Question for people that hate the excessively rich...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

You're not reading what I've written, molsen. I have said nothing about government control over wages. I'm pointing out that there are reasons beyond envy for complaints about the rich or, to be more exact, the system that creates these enormous distortions. You cannot reasonably put down all complaints about the rich as being motivated by envy alone. The system generates many reasons of a different kind.

You're saying, as maybe sort of a side point, that one of the problems with capitalism is the salaries firefighters get (you called it "appalling"). I'm just wondering what kind of alternative government pays them more, and who gets the make the decisions about the "worth" of various professions in that system.

At least with charity, as much as you crap on it (it's somehow demeaning to "resort" to charity), the people can help make those decisions. That's a great combination with a neutral system like well-regulated capitalism.

[molson]

Also, the "disparity in wealth" that everyone complains about is largely based on jealously/envy, IMO.

If someone (or firefighters) made the same, and the rich made a lot less, a lot of those someone's would be a lot happier, even though their own personal situation hasn't improved. As long as the rich has less, they'd be happy (not everyone, but that mindset). That's jealousy/envy.

And that's typically what happens throughout history when the "rich" are taken down in the name of fairness and class warfare. The rich are replaced by the "state", everyone is a little worse off, but closer together in wealth, which was the goal, I guess.

Saying firefighters don't make enough money is one thing - there's ways to address that through capitalism, democracy, and charity. In some places in the U.S., firefighters do very well for public employees, in comparison to government attorneys, for example. But it's another thing to say that firefighters are underpaid in relation to what, CEOs in the private sector? That rage is about the CEO salary, not compassion for the firefighter. Once the CEO salary gets involved in the "fairness" debate, taking them down a few notches, while keeping the firefighter the same, would presumably solve that problem.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

You're saying, as maybe sort of a side point, that one of the problems with capitalism is the salaries firefighters get (you called it "appalling"). I'm just wondering what kind of alternative government pays them more, and who gets the make the decisions about the "worth" of various professions in that system.

What I described as "appalling" was that such valued members of the community should have to resort to charity to cover things such as funeral costs. I was not aware of that until you said it which is why I said you made the point for me better than I could.

My own experience is of the UK and Australia and there firefighters, policemen, military personnel etc are certainly paid enough that can can fund these things out of their pay as well as most others without resorting to charity.They no more require help from charity than a car worker, or a lathe operator etc.

But we can get too hung up on one group - firefighters merely illustrate the point that when relying entirely on market forces then significant distortions can occur in remuneration which lead to unfair outcomes. It is not unreasonable to expect contribution to the community to have some say in remuneration.

At least with charity, as much as you crap on it (it's somehow demeaning to "resort" to charity), the people can help make those decisions. That's a great combination with a neutral system like well-regulated capitalism.

There is nothing wrong with charity and those that fund it are to be praised. But it does not raise enough finance to fund many of the services that the disadvantaged in society need. It simply doesn't generate enough money. For example, it cannot fund worthwhile medical services to all Americans whereas graduated taxation and a more severe attitude towards excess charges by drug companies, insurance companies and medical staff can fund them for the British and Australians despite these being less wealthy countries.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

There is nothing wrong with charity and those that fund it are to be praised. But it does not raise enough finance to fund many of the services that the disadvantaged in society need. It simply doesn't generate enough money. For example, it cannot fund worthwhile medical services to all Americans whereas graduated taxation and a more severe attitude towards excess charges by drug companies, insurance companies and medical staff can fund them for the British and Australians despite these being less wealthy countries.

I don't think tax rates should be zero, obviously taxes are a necessary component of any working society.

And I didn't mean to imply that firefighters in the U.S. need charity to survive (though there are some volunteers, but those are mostly in smaller/rural areas that don't need a full-time fire department). Just that in the U.S., firefighters are greatly respected, and that manifests itself in successful charitable organizations, which illustrates why charity is a great supplement to capitalism, which only cares about market value (when its working properly)

Public salaries are lower than the equivalents in the private sector in the U.S., across the board. Teachers, police, and firefighters get all of the sympathy for that phenomenon, but but it's true for everyone. I'm not sure that shows a failure of capitalism, or the evilness of rich people. If anything, it shows the opposite. In the private sector, you can get ahead. In government, weighed down by waste and corruption, the same financial opportunities aren't there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's not a coincidence the middle class was at it's strongest at the same time most of the new wealth was actually going to it.

Why is this point always made relative to the rich? What does the rich's income matter at all, if the goal is better living conditions for the middle class?

I don't doubt that the middle class, taken independently, not relative to anything, is worse off now than it has been at other times. But why aren't THOSE numbers the ones paraded? Why does it always have to be connected to this sentiment that the rich have too much?

It's not a zero sum game. Just hypothetically, would you rather have:

1. The rich increase their wealth/standard of living 10X,
and the middle class increase their wealth/standard of living 3X.

or

2. The rich decrease their wealth/standard of living by half,
and the middle class increase their wealth/standard of living by half

Or in other words, is this about the middle class improving their lot, or is it just about everything being more "equal". Would you be happy if half of the rich's wealth just disappeared, if that didn't benefit the middle class at all? I mean, there'd be less wealth disparity, right?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

...In the private sector, you can get ahead. In government, weighed down by waste and corruption, the same financial opportunities aren't there.

There is a factor here that I haven't seen mentioned. The government is not run like private industry, that is, it is not operated to make a profit. Government, by its nature, is a service provider. This does not allow it to bring in the same level of revenue, or subsequently, pay the same types of salaries to its employees that private industry does. This has both advantages and disadvantages of course.

In any case, this is why it is difficult to compare the income of a firefighter for example, with a privately owned company CEO. The goals are very different for these two types of positions, thus the pay scale and subsequently tax brackets will be substantially different.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

Also, the "disparity in wealth" that everyone complains about is largely based on jealously/envy, IMO.

If someone (or firefighters) made the same, and the rich made a lot less,

That's not the option. It is that "someone" makes more and the rich make less. In other words the distribution of wealth isn't so heavily biased towards the rich.

A couple of years back there was a research paper that looked at the distribution of the nations' wealth across a number of first world countires. It did so by comparing the average salary of the boardroom with that of the lowest paid workers. I can't be exact but these were the rough numbers:

Socialist Sweden: 11 to 1 (ie if the low paid average were 30,000 then the boardroom average was 330,000)

Social Democrat Germany and France: 25 to 1

Free market Britain: 35 to 1

America? Would you like to guess?

40 maybe?

No.

50?

No.

What then?

187.

ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN!!!!

The distribution of the nations wealth is 5 times that of the next highest country - Britain which certainly isn't remotely "socialist" these days.

Why? I suspect that the citizens of other countries do not automatically see criticism of excessive salaries as envy and recognise that there are other justifications. The cap on salaries is not imposed by government but by the public's attitude. Your tolerance of very high salaries is not shared by the citizens of these countries (as you will have gathered from me from my posts). It is not dictatorship or authoritarianism but imposition by public opinion. Democratic in fact.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

That's not the option. It is that "someone" makes more and the rich make less. In other words the distribution of wealth isn't so heavily biased towards the rich.

A couple of years back there was a research paper that looked at the distribution of the nations' wealth across a number of first world countires. It did so by comparing the average salary of the boardroom with that of the lowest paid workers. I can't be exact but these were the rough numbers:

Socialist Sweden: 11 to 1 (ie if the low paid average were 30,000 then the boardroom average was 330,000)

Social Democrat Germany and France: 25 to 1

Free market Britain: 35 to 1

America? Would you like to guess?

40 maybe?

No.

50?

No.

What then?

187.

ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN!!!!

The distribution of the nations wealth is 5 times that of the next highest country - Britain which certainly isn't remotely "socialist" these days.

And there you have one contribution to the fact that significant numbers of your population can't make a reasonable living off one job.

The richest people in the world live in the U.S. If you look at a list of billionaires, its dominated by Americans. I don't remember many Swedes being on it, certainly.

I just don't think that's inherently bad. If we kill off all those billionaires tomorrow, our country is not better off. In fact, it would be much worse off.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

Why is this point always made relative to the rich? What does the rich's income matter at all, if the goal is better living conditions for the middle class?

I don't doubt that the middle class, taken independently, not relative to anything, is worse off now than it has been at other times. But why aren't THOSE numbers the ones paraded? Why does it always have to be connected to this sentiment that the rich have too much?

Because it is to a certain degree a zero sum game. The nation generates a level of wealth and that wealth is distributed throughout society. If the rich take a larger proportion then others must take less.

The argument that if you pay the rich more this will filter down and also improve the position down the scale has always been a dubious, self serving argument. Margaret Thatcher used to go even further. She argued that if you reduce the taxes for the rich they work harder but if you reduce them for the poor they become lazy. It doesn't take much to see through that one and not much more to see through the trickle down argument either.

Wealth is distributed throughout society and if one group increases it's portion another sees a decrease.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

I just don't think that's inherently bad. If we kill off all those billionaires tomorrow, our country is not better off. In fact, it would be much worse off.

We don't kill off the billionaires but merely reduce the number of billions

Providing the changes you make don't significantly affect the wealth creation of the society - and the CEO will work just as hard for 25 million as he does for 50 because at some point the numbers become irrelevant - then things are ok.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Because it is to a certain degree a zero sum game. The nation generates a level of wealth and that wealth is distributed throughout society. If the rich take a larger proportion then others must take less.

The argument that if you pay the rich more this will filter down and also improve the position down the scale has always been a dubious, self serving argument. Margaret Thatcher used to go even further. She argued that if you reduce the taxes for the rich they work harder but if you reduce them for the poor they become lazy. It doesn't take much to see through that one and not much more to see through the trickle down argument either.

Wealth is distributed throughout society and if one group increases it's portion another sees a decrease.

OK. so let's assume the 187 number is inherently bad, and the 11 to 1 number is Sweden is correct.

What are we doing wrong? Not taxing the rich enough? Because its a common refrain on this board from liberals that they don't want to do anything drastic, they just want to return to the Clinton-era tax rates. And then they mock conservatives by saying stuff like, "Ya, if we increase that rate from 36% to 39% rich people will lose all their motivation".

I'd love to hear from them - if the tax rate was raised from 36% to 39%, does that bring the U.S wealth disparity ratio more in line with Sweden's "correct" 11 to 1? I'm sure we wouldn't be close. Even at 40%, even at 50%. Maybe at 95%.

Perhaps there's reasons for American wealth other than lower tax rates. Perhaps our economy actually creates wealth.

Or in other words - how do you fix the 187 wealth disparity problem? And would you consider it a solution to the problem if their money just disapeared and we were all equal?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

The richest people in the world live in the U.S.

False. Only 3 of the top 10 are from the United States.

List of billionaires (2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The World's Billionaires - Forbes.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Providing the changes you make don't significantly affect the wealth creation of the society - and the CEO will work just as hard for 25 million as he does for 50 because at some point the numbers become irrelevant - then things are ok.

Right, but at 25 million, we're still higher than the perfect Swedeish wealth disparity.

The issue is NOT motivation. That's a classic strawman that I hate to see brought up. I do not think the rich will work less hard if their taxes are higher. Someone somewhere makes that argument, and its a stupid one. I just think at some level, wealth beneifts soceity more when that money can be free from the government corruption, agendas, and politics. That doesn't mean I don't think regulations, etc, are necessary and don't play important roles.

And I don't have a huge problem with Clinton-era tax rates. It's the same economy, same government. We do pretty well, we just tweak here and there.

What changes, do you feel the U.S. actually has to make to reduce the wealth disparity to European levels. Clinton-era tax rates ain't gonna do it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

False. Only 3 of the top 10 are from the United States.

List of billionaires (2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The World's Billionaires - Forbes.com

Let's take the whole list

USA: 40
Germany: 9
India: 7
Russia: 5
France: 5
Everyone else: less than 5.

It's also true for millionaires:

Countries with the Most Millionaires

United States … 3,000,000 millionaires (29.7% of worldwide millionaires)
Germany … 826,000 millionaires (8.2%)
United Kingdom … 495,000 millionaires (4.9%)
China … 415,000 millionaires (4.1%)
Canada … 274,000 (2.7%)
Australia … 172,000 (1.7%)
Brazil … 143,000 (1.4%)
Russia … 136,000 (1.3%)
India … 123,000 (1.2%).

Those are pretty shocking numbers. I would say that definitely plays into wealth disparity numbers.

The richest people in the world live in the U.S. I find it odd that people hate that, but whatever, I think its a great thing.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

OK. so let's assume the 187 number is inherently bad, and the 11 to 1 number is Sweden is correct.

What are we doing wrong? Not taxing the rich enough? Because its a common refrain on this board from liberals that they don't want to do anything drastic, they just want to return to the Clinton-era tax rates. And then they mock conservatives by saying stuff like, "Ya, if we increase that rate from 36% to 39% rich people will lose all their motivation".

I'd love to hear from them - if the tax rate was raised from 36% to 39%, does that bring the U.S wealth disparity ratio more in line with Sweden's "correct" 11 to 1? I'm sure we wouldn't be close. Even at 40%, even at 50%. Maybe at 95%.

Perhaps there's reasons for American wealth other than lower tax rates. Perhaps our economy actually creates wealth.

Or in other words - how do you fix the 187 wealth disparity problem? And would you consider it a solution to the problem if their money just disapeared and we were all equal?

I wouldn't argue that Sweden's level is correct. I think that may have a significant affect on motivation and a loss of workers to other countries. I suspect the figure between Germany's 25 and Britain's 35 is closer to it. But it does depend on social attitudes and these are difficult to change. But change must come from society not be imposed by government (taxation I think will have little effect) which should only try to influence pubic attitudes.

The difference of opinion that we are expressing illustrates the difference in social attitudes. You accept salaries at any level and feel that should be irrelevant to others and see any complaint as merely envy. I think that salaries have reached unacceptable levels - no one needs 50 million a year - and that criticisms are justified.

One of us has to change attitude

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

Let's take the whole list

USA: 40
Germany: 9
India: 7
Russia: 5
France: 5
Everyone else: less than 5.

Just to be clear, I agree with a lot of what you both are saying and am fascinated by the debate. With that being said....

You said:

Originally Posted by molson
The richest people in the world live in the U.S.

The list I provided clearly states that this is not the case. While the majority of "rich" people are from the U.S., the top of that list is dominated by other nations. Unless I am interpreting your statement incorrectly?

Edit: Meh, never mind. This is really just an argument about semantics which is pointless. I digress.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Just to be clear, I agree with a lot of what you both are saying and am fascinated by the debate. With that being said....

You said:

The list I provided clearly states that this is not the case. While the majority of "rich" people are from the U.S., the top of that list is dominated by other nations. Unless I am interpreting your statement incorrectly?

I certainly didn't mean litterally that "every" rich person lives in the United States. Just that there's far, far, far more rich people here than anywhere else. And that CAN'T be just because we have lower taxes. If we increase our tax rates far beyond what they were under Clinton, we'd still dominate that list.

The only way to "fix" wealth disparity to European levels is to somehow get all these millionaires to leave the U.S. and take their money with them. I don't think that's a good goal.

Well, I guess the other option would be to "nationalize" all that money, or basically have the government confiscate it all. I wonder if people want that.

And to tie it back into the vague original premise of this thread - that's why I see a lot of jelously/greed/envy. People having money in the U.S. is viewed as this huge problem, a problem so huge that it absolutely can't be fixed just by higher tax rates. The focus isn't on helping the middle class, its on taking these rich people down a notch somehow. I understand the appeal, we've seen revolutions over these ideas

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The difference of opinion that we are expressing illustrates the difference in social attitudes. You accept salaries at any level and feel that should be irrelevant to others and see any complaint as merely envy. I think that salaries have reached unacceptable levels - no one needs 50 million a year - and that criticisms are justified.

One of us has to change attitude

I don't know what level is acceptable for salaries, but you'd have to REALLY change things up in the U.S. (revolution required, most likely), to get to the point where we're down to a 35-1 wealth disparity.

And if that's what someone advocates, that's fine, definitely an interesting argument. But the liberals tell us here is that we just need to increase our taxes on the rich by 3%.

If we decide, culturally, that CEO salaries in the U.S. are too high (which I think we've just about done), that will mainfest itself. But I'm not sure how much of the problem is those CEO salaries. How many CEOs make $50+ million a year? I think where we really do well in the U.S. is regular wealth - the insane amount of millionaires in this country. There's litterally millions of millionaires in the U.S., and that group is filled with success stories of achievment. But yet, that wealth is calculated into equations to show wealth disparity, and how capitalism is wrong, and how rich people are evil. Every time someone becomes a millionaire, it's another point in those charts for how we've lost our way. I just don't get that.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem I have with the disparity between the incomes of the wealthy and everyone else in the U.S. isn't the disparity itself, per se, but that the disparity continues to grow, and in fact is accelerating. As a trend, it doesn't seem very sustainable or healthy.

[Autumn]

Yes, I think the major gripe may have to do with the concentration of *power* into the hands of the wealthy. The graphs you see showing the acceleration of wealth concentration suggest to me that not only do Americans generate a lot of wealth (great!), but that wealthy Americans are increasingly successful at gaming the system to their benefit (not great!). I would guess that the differences you're looking for, Molson, between our country and others include a regulatory structure which is not so beneficial to the maintenance and increase of vast wealth.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

Public salaries are lower than the equivalents in the private sector in the U.S., across the board. Teachers, police, and firefighters get all of the sympathy for that phenomenon, but but it's true for everyone. I'm not sure that shows a failure of capitalism, or the evilness of rich people. If anything, it shows the opposite. In the private sector, you can get ahead. In government, weighed down by waste and corruption, the same financial opportunities aren't there.

YOu think firefighters don't get paid a ton because of waste and corruption in government? That seems pushing it a bit far. It seems clear they don't get paid alot because they're a public service. They don't generate revenue and therefore have to convince the citizens, through town government, to cough up money to pay them. It's clear in this thread that people aren't crazy about coughing up their money

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

YOu think firefighters don't get paid a ton because of waste and corruption in government? That seems pushing it a bit far. It seems clear they don't get paid alot because they're a public service. They don't generate revenue and therefore have to convince the citizens, through town government, to cough up money to pay them. It's clear in this thread that people aren't crazy about coughing up their money

Ya, I should have left that part out, it was definitely pushing things so far.

I was just trying to explain that culture. I see fellow government atttorneys generate tons of money for the government (by winning lawsuits, exposing fraud), and they're paid a fraction of what attorneys who perform similar work in the private sector get (and in many cases, they make far less than experienced teachers and police).

Now logically, it would make sense to spend a lot of money on those types of attorney positions that actually create revenue for a government. But that can't happen, because of the nature of government. Those salary decisions are made politically, often by people who don't understand which positions can be net economic gains and why. You don't have that kind of problem, at say, a private law firm.

(And that's not just sour grapes, just an observation, my own position generates zero income, and I'm probably overpaid if anything because there's a ton of out-of-work people in this field)

That's just kind of how it is, but it was a tangent to my real points.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's also true for millionaires:

Countries with the Most Millionaires

United States … 3,000,000 millionaires (29.7% of worldwide millionaires)
Germany … 826,000 millionaires (8.2%)
United Kingdom … 495,000 millionaires (4.9%)
China … 415,000 millionaires (4.1%)
Canada … 274,000 (2.7%)
Australia … 172,000 (1.7%)
Brazil … 143,000 (1.4%)
Russia … 136,000 (1.3%)
India … 123,000 (1.2%).

Those are pretty shocking numbers. I would say that definitely plays into wealth disparity numbers.

The richest people in the world live in the U.S. I find it odd that people hate that, but whatever, I think its a great thing.

USA: 1 out of every 103 people is a millionaire
Germany: 1 out of every 99
UK: 1 out of every 123
Canada: 1 out of every 123
Australia: 1 out of every 128

Obviously less developed countries like China, India, etc. won't have similar ratios but comparing developed countries the number of millionaires relative to the countries' total population is not significantly higher in the US.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

USA: 1 out of every 103 people is a millionaire
Germany: 1 out of every 99
UK: 1 out of every 123
Canada: 1 out of every 123
Australia: 1 out of every 128

Obviously less developed countries like China, India, etc. won't have similar ratios but comparing developed countries the number of millionaires relative to the countries' total population is not significantly higher in the US.

OK, well then our millionaires are a hell of a lot richer then their millionaires, which is the apparent "problem" in the first place, right?

The "problem" is wealth disparity, even though we apparently have the same ratio of millionaires as other developed countries.

[Autumn]

THank you. I thought population was sorely lacking there, but I wasn't sure how it would affect the numbers.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

OK, well then our millionaires are a hell of a lot richer then their millionaires, which is the apparent "problem" in the first place, right?

Well, don't change your argument. You just stated above that your point was that we have so many more "Low level" millionaires than other countries, and that this was a good thing, as opposed to only having a few billionaires. Now you're backtracking.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Well, don't change your argument. You just stated above that your point was that we have so many more "Low level" millionaires than other countries, and that this was a good thing, as opposed to only having a few billionaires. Now you're backtracking.

My argument is the same, I started it talking about billionaires, a list which the U.S. dominates. I think that's a good thing, some people think its a bad thing.

Assuming the accuracy of those numbers, yes, I'm suprised that the numbers are that equal, which certainly effectively attacks my point about lower millionaires, but is irrelevant to my other points. It also attacks the wealth disparity argument, IMO, as it appears the major difference between the U.S. and other countries in this disregard is the mega-successful, who we have a lot of. If we didn't have these mega-successfull (and these billionaires aren't made up entirely of these overpaid failed CEOs, I'm guessing), would we be a better country?

And if the whole "problem" is these super-rich billionaires (who are apparently entirely responsible for these dramatic "wealth disparity" numbers, since everyone has the same ratio of regular millionaires), how do we get rid of them? An income tax increase? I don't think that'll help.

[Autumn]

Your definition of multimillionaires as "Mega successful" needs to be founded first, though. We can surmise all we want, but unless someone pulls up some detailed research I don't think any of us here know why the U.S. has these multimillionaires, what enabled them to amass that money, what effect it had on the population. You would suggest that they earned it through greater success than millionaires in other countries, and that this has a benefit to the country. Others would suggest that they amassed it because our regulations make it easy for millionaires to accumulate more and more wealth. There are undoubtedly many more scenarios, and none of us here know which is accurate.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Autumn

We can surmise all we want, but unless someone pulls up some detailed research I don't think any of us here know why the U.S. has these multimillionaires, what enabled them to amass that money, what effect it had on the population.

Ummmm......really?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Your definition of multimillionaires as "Mega successful" needs to be founded first, though. We can surmise all we want, but unless someone pulls up some detailed research I don't think any of us here know why the U.S. has these multimillionaires, what enabled them to amass that money, what effect it had on the population. You would suggest that they earned it through greater success than millionaires in other countries, and that this has a benefit to the country. Others would suggest that they amassed it because our regulations make it easy for millionaires to accumulate more and more wealth. There are undoubtedly many more scenarios, and none of us here know which is accurate.

It doesn't matter. Let's assume every single one of them inheritted 100% of their money (not a chance that's true, go ahead and read the wiki biographies on these people - they're generally quite impressive in an achievement sense). That doesn't change the discussion. I still don't understand why they're bad for America.

If they all left and took their money with them, the "wealth disparity" charts would look a lot different. And people would feel better, I guess (but be worse off - that'd be a lot of tax revenue and talented people leaving town).

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

I certainly didn't mean litterally that "every" rich person lives in the United States. Just that there's far, far, far more rich people here than anywhere else. And that CAN'T be just because we have lower taxes. If we increase our tax rates far beyond what they were under Clinton, we'd still dominate that list.

This is what I'm referring to. It appears, if you define rich as meaning above $1 million, that the U.S. does *not* have far, far, far more rich people here than anywhere else. Nor do we have more billionaires here than anywhere else. The point is that there is a greater disparity of income between the rich and the rest, those who manage to become millionaires are able to accumulate a *much* higher percentage of the country's wealth than people who become millionaires elsewhere. I agree that this doesn't have to do with tax rates. It probably has much more to do with tax loopholes. And I would surmise that it has to do with the fact that American businesses allow their owners to amass more of their company's wealth, while the workers in the business are not paid as well. This is the disparity people talk about, that while yes mega successful businessmen build big companies, their workers are doing worse and worse over the decades. Other countries seem to provide a higher standard of living for their workers while still creating wealth.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

It doesn't matter. Let's assume every single one of them inheritted 100% of their money (not a chance that's true, go ahead and read the wiki biographies on these people - they're generally quite impressive in an achievement sense). That doesn't change the discussion. I still don't understand why they're bad for America.

If they all left and took their money with them, the "wealth disparity" charts would look a lot different. And people would feel better, I guess (but be worse off - that'd be a lot of tax revenue and talented people leaving town).

You just had us assume that they all inherited their wealth. So I would dispute your claim that "a lot of talented people" just left town ;-)

There's a lot more particulars other than A) inherited $100 million, or B) Generated $100 million in wealth through a successful business. Things aren't as simple as Millionaire A built a factory, providing 10,000 jobs, and made $100 million. The wealth produced by businesses has much to do with the way businesses are regulated, and there could be vast differences between someone who made $100 million off of a stock bubble, someone who made $100 million because of their company's complicated financial dealings while making widgets, and someone who build the world's best widget and made $100 from it. Some of those might be providing benefits to our country, some of those might in fact be a drain on our country. Without looking at particulars we can't really say.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

This is what I'm referring to. It appears, if you define rich as meaning above $1 million, that the U.S. does *not* have far, far, far more rich people here than anywhere else. Nor do we have more billionaires here than anywhere else. The point is that there is a greater disparity of income between the rich and the rest, those who manage to become millionaires are able to accumulate a *much* higher percentage of the country's wealth than people who become millionaires elsewhere. I agree that this doesn't have to do with tax rates. It probably has much more to do with tax loopholes. And I would surmise that it has to do with the fact that American businesses allow their owners to amass more of their company's wealth, while the workers in the business are not paid as well. This is the disparity people talk about, that while yes mega successful businessmen build big companies, their workers are doing worse and worse over the decades. Other countries seem to provide a higher standard of living for their workers while still creating wealth.

There's a lot of complications along the way if you feel like the U.S. can just become Sweden over the next few years.

Though I'm still waiting to hear what kind of changes you'd make here to move us iin that direction.

Because that has to be what this conversation is about, practical realties. If it's believed that Europe is so superior to the U.S, what can we do to be more like them?

To get back to the other question - if we got rid of all of our bililionaires, and we didn't have the striking wealth disparity anymore, with this country be better? Why is DISPARITY the problem, and not the well-being of people?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Ummmm......really?

Sure, go ahead and explain it then.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a lot of complications along the way if you feel like the U.S. can just become Sweden over the next few years.

Though I'm still waiting to hear what kind of changes you'd make here to move us iin that direction.

Because that has to be what this conversation is about, practical realties. If it's believed that Europe is so superior to the U.S, what can we do to be more like them?

I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm trying to point out that your broad generalities don't really match up with life.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm trying to point out that your broad generalities don't really match up with life.

So why are billionaires bad for the U.S? All I'm saying is that they're not, and that "wealth disparity" is incredibly misleading, and exposes jelousy/envy as perhaps being more important than the actual well-being of people.

I don't know that I'm talking in generalities, but I'm definitely talking in reality. You're talking in hypothetical ideals. What do you want us to change to fix these "evils"??????????? Anybody can take shots and complain.

How exactly does the U.S. go from that 187-1 ratio to 35-1? If it's not possible to do without a bloody revolution or some other kind of new government (and if that's what you're advocating, cool, that's pretty interesting), that what are we talking about?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Sure, go ahead and explain it then.

I don't really have to, do I?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I agree that this doesn't have to do with tax rates. It probably has much more to do with tax loopholes.

I disagree. I think it probably has a lot to with the adage "it takes money to make money. A rich person who invests 10% of their money and gets a 10% returns is going to make a lot more money than a poor person who does the same.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by molson

So why are billionaires bad for the U.S? All I'm saying is that they're not, and that "wealth disparity" is incredibly misleading, and exposes jelousy/envy as perhaps being more important than the actual well-being of people.

I don't know that I'm talking in generalities, but I'm definitely talking in reality. You're talking in hypothetical ideals. What do you want us to change to fix these "evils"??????????? Anybody can take shots and complain.

We could write new "Anti-dog-eat-dog" legislation as it would be in the public's best interest.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I agree that this doesn't have to do with tax rates. It probably has much more to do with tax loopholes.

Um....again, seriously? There are far, far more loopholes in a EU style VAT then there are in the U.S.'s net income based system.

Originally Posted by Autumn

And I would surmise that it has to do with the fact that American businesses allow their owners to amass more of their company's wealth, while the workers in the business are not paid as well.

You forget the fundamental reason people start a business in the first place. People don't start a business to provide jobs, they do so to make money for themselves.

If they own the business, it's their company. There is no such thing as allow. It's THEIRS.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

We could write new "Anti-dog-eat-dog" legislation as it would be in the public's best interest.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm waiting for Directive 10-289 to become law. I say that in jest, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were passed.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Um....again, seriously? There are far, far more loopholes in a EU style VAT then there are in the U.S.'s net income based system.



You forget the fundamental reason people start a business in the first place. People don't start a business to provide jobs, they do so to make money for themselves.

If they own the business, it's their company. There is no such thing as allow. It's THEIRS.

But clearly the world is not that simple. The accounting on a business that makes $1 billion does not come down to "okay, I'll pay the salaries and now the rest of the money is mine." As you said, there are tax loopholes in the EU, there are tax loopholes here. There are regulations about salaries and worker benefits, safety conditions and accounting. There is the legal defining of wealth and ownership and assets, there are stock prices and stock irregularities.

I just find it silly to pretend that it's so simple that "rich people earned all their money," or "rich people stole their money from the hands of workers." The millionaires in Europe aren't less rich simply because they sold less widgets. People spend their lives trying to understand how the economy works, and to pretend that here in a a text football forum we can boil it down to a few simple statements of how it works is silly.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I disagree. I think it probably has a lot to with the adage "it takes money to make money. A rich person who invests 10% of their money and gets a 10% returns is going to make a lot more money than a poor person who does the same.

But that's true around the world. Clearly there is more to it than that.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

So why are billionaires bad for the U.S? All I'm saying is that they're not, and that "wealth disparity" is incredibly misleading, and exposes jelousy/envy as perhaps being more important than the actual well-being of people.

I don't know that I'm talking in generalities, but I'm definitely talking in reality. You're talking in hypothetical ideals. What do you want us to change to fix these "evils"??????????? Anybody can take shots and complain.

How exactly does the U.S. go from that 187-1 ratio to 35-1? If it's not possible to do without a bloody revolution or some other kind of new government (and if that's what you're advocating, cool, that's pretty interesting), that what are we talking about?

People point out trends in wealth disparity, or if you like the accumulation of wealth, and say that these trends worry them. Your claim that the accumulation of wealth in our 1% is a good thing, and others are worried that it is not. I have not seen any proof of either side here in the discussion.

As for how we would change that ratio, we would have to know how it arose, and i continue to contend that we don't know, not anyone here at least. If we knew the mechanism perhaps we could change it, if we wanted to. Clearly it was created by something in our society. If it has to do with the regulatory environment, as I guess, then we could change the regulatory environment. It didn't take a revolution to produce the disparity so I think it's a bit much to assume it would take one to change it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Autumn

...to pretend that here in a a text football forum we can boil it down to a few simple statements of how it works is silly.

You're new around here....aren't you?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Other countries seem to provide a higher standard of living for their workers while still creating wealth.

Do you have any factual evidence to back this up?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

People point out trends in wealth disparity, or if you like the accumulation of wealth, and say that these trends worry them. Your claim that the accumulation of wealth in our 1% is a good thing, and others are worried that it is not. I have not seen any proof of either side here in the discussion.

As for how we would change that ratio, we would have to know how it arose, and i continue to contend that we don't know, not anyone here at least. If we knew the mechanism perhaps we could change it, if we wanted to. Clearly it was created by something in our society. If it has to do with the regulatory environment, as I guess, then we could change the regulatory environment. It didn't take a revolution to produce the disparity so I think it's a bit much to assume it would take one to change it.

And I've been fighting the assumption that the billionaires in the U.S. are billionaires at the expense of everyone else. That if they were never born, that wealth would have instead been used to take people out of poverty somehow. That's the implied assumption whenever these disparity stats are paraded here, but nobody ever backs it up.

[flere-imsaho]

Further reading: Introducing This Blog - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

[DaddyTorgo]

i enjoy the inherent bias in the thread title.

not sure if anyone actually HATES them.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I just find it silly to pretend that it's so simple that "rich people earned all their money," or "rich people stole their money from the hands of workers." The millionaires in Europe aren't less rich simply because they sold less widgets. People spend their lives trying to understand how the economy works, and to pretend that here in a a text football forum we can boil it down to a few simple statements of how it works is silly.

So explain your theory.

Just to note, a lot of wealthy Europeans tend to reside, at least legally, in low-to-free tax havens (Monaco, Switzerland, Gibraltar, ect.).