about not having the ability to eat out every night and having their cable service shut off. They do this as they recline in armchairs in air conditioned houses, eat meat most days, drink clean water, and read easily. Americans don't get how lucky they are to be in a developed country. Take a look at people in Somalia or Ethiopia, look me in the eye and tell me that you are poor.

Ok. Compared to Somalia and Ethiopia the poor are doing ok. But, notice anybody who brings up that comparison never look to the other side of the coin. How well off are our wealthy class doing compared to the wealthy class of those two countries......

[The Black Forrest]

The wealthy worked hard for there money, but most of them rich folks are getting govrement hand outs!!! Stupid obama

[Shallowell]

1. Sure it it. Did you adjust standard of living?
2. That wasn't done for the benefit of the poor. Jobs didn't innovate. At best you can say he allowed to happen. Macs are now the more expensive computers.
3. Charity hasn't and never will handle the problem. However, some do good work. Again some......

1. What?
2. Ain't nothing no one did for the benefit of the poor. They still benefited, though. Jobs brought along, or encouraged, or facilitated, a lot of new things, like the iPad. Sure, they're the more expensive computers now (and, if you ask me, also the inferior), but they're sure a heck of a lot cheaper than they were back when Apple was founded.
3. Charity hasn't handled the problem because not enough people do charity. I try to do my part with volunteering my time (I can't really volunteer much money, yet, because I don't have a job, yet), but I guarantee that if everyone who could give did give, things would look up.

[Timsvill]

The wealthy worked hard for there money, but most of them rich folks are getting govrement hand outs!!! Stupid obama

Nvm, ignore what I said. My big mouth opened when it should have stayed closed

[Timsvill]

Nvm

[Gallopfrey and the Pony Republic Therof]

America's "poor people" are usually very rich. Take note of that usually, I'm not going to argue with somebody about that statement. There are many people in America who are truly poor, and I respect them.
Anyway, the poor of America complain about not having the ability to eat out every night and having their cable service shut off. They do this as they recline in armchairs in air conditioned houses, eat meat most days, drink clean water, and read easily. Americans don't get how lucky they are to be in a developed country. Take a look at people in Somalia or Ethiopia, look me in the eye and tell me that you are poor.

Ok. Compared to Somalia and Ethiopia the poor are doing ok. But, notice anybody who brings up that comparison never look to the other side of the coin. How well off are our wealthy class doing compared to the wealthy class of those two countries......

Well, the definition of "upper class" in Africa is $20 a day and up, so... I guess I'm not getting your point?

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. Compared to Somalia and Ethiopia the poor are doing ok. But, notice anybody who brings up that comparison never look to the other side of the coin. How well off are our wealthy class doing compared to the wealthy class of those two countries......

Well, the definition of "upper class" in Africa is $20 a day and up, so... I guess I'm not getting your point?

If you compare the wealthy class to the wealthy class of Somalia; then there really isn't a reason you can't tax them more as they are doing so much better.

[Shallowell]

If you compare the wealthy class to the wealthy class of Somalia; then there really isn't a reason you can't tax them more as they are doing so much better.

It also costs a lot less to live in Somalia than it does to live here. In relation to COL in Somalia they may be richer than the relative COL here

[AiliailiA]

Please don't call me "bro".

Let's talk about the last 30 years, and stay focussed on the affordability of NECESSITIES. I couldn't give a damn about luxuries like televisions since all they achieve is to make people into soulless consumers of other people's experience (and usually fictional other people at that).

I don't have much problem with the levels of wealth inequality which prevailed in the 50's and into the 60's in the US. I've said several times that there is an acceptable level of inequality, so don't pretend I'm a communist or something.

Do you acknowledge that wealth inequality in the US is becoming more pronounced over the last decades?

Do you see any level of wealth inequality which would in fact be bad?

I can respect your wish to not be called "bro," it pisses me off too (I was even considering editing the post because it's so... condescending).
I think that it would be best if every person in the world had the exact same income: infinite maximum. However, this is not really feasible, so it is good to have at least some rich people.

As far as necessities go, food prices have decreased by roughly 50% as a part of the average American's household expenditures (from roughly 30% to about 15% these days).

Nice to see you've read something. Food has gotten cheaper yes, over the 30 year span though recently it's increased (for the same basic wholefoods). But also people are spending less on it and getting crappier food in consequence. On incomes losing buying power, food is one expense they can cut to meet other expenses they can't, like their rent or mortgage, or quite often (if their work depends on it) fuel costs.

When I say "poor" I generally mean at the official poverty line or below, and maybe a little above. Individual circumstances vary widely so the poverty line is just a rough guide. The poorest one fifth would also be an acceptable definition.

When I say "poor" I don't ever mean "average".

And perhaps the gap is widening between rich and poor. But in my eyes, that's still OK, because the poor are still getting richer.

"Perhaps?" Did you read the OP? This further widening comes on top of decades of widening income inequality. 2008. From that hotbed of commie propaganda, the OECD.

[Mauretania Tingitana]

I don't have a problem with the rich getting wealthier. I have a problem with them getting wealthier and then doing everything they can to fight paying their taxes.

Hell, get as wealthy as you want, but our government needs to make sure that they're giving back to society in return.

What the fuck? These people give to society buy employing, running industry and spending money. What a selfish notion.

[AiliailiA]

I don't have a problem with the rich getting wealthier. I have a problem with them getting wealthier and then doing everything they can to fight paying their taxes.

Hell, get as wealthy as you want, but our government needs to make sure that they're giving back to society in return.

What the fuck? These people give to society buy employing, running industry and spending money. What a selfish notion.

Actually, the super rich are very unlikely to directly employ anyone (other than a chef, chauffeur etc). Someone less rich than them does that on their behalf. Those that run businesses (CEO's) get extremely generous pay and other benefits even if by any measure their "running" is a disaster for the business. And if the rich spent ALL their money, they wouldn't be rich any more would they?

How can you look at the strong corporate profits, piles of cash not being spent (eg, Apple and Microsoft), stagnating wages as profits are directed to propping up share prices instead of raising the wages of employees ... let alone employing more ... and far longer unemployment lag now than any previous recession, put that together with the Bush era tax cuts which are still largely intact, and conclude that letting the rich get richer works in any way at all?

Like it wasn't utterly debunked when Reagan was still in office and unemployment hit a ten year peak despite a strong economy. The rich got richer, but that did not express itself in increased employment. Unemployment only grew during those "golden years" of Reagan. People with that much money don't invest in other people, they invest in real estate. They invest in factories built where the labor is cheap. They invest in stocks and bonds, because if there is one thing you know about a super-rich person, it's that they know how to get rich.

The super-rich should be taxed. They should be subject to progressive taxation of assets, that is, of wealth. If they're so good at what they do, let them bear the burden of taxation on their assets. If they're so smart that it is their skill and wisdom which causes their wealth to grow 5% a year or more, then they can easily bear a tax on their assets of 2% per year. They'd still be growing richer year by year, just by being rich already.

[AiliailiA]

Use it or lose it. If the wealthy (those with so much money the highest level of necessity is easily affordable, luxuries have gone beyond the level of personal enjoyment and into the realm of showing-off, and they have money left over which they stockpile) don't use that money to start new businesses, employ more people etc ... if they don't in some sense share it around ... I say it should be taken off them.

Not all of it, of course. They don't pass some line where up til then they 'deserved' their wealth and after that they can have no more. Progressive taxation is what I'm talking here. The tax-free threshold would be high, perhaps $800,000 in assets for an individual, and the asset-taxation rate just above that would be mild. Maybe 1.5% per year. But it would ramp up rather steeply, so that anyone holding personal wealth of $10 million would pay 5% per annum and anyone holding $100 million would pay 15%. The standard of proof, that they are a good manager of assets, would go ever higher the more assets they hold.

Rather like real estate tax actually. A tax on assets, which if someone can't pay, they must give up the limited resource they hold to someone else who can manage it profitably enough to cover the holding cost.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because the private ownership or unequal distribution of wealth is incompatible with a free society.

No, it's not.

Sure it is. If it requires means to - for example - relocate freely, and access to those means is unequal - then people do not have equal freedom to relocate. An un-equal society is inherently un-free.

[DogDoo 7]

Use it or lose it. If the wealthy (those with so much money the highest level of necessity is easily affordable, luxuries have gone beyond the level of personal enjoyment and into the realm of showing-off, and they have money left over which they stockpile) don't use that money to start new businesses, employ more people etc ... if they don't in some sense share it around ... I say it should be taken off them.

Not all of it, of course. They don't pass some line where up til then they 'deserved' their wealth and after that they can have no more. Progressive taxation is what I'm talking here. The tax-free threshold would be high, perhaps $800,000 in assets for an individual, and the asset-taxation rate just above that would be mild. Maybe 1.5% per year. But it would ramp up rather steeply, so that anyone holding personal wealth of $10 million would pay 5% per annum and anyone holding $100 million would pay 15%. The standard of proof, that they are a good manager of assets, would go ever higher the more assets they hold.

Rather like real estate tax actually. A tax on assets, which if someone can't pay, they must give up the limited resource they hold to someone else who can manage it profitably enough to cover the holding cost.

Only 800K in Assets? Hell, retirement alone costs double that.

[Bottle]

America's "poor people" are usually very rich. Take note of that usually, I'm not going to argue with somebody about that statement. There are many people in America who are truly poor, and I respect them.
Anyway, the poor of America complain about not having the ability to eat out every night and having their cable service shut off. They do this as they recline in armchairs in air conditioned houses, eat meat most days, drink clean water, and read easily. Americans don't get how lucky they are to be in a developed country. Take a look at people in Somalia or Ethiopia, look me in the eye and tell me that you are poor.

If everyone is so very rich and there's so very much money, then obviously there's no concern and no need to cut programs, right?

Oh wait, except we're being told "we" must all sacrifice "our" standard of living because AMG ECONOMY.

So clearly there's a shortage of money somewhere. Where shall we get the money from? The people who wallowing in luxuries like chairs and airconditioning, or the people who are sitting in heated leather-upholstered seats on their private jets on their way to their fourth vacation home? Who should be paying more to help offset our budget issues, those spoiled poor people who manage to afford cable television despite their plummeting wages and lack of union rights, or the poor benighted affluent people who only have 24 times the wealth of the poor families?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/ ... -lower-93/

[Fireye]

Internet is a constitutional right now?

Actually the U.N. classifies it as a human right, but yes it is technically a constitutional right as it is a form of press and speech. Two amendments cover it. Besides cutting the internet to shut down a protest brings in the right to peacefully assemble on top of that, plus the fact that they are cutting live feeds to do so makes one wonder if they are violating the right to due process. But then again common sense must be difficult.

Those are both the same amendment.

[Libertarian California]

This isn't an aristocracy. Less rich people inherited their wealth than you would believe.

You don't know how much I believe and you're bringing no figures.

I don't know why I'm even replying

40% of people on the Forbes 400 got a lot of their wealth from a family member. The remaining 60% are self-made.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-forb ... 26982.html

[GraySoap]

Guys, I've solved the problem. Every time the rich get richer, we take some of the richness and give it the poor, yea? Then in twenty years everyone will be rich. If the rich don't like this we'll shoot them. I'm not sure quite what will happen when everyone is rich, but I'm sure we can shoot a few of them if need be. Bullets aren't too expensive.

[Cameroi]

i don't give a dam about the rich getting richer. what concerns me is this nonsense called "austerity", which amounts to robbing from the poor and giving to those who need it least.