Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Here's an interesting article that kind of gives a look into how the wealth concentration is warping the country.

For all of those on the right wing that are going to attempt to duh-vert from the actual topic to bash what is admittedly left leaning wording of the article, please try to keep it on topic and dispute the spirit of the article.

For those on the left wing, try to contain your "the rich are the evil dead!" mantra and make an argument for way you support the article.

For everyone else somewhere in the 80%, what do you think of the case being made?

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

t’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

.............

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

...............

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

Much, much more at the link provided.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I'll dispute the spirit of the article.

It's little more than petty jealousy. Jealousy is an integral but unfortunate part of the human psyche. Many are able to supress it to mangeable levels and go on to prosper and thrive. Unfortunately, many are unable to do so and instead choose to dwell on the negatives and carry their jealousy around as a continual outrage. They work harder at being mad at the system than they would at working within it. They continually strive to remind those that succeed that they have not chosen the righteous path.

There is no guarantee of equal outcome in this world of ours. Never has been and we'll certainly never see it in our lifetimes. There are therefore two choices. Accept or rebel.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I'll dispute the spirit of the article.

It's little more than petty jealousy. Jealousy is an integral but unfortunate part of the human psyche. Many are able to supress it to mangeable levels and go on to prosper and thrive. Unfortunately, many are unable to do so and instead choose to dwell on the negatives and carry their jealousy around as a continual outrage. They work harder at being mad at the system than they would at working within it. They continually strive to remind those that succeed that they have not chosen the righteous path.

There is no guarantee of equal outcome in this world of ours. Never has been and we'll certainly never see it in our lifetimes. There are therefore two choices. Accept or rebel.

While I agree that the author, myself, you and every other person not in the top 1% has an innate human condition of jealousy, that's about where the accuracy of your assessment ends.

The economic peril of wealth concentration has absolutely zero to do with jealousy and an historical track record of destroying even the most bountiful of nations.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
What a load of editorial nonsense. You might as well complain that gravity sucks and falling from too great a height can kill or maim. Wealth has always concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until it becomes counter productive. The time for words is long past. This train is on a roll and isn't slowing down or stopping until it derails.

Horses
When a nation follows the Way,
Horses bear manure through its fields;
When a nation ignores the Way,
Horses bear soldiers through its streets.
There is no greater mistake than following desire;
There is no greater disaster than forgetting contentment;
There is no greater sickness than seeking attainment;
But one who is content to satisfy his needs
Finds that contentment endures.
Lao Tzu
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
There is no reason why accumulating wealth through inheritance and dividends should be taxed lower than accumulating it through hard work is.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Capitalism then:
pyramid_of_capitalist_system.png

And now:
newcapitalistpyramidnt1.jpg


The 1% are kicking ass!
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
There is no reason why accumulating wealth through inheritance and dividends should be taxed lower than accumulating it through hard work is.

THere is no reason it should be taxed at all.

(that is unless your ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth)
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I stopped after I read, "1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income." This is the problem with the "new" America: it's not the nation's income, it's the income of the person who earned the money. We are a nation of individuals founded on the idea that we were free to be individuals. Unfortunately, it has now degenerated into groupthink and the same collectivist garbage that has torpedoed most of the rest of the world. If it's evil for me to have all the money I earned, why isn't it evil for you to have the money that I earned?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
(that is unless your ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth)

How should a society be run without "redistributing wealth" in reality?

You are a nutter.

The issue is not that we shouldn't pool resources, we have to and that is how it works. Sorry but that is reality. Now how efficent and transparent it should be and accountable to us is the issue. Not this degenerated into groupthink and the same collectivist garbage paranoia trip you and Cyclo are going on about. You all have become so extremist you totally miss the point. Or do not care about reality for some idiotic badly thought out agenda purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
How should a society be run without "redistributing wealth" in reality?

You are a nutter.

Easily.

You tax people to pay for public services.

Such services include (at a local level) police, fire, roads, ect and military, border security, and other things a state cannot do at a national level.

Your comment is a logical fallacy in that you equate public services that benefit everyone to redistributing wealth.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Here's an interesting article that kind of gives a look into how the wealth concentration is warping the country.

For all of those on the right wing that are going to attempt to duh-vert from the actual topic to bash what is admittedly left leaning wording of the article, please try to keep it on topic and dispute the spirit of the article.

For those on the left wing, try to contain your "the rich are the evil dead!" mantra and make an argument for way you support the article.

For everyone else somewhere in the 80%, what do you think of the case being made?

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Much, much more at the link provided.

If you want to improve wealth distribution, you can make it happen without needing to resort to forceful taking of the wealthy's property. Simply stop buying iPads and making Steve Jobs rich, buying sports tickets and making athletes rich, using Windows and making Bill Gates rich, etc. These folks are rich because they provide things that many people demand and are willing to pay for.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I stopped after I read, "1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income." This is the problem with the "new" America: it's not the nation's income, it's the income of the person who earned the money. We are a nation of individuals founded on the idea that we were free to be individuals. Unfortunately, it has now degenerated into groupthink and the same collectivist garbage that has torpedoed most of the rest of the world. If it's evil for me to have all the money I earned, why isn't it evil for you to have the money that I earned?

The 1% didn't earn that 25% themselves. It comes from the productivity of all the workers below them. The fact that they're taking 25% means that they're taking a huge share of the proceeds of that productivity, at the expense of the workers.

The result is that wealth is concentrated, and the average person is very poor in reality. Look at the 20% downpayment thread. The average income person, making $50k, can no longer afford the average valued $300k house.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Your comment is a logical fallacy in that you equate public services that benefit everyone to redistributing wealth.

That is exactly what it is, which makes you guys idiotic rants about individualism and liberty so stupid.

All you guys want big government when it comes to pet issues or "excuses" like public services to cover glaring gaps in your ideology. Anything is a public service if someone else does it for you. You guys are full of shit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
That is exactly what it is, which makes you guys idiotic rants about individualism and liberty so stupid.

All you guys want big government when it comes to pet issues or "excuses" like public services to cover glaring gaps in your ideology. Anything is a public service if someone else does it for you. You guys are full of shit.

LOL - puff puff pass.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,866
6,783
126
I stopped after I read, "1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income." This is the problem with the "new" America: it's not the nation's income, it's the income of the person who earned the money. We are a nation of individuals founded on the idea that we were free to be individuals. Unfortunately, it has now degenerated into groupthink and the same collectivist garbage that has torpedoed most of the rest of the world. If it's evil for me to have all the money I earned, why isn't it evil for you to have the money that I earned?

Because you didn't earn the money. You got to steal it because folk much more capable than you are not given that chance. There are millions and millions of folk in this world who have nothing and have talents that would put yours to shame.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
If they paid themselves half as much, they could pay the rest of us 16% more. What could you do with a 16% raise?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Because you didn't earn the money. You got to steal it because folk much more capable than you are not given that chance. There are millions and millions of folk in this world who have nothing and have talents that would put yours to shame.

We are talking about the United States, not the world.
In our economic system if you have marketable stills you make money. The fewer indemand skills you have the less money you make.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
We are talking about the United States, not the world.
In our economic system if you have marketable stills you make money. The fewer indemand skills you have the less money you make.

Don't you mean....we're talking about the United States. In our economic system, if you are well connected and have absolutely zero skills, you can still get 6-7 figure salaries from cronyism. Actual working skills are for the poor to help build your coffers.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
THere is no reason it should be taxed at all.

(that is unless your ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth)

So you believe someone getting paid in dividends off their trust fund for doing absolutely nothing should not pay anything, but someone getting paid for working all their life should pay taxes on it. Sounds like you belong in the GOP.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
We are talking about the United States, not the world.
In our economic system if you have marketable stills you make money. The fewer indemand skills you have the less money you make.

What marketable skills do you need to have to get an inheritance? How about dividends from that inheritance?
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Because you didn't earn the money. You got to steal it because folk much more capable than you are not given that chance. There are millions and millions of folk in this world who have nothing and have talents that would put yours to shame.
If you are talking about diverse talents, sure. There are plenty of penniless savants and street performers who would be millionaires if only they got a break and not Snooki. If you are saying that there are millions of people in the world who have superior skills to each of mine, the answer is flat out no. With 7 billion people, the number of people with a better version of my skills is at most in the tens of thousands, and most of those are making more than me.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
Nothing churns the right into a frenzy faster than the merest hint of a rumour which threatens their dream of retiring to Aruba at age fifty by manipulating the assets of those who lack the capital to do so. They used to be called robber barons but, now, it's the de facto American dream. Our new motto: Venatus primoris, texo est pro penuriosus terra.

Game first, manufacturing is for third world countries.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The 1% didn't earn that 25% themselves. It comes from the productivity of all the workers below them. The fact that they're taking 25% means that they're taking a huge share of the proceeds of that productivity, at the expense of the workers.

The result is that wealth is concentrated, and the average person is very poor in reality. Look at the 20% downpayment thread. The average income person, making $50k, can no longer afford the average valued $300k house.
Were the workers compensated for their work? If so, then they already took the cut they agreed to take. If the worker could do better, he would. The person at the top is there for a reason. Why do so many members of this forum want jobs at MS or Google? Their founders started with nothing and are now among the wealthiest people in the world, yet tons of people in their respective fields still wants to work for them. Why? These horrible, greedy bastards who exploit their workers and steal all of their wealth have lines out the door to work for them. That tells me you're wrong.