Democratic Socialism in the U.S and How to Pay for It?

[Oil exporting People]

1. The plural of anecdote is not data

Not in this case.

2. 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, plus wealthier families can afford better education for their children. Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

This is completely false and it's telling neither you nor New Haven have managed to produce a source to back up your claim yet unlike myself.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. The plural of anecdote is not data
2. 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, plus wealthier families can afford better education for their children. Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

# 2 is simply not true.

Ok, I stand corrected, it's 35-45%. The rest of the source is not in any way pro-inheritance, though.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. The plural of anecdote is not data

Not in this case.

2. 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, plus wealthier families can afford better education for their children. Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

This is completely false and it's telling neither you nor New Haven have managed to produce a source to back up your claim yet unlike myself.

1. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and never actual data. Just because you say so doesn't make it right.
2. Uxupox corrected me, it's 35-45%.

[Uxupox]

# 2 is simply not true.

Ok, I stand corrected, it's 35-45%. The rest of the source is not in any way pro-inheritance, though.

The page just provides data after data.

[Oil exporting People]

1. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and never actual data. Just because you say so doesn't make it right.

Which I wasn't doing, as any review of the posts in question would reveal; might want to read up before attempting to debate.

2. Uxupox corrected me, it's 35-45%.

Actually it's closer to 20%; Brookings is biased, as you noted.

[Uxupox]

1. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and never actual data. Just because you say so doesn't make it right.

Which I wasn't doing, as any review of the posts in question would reveal; might want to read up before attempting to debate.

2. Uxupox corrected me, it's 35-45%.

Actually it's closer to 20%; Brookings is biased, as you noted.

Man there is a lot of contradicting sources out there. How unnerving.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and never actual data. Just because you say so doesn't make it right.

Which I wasn't doing, as any review of the posts in question would reveal; might want to read up before attempting to debate.

2. Uxupox corrected me, it's 35-45%.

Actually it's closer to 20%; Brookings is biased, as you noted.

1. You used Kylie Jenner as your example. Kylie Jenner is not necessarily the majority.

2. It's not just inheritance. Richer families can afford better education for their children.

[Oil exporting People]

Which I wasn't doing, as any review of the posts in question would reveal; might want to read up before attempting to debate.



Actually it's closer to 20%; Brookings is biased, as you noted.

Man there is a lot of contradicting sources out there. How unnerving.

I think it's a difference of what we're talking about here. % of rich people self made is different from wealth inherited; 80% of rich people (Defined as millionaire or better) can be self made with a collective $40 Million between them, but the other 20% could inherit $50 million and thus more wealth would've been inherited while at the same time most rich people are self made.

I hope I explained that adequately.

[Thanatttynia]

I still think it's too low. Income tax in the UK used to be at 83% before Thatcher, and at (lol) 99.75% during the war. I would think 60% for the highest earners would be a reasonable ballpark figure, decreasing for those who earn less with none paid by people near or under the poverty line.

I think there's a fine line between taxing people too much to the point where the highest earners simply up sticks and leave the country, and taxing them too little. 40% I would think is a sweet spot, perhaps 45%.

I doubt that any sizeable number of rich Americans would leave the country in order to pay less tax - many wouldn't be able to, many wouldn't want to. There are ways you can get around this - the US has the world's largest economy by far, it could tax a lot more and people aren't just going to stop investing in the country.

Being what? A nuclear apocalypse after which the state has to pay for everyone to have their third head removed? 14x the US government's revenue is a massive figure, I simply can't fathom how the introduction of something which has been introduced in plenty of other places without anywhere near that level of financial strain would do this to the world's largest economy.

No, the idea that it becomes to massive and too costly to be practical. The worst case scenarios are coined by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the current system, because the apparent orthodoxy is that the "free market keeps prices low thanks to competition".[/quote]
Exactly, which is why we can't trust those worst case scenarios; that sentiment has clearly not worked out, given the extremely high costs of healthcare.

Most rich people are actually born into their wealth, and it's becoming increasingly rarer for people to actually earn their wealth.

80% of Millionaires Are First Generation Millionaires; in other words, only 20% are actually born into wealth.

The book that this website cites as an example is from 1996, it's not relevant when talking about today.

There are 15 million (4.71%) millionaires in the US as of 2017. I can't find data on how many of these are 'self-made' i.e. did not inherit wealth. The problem with a term like self-made is it doesn't really mean anything. Is a doctor from an upper middle class family who paid for them to go through medical school self-made? I would say they aren't, but I assume you would disagree. Of the Forbes 400, only 2.5% classify as a 10 ('absolute bootstrappers') in their ranking system. Not brilliant figures to demonstrate how much of a meritocracy we supposedly live in.

[Oil exporting People]

The book that this website cites as an example is from 1996, it's not relevant when talking about today.

There are 15 million (4.71%) millionaires in the US as of 2017. I can't find data on how many of these are 'self-made' i.e. did not inherit wealth. The problem with a term like self-made is it doesn't really mean anything. Is a doctor from an upper middle class family who paid for them to go through medical school self-made? I would say they aren't, but I assume you would disagree. Of the Forbes 400, only 2.5% classify as a 10 ('absolute bootstrappers') in their ranking system. Not brilliant figures to demonstrate how much of a meritocracy we supposedly live in.

You've yet to furnish anything to contradict it, other than offering your own personal opinion. Further, as you noted, there are 15 million millionaires in the U.S. so a sample of 400 is hardly representative of the wider body.

[Thanatttynia]

The book that this website cites as an example is from 1996, it's not relevant when talking about today.

There are 15 million (4.71%) millionaires in the US as of 2017. I can't find data on how many of these are 'self-made' i.e. did not inherit wealth. The problem with a term like self-made is it doesn't really mean anything. Is a doctor from an upper middle class family who paid for them to go through medical school self-made? I would say they aren't, but I assume you would disagree. Of the Forbes 400, only 2.5% classify as a 10 ('absolute bootstrappers') in their ranking system. Not brilliant figures to demonstrate how much of a meritocracy we supposedly live in.

You've yet to furnish anything to contradict it, other than offering your own personal opinion. Further, as you noted, there are 15 million millionaires in the U.S. so a sample of 400 is hardly representative of the wider body.

Yes, as I said I couldn't find any data on how many millionaires in the US are self-made. Anything either of us claims about that group of people on this metric will be based on personal experience and conjecture. But getting into arguments about how meritocratic the current system is distracts from the point that, however many of these rich people may have earned their wealth but, they certainly don't deserve it whilst other people are as poor as they are now.

[Oil exporting People]

Yes, as I said I couldn't find any data on how many millionaires in the US are self-made. Anything either of us claims about that group of people on this metric will be based on personal experience and conjecture. But getting into arguments about how meritocratic the current system is distracts from the point that, however many of these rich people may have earned their wealth but, they certainly don't deserve it whilst other people are as poor as they are now.

Except it's not personal opinion as we've got my source with nothing to contradict. If we take the wealth statistic from Uropox, it's still 65-55% of the wealthy being self made. There's also an extreme logic dysfunction to recognize they made that wealth themselves but somehow don't deserve it because someone else doesn't have it; I don't have a house, does that mean I can come take yours?

[Bakery Hill]

Massive tremendous taxes. Taxes so big you'll never see the end of them. Folks, by the time we're through there'll be so much money in the treasury, you're gonna get tired of money altogether.

[Uxupox]

Massive tremendous taxes. Taxes so big you'll never see the end of them. Folks, by the time we're through there'll be so much money in the treasury, you're gonna get tired of money altogether.

i will never get tired.

[Thanatttynia]

Yes, as I said I couldn't find any data on how many millionaires in the US are self-made. Anything either of us claims about that group of people on this metric will be based on personal experience and conjecture. But getting into arguments about how meritocratic the current system is distracts from the point that, however many of these rich people may have earned their wealth but, they certainly don't deserve it whilst other people are as poor as they are now.

Except it's not personal opinion as we've got my source with nothing to contradict. If we take the wealth statistic from Uropox, it's still 65-55% of the wealthy being self made. There's also an extreme logic dysfunction to recognize they made that wealth themselves but somehow don't deserve it because someone else doesn't have it; I don't have a house, does that mean I can come take yours?

Your 'source' is from a quarter of a century ago (not to mention that I can't find the study the claim in the book is made on.) It's irrelevant unless we're participating in a historical discussion - GWP has more than doubled since then, we have been through a global economic recession, economic inequality has just kept on increasing. The economic situations are not directly comparable.

I don't have a house either, so no. And small inequalities are one thing; when talking about the very richest in our society, however, only the most morally vacuous could see their wealth and then see the poverty others are facing and conclude that this is all a-ok. I do not think they deserve their wealth even when we're talking about someone who came from an extremely disadvantaged background, like Oprah Winfrey. I appreciate that this is an ethical question as opposed to an economic one and for that reason plenty of people will have a problem understanding it.

[Hammer Britannia]

Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that he increased his net worth from Maybe 1 million to 3.1 BILLION.

Multiplying your net worth by over 3000 is still a hard task and even those with several million aren't able to do it.

[Ifreann]

With the blue-tide that is currently sweeping through America and the ever-growing popularity of democratic socialists and their ideals such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I notice that while they go in-depth about their programs and how it will benefit America, they don't go in-depth about how to implement and sustain them.

I'm having flashbacks to the last British election, where the Tories were going on and on about how Labour must think that there's a magic money tree, because they have no other plans for funding their policies, when in fact the Labour manifesto was fully costed and it was the Tory manifesto that said nothing about how anything would be paid for.

[Great Minarchistan]

2. 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, plus wealthier families can afford better education for their children. Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

Trump paid interest over his loan, plus his yearly net worth increase has averaged 5% p.a. above inflation or so (which is slightly above the afterfee return of a 401k in the long run). Trump's on the low end of average returns anyways, here's the avg. real return of some billionaires from 1988 to 2015:

Larry Ellison: 16.6% p.a.
George Soros: 14.2% p.a.
Bill Gates: 13.6% p.a.
Phil Knight: 13.1% p.a.
Charles Butt: 11.4% p.a.
David Koch: 11.3% p.a.
Charles Koch: 11.3% p.a.
Paul Allen: 10.4% p.a.
Warren Buffett: 10.1% p.a.
David Geffen: 9.9% p.a.
Carl Icahn: 8.9% p.a.
Leonard Lauder: 8.6% p.a.
Whitney MacMillan: 8.6% p.a.
John Mars: 8.5% p.a.
Forrest Mars: 8.5% p.a.

And I must remind you guys that with a yearly return of 7%, the invested amount doubles within a decade. At 10% and 12%, the invested amount doubles within seven and six years, respectively. Given that the age gap between the median US citizen and the median billionaire is thirty years, then you can see the prospect of capital accumulation right there.

[Wysten]

We could just take out a little bit of the Military's $600+ billion budget and put it into social systems and programs.

Even if we take $100 billion from them, we'd still be the highest spender bar none.

tfw the US military only accounts for 16% of the projected spending.

[Major-Tom]

With the absurd amount of money we spend on health care annually as a result of the convoluted system with private insurers, single payer would actually cost about the same as our current system, while also streamlining and drastically improving our fucked up healthcare system.

After WW2, we led the world in our post-secondary education system by having low costs for college, thus helping expand our booming post-war workforce and employment gains. Hell, the new plan to boost military spending alone could pay for a college system that is much, much cheaper. And with college more accessible to all, the workforce would expand, as would spending power as young folks wouldn't be buried in crippling debt just because they wanted an education.

Third, when the government helps subsidize programs that shouldn't be fucking expensive anyways, people have more purchasing power since they're not spending ridiculous amounts of their income on various loans, premiums, and insurance.

It's not rocket science. While I doubt that we can make college "totally free of charge" or implement "full Scandinavian style single payer" within the next decade or two, we can easily make steps to make healthcare and education more accessible to all, while also raising the minimum wage to help Americans who live paycheck to paycheck despite working over 50 hours a week just to get by. We can have a fairer, healthier economic system, and feasibly the worst case scenario is raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending, pork barrel spending, etc etc. It isn't "socialism," it's just alleviating and curbing the excesses of cutthroat capitalism that has created staggering inequalities in my country for the last half-century.

[Torrocca]

"No, nooo! that's not true... that's IMPOSSIBLE!"

"Search your feelings. You know it to be. Join me and I shall complete your training."

*Swan dives to apparent death*

[Grenartia]

"Search your feelings. You know it to be. Join me and I shall complete your training."

*Swan dives to apparent death*

*rescues you in the Millenial Falcon*

Yes, yes, I know the actual name is Millenium Falcon.

[Torrocca]

*Swan dives to apparent death*

*rescues you in the Millenial Falcon*

Yes, yes, I know the actual name is Millenium Falcon.

*Receives new hand and stares out into space; end credits*

[Wysten]

With the absurd amount of money we spend on health care annually as a result of the convoluted system with private insurers, single payer would actually cost about the same as our current system, while also streamlining and drastically improving our fucked up healthcare system.

After WW2, we led the world in our post-secondary education system by having low costs for college, thus helping expand our booming post-war workforce and employment gains. Hell, the new plan to boost military spending alone could pay for a college system that is much, much cheaper. And with college more accessible to all, the workforce would expand, as would spending power as young folks wouldn't be buried in crippling debt just because they wanted an education.

Third, when the government helps subsidize programs that shouldn't be fucking expensive anyways, people have more purchasing power since they're not spending ridiculous amounts of their income on various loans, premiums, and insurance.

It's not rocket science. While I doubt that we can make college "totally free of charge" or implement "full Scandinavian style single payer" within the next decade or two, we can easily make steps to make healthcare and education more accessible to all, while also raising the minimum wage to help Americans who live paycheck to paycheck despite working over 50 hours a week just to get by. We can have a fairer, healthier economic system, and feasibly the worst case scenario is raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending, pork barrel spending, etc etc. It isn't "socialism," it's just alleviating and curbing the excesses of cutthroat capitalism that has created staggering inequalities in my country for the last half-century.

>Raise the minimum wage
That's a funny way of saying of increasing unemployment.

[Major-Tom]

With the absurd amount of money we spend on health care annually as a result of the convoluted system with private insurers, single payer would actually cost about the same as our current system, while also streamlining and drastically improving our fucked up healthcare system.

After WW2, we led the world in our post-secondary education system by having low costs for college, thus helping expand our booming post-war workforce and employment gains. Hell, the new plan to boost military spending alone could pay for a college system that is much, much cheaper. And with college more accessible to all, the workforce would expand, as would spending power as young folks wouldn't be buried in crippling debt just because they wanted an education.

Third, when the government helps subsidize programs that shouldn't be fucking expensive anyways, people have more purchasing power since they're not spending ridiculous amounts of their income on various loans, premiums, and insurance.

It's not rocket science. While I doubt that we can make college "totally free of charge" or implement "full Scandinavian style single payer" within the next decade or two, we can easily make steps to make healthcare and education more accessible to all, while also raising the minimum wage to help Americans who live paycheck to paycheck despite working over 50 hours a week just to get by. We can have a fairer, healthier economic system, and feasibly the worst case scenario is raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting military spending, pork barrel spending, etc etc. It isn't "socialism," it's just alleviating and curbing the excesses of cutthroat capitalism that has created staggering inequalities in my country for the last half-century.

>Raise the minimum wage
That's a funny way of saying of increasing unemployment.

Way to cherrypick my entire argument.

And what's funny is the argument that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. It's merely a right wing myth propagated by people who would rather not pay their workers a living wage.

Professor William Lester and others of the University of North Carolina, for instance, found that with every minimum wage hike, unemployment never rose as a result of the increase. Now and again, there would be fluctuations that occurred due to the nature of the global and domestic economy, but that's it. The minimum wage rises didn't affect growth and employment much at all, in fact, unemployment and consumer spending stayed very similar in states with a higher MW than states without, according to the study.