Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[AiliailiA]

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

That's just the thing. Privelege is heritable in many ways, not just inheriting wealth directly. Education for instance, or childhood influences from parents or community. A little support from parents who can afford it, early in adult life. Parents who can underwrite a loan ... perhaps never "giving" their child anything and the loan payed off by the child's successful business.

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the "batter's box," with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle (ORCL), who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got "substantial" start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father's real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as "undetermined," meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.

62% had some kind of advantage (ie, above "lower middle class"). 21% were born rich: on the Forbes Rich List before they'd ever done a lick of work.

That's not 19th Century Britain kind of aristocracy, but it's too close for my liking. Rich people have enormous power (money buys power among all the other things it buys). As long as there are rich people we want them to be the smartest and the best. How can we expect that, when promotion to the level of being super-rich is so obviously drawn from a limited pool of talent?

"Only" 21% inhereted directly onto the Rich List. The Rich List they're talking about is the 100 richest people in the world, all billionaires of course (the current #100 has personal worth of $10.6 billion). Even pretending that they were all from the US (only 36 are) that would make a child's random chance of becoming super-rich as an adult ... by talent and hard work ... one in two million or 0.00005%

21% looks kind of big by comparison to that wouldn't you say?

Progressive estate tax anyone?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

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.

No; that would happen without them, and indeed would happen in a much more effective fashion.

All the capitalist class has done is taken advantage of their own willingness to dominate, oppress, and enslave their fellows in order to steal an unequal share of social wealth.

Since all people are entitled to an equal share of social wealth, possession in excess of the social mean is an act of theft. Redistributing it, then, is the opposite of theft: it is restitution.

I mean, seriously, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because you expect that once your authoritarian dream is established, the new ruling class will grant you a boon for your loyal and slavish service?

[Bilgeria]

Wealth gaps, and Income Equality is not important. What is important is Income Mobility. Those articles never actually explain what has been happening. They only explain one side of the story, to further an agenda.

They will always say that the rich are getting richer, and that the poorer are getting poorer. That is only half true. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well, and at a far faster rate. You have more spending power now, then your parents did at your age. You have way more spending power then you did with your grandparents. While you may be "poor", you can do more with that money then any generation before you.

There has been studies done on people with their actual Tax Filings, and the IRS would follow these people over the course of about 10 years. They found that many people who were considered in the poverty level when they started, were in the middle class when they ended. They attributed this to the fact that as you grow older, you get promotions, change into better jobs, and generally become more career oriented instead of just job oriented. There was another study that found that for every 100 people moving down the chain, 150 climbed it.

Now, when it comes to the UK, and Sweden and other countries compared to the US, the US has a problem. We are slower then other countries when it comes to income mobility. People move slower up the chain (or down the chain) then the rest. We need to fix this. That is the main problem we are facing. We will always have the poor (Those entering the workforce, school, or made bad choices) and those who are rich (savvy businessmen, investors, inventors, and those born into it.) No one is ever in the same position their whole life, unless they have no business or work ethic, or just plain old bad luck.

By the way, those born into money, can easily spend it all and lose everything, thus becoming poor.

[Paul De Rais]

People always think the U.S. has terrible wealth gaps. Why not criticize Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, or Mexico?
Why does the U.S. always get the harshest criticism, and not other countries?


Anyway, the wealth gap will benefit in the long run, because the wealthier will invest in new business and will hire more people. +employment = +economy. said and done.

[Czechanada]

Humanity will never be equal and prosperous until there are no more states, corporations, or religions.

[Paul De Rais]

Humanity will never be equal and prosperous until there are no more states, corporations, or religions.

prove that. sources?
You sound like one of those wallstreet protesters.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Who cares? What I care about is the poor getting poorer.

Social Security suuuuuure is working well.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

People always think the U.S. has terrible wealth gaps. Why not criticize Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, or Mexico?
Why does the U.S. always get the harshest criticism, and not other countries?


Anyway, the wealth gap will benefit in the long run, because the wealthier will invest in new business and will hire more people. +employment = +economy. said and done.

This, but I'd prefer there to be some actual progress made to help the genuine poor.

[Khadgar]

Who cares? What I care about is the poor getting poorer.

Social Security suuuuuure is working well.
(Image)

What the hell does a sleeping 30something have to do with retirees getting the shaft because we borrowed from their retirement?

[Vacktivia]

Hilarious how people actually try to pin this on Capitalism,Taxes,and on one side of the lead coin.

[Czechanada]

Who cares? What I care about is the poor getting poorer.

Social Security suuuuuure is working well.
(Image)

Did Jesus not associate with the poor and downtrodden?

[The Capan Islands]

It's so interesting to me that people who are railing against "capitalism" view those of us who support free markets as the enemy, when we're every bit as opposed to the current US economic system as well... precisely because it isn't free market capitalism.

We hate the big politically powerful corporations perhaps even more than leftists do because they paint themselves as market entrepreneurs while begging the government to protect them, bail them out, establish their monopolies, and warp legislation to their own personal benefit.

That's not capitalism, my friends. It's corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy) and it's supported fairly equally by Democrats and Republicans every time they defend massive spending, either on healthcare or the military, defend the Federal Reserve, recklessly give bailouts, and play favorites with whoever gave them the most financial backing.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

It's so interesting to me that people who are railing against "capitalism" view those of us who support free markets as the enemy, when we're every bit as opposed to the current US economic system as well... precisely because it isn't free market capitalism.

We hate the big politically powerful corporations perhaps even more than leftists do because they paint themselves as market entrepreneurs while begging the government to protect them, bail them out, establish their monopolies, and warp legislation to their own personal benefit.

That's not capitalism, my friends. It's corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy) and it's supported fairly equally by Democrats and Republicans every time they defend massive spending, either on healthcare or the military, defend the Federal Reserve, recklessly give bailouts, and play favorites with whoever gave them the most financial backing.

Oh, I'm quite aware of what US-style right-wing pseudo-"Libertarians" mean by capitalism. After all, I was one for fifteen years.

Then I decided that I was interested in deciding what was necessary to enable people to live the lives they want in the real world, rather than in limiting my analytical abilities to consideration of systems comprised of a single isolated component (which is what US-style right-wing pseudo-"Libertarians" do).

[The Capan Islands]

You can disagree with the stance as much as you'd like, but there's nothing "psuedo" about American Libertarianism's style of capitalism nor our anti-authoritarianism. And if you disagree, there's certainly much more to say than firing off a generalized insult.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

You can disagree with the stance as much as you'd like, but there's nothing "psuedo" about American Libertarianism's style of capitalism

They're pseudo-Libertarian because they're not really libertarian. Real libertarianism is anti-capitalist.

nor our anti-authoritarianism.

Actually, no, US-style right-wing pseudo-"libertarians" are authoritarians, because capitalism, and especially their style of capitalism, is a particularly pernicious form of authoritarianism.

[The Capan Islands]

You're thinking of Republicans, buddy. Using the state to pick winners and losers; championing centralized power in the name of "we know better;" artificial barriers of entry; subsidizing fossil fuels. (I'm against the coal companies too, by the way. I grew up in extremely rural southern Appalachia in the heart of the coalfields and they're corporotacracy at its very worst.)

Actually, no, US-style right-wing pseudo-"libertarians" are authoritarians, because capitalism, and especially their style of capitalism, is a particularly pernicious form of authoritarianism.

Yawn. I've heard the "free market capitalism is authoritarian" argument before and it relies on changing definitions mid-conversation to reach its conclusions. Really, it's just the same leftist covetous mindset that falsely believes that wealth is zero-sum, where if I have more money than you, it's because I took it from you and not because I generated more wealth than you did.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wealth gaps, and Income Equality is not important.

You started so well, then you got to the 'is not' bit, and it all turned into horseshit.

Try starting over, and this time not being so thoroughly, entirely wrong.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

You're thinking of Republicans, buddy.

No, I'm not.

Like I said, I was a right-"libertarian" for fifteen years. I know exactly what you're talking about.

Actually, no, US-style right-wing pseudo-"libertarians" are authoritarians, because capitalism, and especially their style of capitalism, is a particularly pernicious form of authoritarianism.

Yawn. I've heard the "free market capitalism is authoritarian" argument before and it relies on changing definitions mid-conversation to reach its conclusions.

No, it doesn't.

Really, it's just the same leftist covetous mindset that falsely believes that wealth is zero-sum, where if I have more money than you, it's because I took it from you and not because I generated more wealth than you did.

No, it's not.

[Haydenish People]

Would you people just shut up about how the US is a hellhole? The United States is a stable, republican, rich country. Stop complaining about poverty or wealth gaps, because you're keeping your mind limited to developed countries. And, yes, among wealthy countries, the US is terrible, but compare it to a developing country, your argument falls apart. You don't know how good you have it.

I know my opinion will be called ignorant and unsophisticated. I guess that's what I get for sharing my capitalist views on NSG.

[Neu California]

Wealth gaps, and Income Equality is not important. What is important is Income Mobility. Those articles never actually explain what has been happening. They only explain one side of the story, to further an agenda.

They will always say that the rich are getting richer, and that the poorer are getting poorer. That is only half true. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well, and at a far faster rate. You have more spending power now, then your parents did at your age. You have way more spending power then you did with your grandparents. While you may be "poor", you can do more with that money then any generation before you.

There has been studies done on people with their actual Tax Filings, and the IRS would follow these people over the course of about 10 years. They found that many people who were considered in the poverty level when they started, were in the middle class when they ended. They attributed this to the fact that as you grow older, you get promotions, change into better jobs, and generally become more career oriented instead of just job oriented. There was another study that found that for every 100 people moving down the chain, 150 climbed it.

Now, when it comes to the UK, and Sweden and other countries compared to the US, the US has a problem. We are slower then other countries when it comes to income mobility. People move slower up the chain (or down the chain) then the rest. We need to fix this. That is the main problem we are facing. We will always have the poor (Those entering the workforce, school, or made bad choices) and those who are rich (savvy businessmen, investors, inventors, and those born into it.) No one is ever in the same position their whole life, unless they have no business or work ethic, or just plain old bad luck.

By the way, those born into money, can easily spend it all and lose everything, thus becoming poor.

Can you source every last one of these claims, including the studies you say exist? Because I've never seen them

[The Capan Islands]

You're thinking of Republicans, buddy.

No, I'm not.

Yawn. I've heard the "free market capitalism is authoritarian" argument before and it relies on changing definitions mid-conversation to reach its conclusions.

No, it doesn't.

Really, it's just the same leftist covetous mindset that falsely believes that wealth is zero-sum, where if I have more money than you, it's because I took it from you and not because I generated more wealth than you did.

No, it's not.

Here, allow me to retort using your sophisticated strategy:

You're wrong.

You clearly have nothing to say.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

You made bare, critical-thought-free assertions; I merely responded in kind, because I assumed that was what you wanted (Golden Rule and all that) and I was trying to be polite and friendly.

[Zocra]

...good for them? They obviously worked a little.

[GraySoap]

People always think the U.S. has terrible wealth gaps. Why not criticize Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, or Mexico?
Why does the U.S. always get the harshest criticism, and not other countries?


Anyway, the wealth gap will benefit in the long run, because the wealthier will invest in new business and will hire more people. +employment = +economy. said and done.

This, but I'd prefer there to be some actual progress made to help the genuine poor.

I think it's because we're supposed to be an example to the rest of the world or something. Major league players often get criticized for even the smallest of mistakes that would be tolerated or excused as inexperience in the rookie leagues. Something like that.

[The Biased Conservatives]

More of the same NationStates, more of the same. What is the problem with the rich getting richer? I mean the only people who have problems with this are those money grubbing welfare queens like Nancy Pelosi, everyone who is upset with this needs to take a look in the mirror. Or a friends mirror if you don't own one. But with the rich getting richer you should all be happy! After all most of the top percenters are the job creators, so as they gain revenue you all will get jobs. Ever heard of trickle down NS? Well aside from your back alley rendezvous, trickle down is where the rich getting richer makes everything below them better as well. Win win? Win win!