Understanding the 'distribution of income/wealth': The L curve

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let's examine the richest people in America.


1. Bill Gates
91,000 employees

Silly me, I thought they got rich by hiring those people, not that they hired them as a charity...

Silly me, I didn't realize they were indentured servants and none of them have shared in the success of those companies. Clearly, we need to divide all their wealth equally and give it to all the employees. No that won't work, cause there's folks poorer than them...if any money is left, then we'll give it to the employees.

Please explain to me how Bill Gates, who amassed a fortune of tens of billions and is giving away 95% to charity, would have been less productive with, say, half the income.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let's examine the richest people in America.


1. Bill Gates
91,000 employees

2. Warren Buffet
233,000 employees

3. Larry Ellison
87,000 employees

4-7 The Waltons
2,100,000 employees

8. Michael Bloomberg
10,800 employees

9-10 Koch brothers
80,000 employees


Fuckers, hang them all and redistribute their wealth. It's completely UNFAIR!

Silly me, I thought they got rich by hiring those people, not that they hired them as a charity...

Silly me, I didn't realize they were indentured servants and none of them have shared in the success of those companies. Clearly, we need to divide all their wealth equally and give it to all the employees. No that won't work, cause there's folks poorer than them...if any money is left, then we'll give it to the employees.

That's not what I said at all. My point is that the rich aren't gods up in heaven raining down manna on us. Conservatives tend to want to put a halo on the rich guys' heads because some of them own companies that hire people-- But they hire people and pay them for the sake of their own profit, not as some kind of charity.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: irwincur
What some people forget however is that those at the top 10 percent tend to also be wealth generators for those in the lower 90 percent. They are the employers and business owners. They have undertaken a significant amount of personal risk to see to it that they could provide others with work. Risk vs reward is a clear concept. The more risk involved, tyipcally the more you can expect as a reward.

Now, when you take away the wealth in the top 10 percent and just give it away, you reduce the incentives in the reward side of the puzzle. So if risk does not compete with reward, you will eventually have less money at the top, more in the middle and bottom, but much less incentive to get to the top. Without people moving to the top, the middle grows and those that take risk decline - meaning that at some point real wealth also declines because there are not enough new business owners or employers risking their safe middle class lives to supply any more jobs.

Eventually, the cycle stops and almost all of the money has to be managed by a broker who can redistribute. This happens because people without jobs still deserve a decent lifestyle (or so the argument goes). However, with more and more people out of work, because the supply is reduced, more and more people are on the dole. It creates an endless cycle towards higher and higher taxes, a reduction in real wealth, and government distribution to equalize the system.

Which is why Socialism ends up at Communism - because eventually to manage the system, you must take all money and property focefully to meet the needs of everyone. All people are then employed by the government because they become the only entity holding the wealth. And with the wealth, they also hold power over liberty and personal freedoms.

So as bad as free markets are, they insure that the people have more control over money and property than the government does. This in turns buys their rights and liberties - as the people are not beholden to the government - the government requires the wealth of the people to operate.


Pretty sad that we are half way to pure Socialism, which puts us a short skip away from total loss of rights, liberty, and property. Once we move too far down this path it is almost impossible to reverse without a major public upheaval and a refresh of this cycle.

The statement that a free market is done when the majority realize that they can vote themselves gifts from the treasury rings absolutely true. Within the next 10 years, expect a permanent majority voting block to be completely on the government dole. Within 20 we will have gone too far. Within 40 - 50, the US will be the United Socialist States of America (or a safe name for the new USSR - a pure Communist nation).

Trickle. down. economics. does. not. work. The past decade or so has shown us that although there is a legitimate trickle-down effect, it should not be used as a guide to forming economic policy. Nice job invoking the red boogeyman, too. There is a HUGE difference between a progressive enough tax structure designed to achieve a reasonable wealth distribution and the communal/governmental ownership of the means of production from start to finish. We once had a top income tax rate of 90% and guess what - the incentives to make even more money for those at the top were still as strong as ever. Unless you put a static/fixed cap on how much money you can earn (or tax 100% at some level), then that incentive will still be there. Nobody forgoes a good-faith effort to prosper to spite the tax man once you get into the top brackets. It is like taking a vow of poverty for the tax breaks - it makes no sense. An excessive concentration of wealth in any society is just as dangerous to democracy as actual socialism. Democracy with such a wealth distribution leads to oligarchy, which leads to fascism/tyranny. We have been seeing that happening again before our eyes.

Robin. hood. economics. does. not. work.

Hell, by your logic (bolded above), we should start taxing poor people at 90%, and remove that tax when they get above the poor level. That way there is incentive to make enough money to not be poor anymore!

Exactly the opposite. If you tax a wealthy person's income at 90%, he won't exactly be out on the streets. Taxing income won't do much to rid you of the wealth you already have, just the rate at which you add to it. There will still be that latent capacity to generate wealth and provide for one's self sheerly by virtue of having that nice stack of cash to sit on. Hell, you can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING all day long and live off the interest if you had enough net "worth". You have to be pretty blind to think that you can apply the same policies to different ends of the income scale.

Tax the working poor like that, and we are back to feudalism. Think of that as trickle-down economics taken to its extreme (and some would say logical) end. A poor person taxed at that rate doesn't give a shit about wealth - only having food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head. This breeds revolution, which never bodes well for those at the top sitting on millions/billions.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80
The amalgamation of one's wealth does correlate very well with how productive one is in society, and considering 95% of the population is stupid and lazy and are leeches of the other 5%, the distribution looks very fair.

/facepalm

Maybe I should check my sarcasm meter, but I don' think that this is accurate. This kind of thinking is no different than a modern day divine right of kings. The wealthy are all wealthy because the rest of us are lazy and therefore don't deserve more than a pittance. The only way to measure one's productivity is their net worth. :roll:

The L curve may be misleading and blow things a bit out of proportion as far as wealth distribution goes, but I cannot accept that things as they are now are sustainable and correct. Labor should be rewarded, but not less so than investments.

Labor is already rewarded through wages and benefits. And it is rewarded less so than investments because labor's reward is defined with no downside loss risk. /facepalm right back at you.

If labor is rewarded less so than risk, then how are those not in the top 5% as you put it, lazy? Working your arse off, no matter how productive you are, will never reward you enough to be in that top percentile bracket.

Working your ass off and being productive will get you to a high enough part of the bracket to make six figures and live comfortably. If you want to join the top 5%, you have to take investment risk. How hard is that to understand? Who is keeping laborers from saving their money and risking the capital to hit it big?

The distribution of wealth merely is a reflection of what percent of society are risk takers and what percent are laborers.

Working your arse off can get you to a comfortable standard of living. However, I do not think that you "deserve" to be in the top 5% solely by being a "risk-taker". Those that do this are the truly lazy ones, imho. Risk should be rewarded, but not so much as to overshadow an honest day's (or career's worth) of work. If you want to get into that top segment, you have to do both. However, today's society has moved to the point where labor is being rewarded less and less and risk more and more. This is dangerous in addition to being morally dubious. It is un-American.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80
The amalgamation of one's wealth does correlate very well with how productive one is in society, and considering 95% of the population is stupid and lazy and are leeches of the other 5%, the distribution looks very fair.

/facepalm

Maybe I should check my sarcasm meter, but I don' think that this is accurate. This kind of thinking is no different than a modern day divine right of kings. The wealthy are all wealthy because the rest of us are lazy and therefore don't deserve more than a pittance. The only way to measure one's productivity is their net worth. :roll:

The L curve may be misleading and blow things a bit out of proportion as far as wealth distribution goes, but I cannot accept that things as they are now are sustainable and correct. Labor should be rewarded, but not less so than investments.

Labor is already rewarded through wages and benefits. And it is rewarded less so than investments because labor's reward is defined with no downside loss risk. /facepalm right back at you.

If labor is rewarded less so than risk, then how are those not in the top 5% as you put it, lazy? Working your arse off, no matter how productive you are, will never reward you enough to be in that top percentile bracket.

Working your ass off and being productive will get you to a high enough part of the bracket to make six figures and live comfortably. If you want to join the top 5%, you have to take investment risk. How hard is that to understand? Who is keeping laborers from saving their money and risking the capital to hit it big?

The distribution of wealth merely is a reflection of what percent of society are risk takers and what percent are laborers.

However, I do not think that you "deserve" to be in the top 5% solely by being a "risk-taker".

Thankfully, you dont decide who gets wealthy.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Hell, you can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING all day long and live off the interest if you had enough net "worth".

So funny you can say something like that yet advocate a 90% top rate. Do you not get what the problem is? At a 90% top rate, private capital will sit the sidelines and as you put it the wealthy will do nothing all day and "live off the interest." Remove such barriers and private capital immediately goes into the market and goes to work rather than sitting in Larry Ellison's bank account (or shit, overseas where there is opportunity). You can call that "trickle down" economics all you want, but it's just fact of life.

Working your arse off can get you to a comfortable standard of living. However, I do not think that you "deserve" to be in the top 5% solely by being a "risk-taker". Those that do this are the truly lazy ones, imho. Risk should be rewarded, but not so much as to overshadow an honest day's (or career's worth) of work. If you want to get into that top segment, you have to do both. However, today's society has moved to the point where labor is being rewarded less and less and risk more and more. This is dangerous in addition to being morally dubious. It is un-American.

Funny, society disagrees with you. The risk takers are awarded the returns that society awards them. And your last statement is straight up retardation. If the playing field is fair, and the market rewards risk takers at a higher rate than laborers, it is absofuckinglutely American. And it should push the average american to become risk takers rather than be pussy laborers.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80
The amalgamation of one's wealth does correlate very well with how productive one is in society, and considering 95% of the population is stupid and lazy and are leeches of the other 5%, the distribution looks very fair.

/facepalm

Maybe I should check my sarcasm meter, but I don' think that this is accurate. This kind of thinking is no different than a modern day divine right of kings. The wealthy are all wealthy because the rest of us are lazy and therefore don't deserve more than a pittance. The only way to measure one's productivity is their net worth. :roll:

The L curve may be misleading and blow things a bit out of proportion as far as wealth distribution goes, but I cannot accept that things as they are now are sustainable and correct. Labor should be rewarded, but not less so than investments.

Labor is already rewarded through wages and benefits. And it is rewarded less so than investments because labor's reward is defined with no downside loss risk. /facepalm right back at you.

If labor is rewarded less so than risk, then how are those not in the top 5% as you put it, lazy? Working your arse off, no matter how productive you are, will never reward you enough to be in that top percentile bracket.

Working your ass off and being productive will get you to a high enough part of the bracket to make six figures and live comfortably. If you want to join the top 5%, you have to take investment risk. How hard is that to understand? Who is keeping laborers from saving their money and risking the capital to hit it big?

The distribution of wealth merely is a reflection of what percent of society are risk takers and what percent are laborers.

Working your arse off can get you to a comfortable standard of living. However, I do not think that you "deserve" to be in the top 5% solely by being a "risk-taker". Those that do this are the truly lazy ones, imho. Risk should be rewarded, but not so much as to overshadow an honest day's (or career's worth) of work. If you want to get into that top segment, you have to do both. However, today's society has moved to the point where labor is being rewarded less and less and risk more and more. This is dangerous in addition to being morally dubious. It is un-American.

LOL - your very notion that "labor needs to be rewarded based on some morally dubious socialistic formula" - THAT's un-American.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Tax the working poor like that, and we are back to feudalism. Think of that as trickle-down economics taken to its extreme (and some would say logical) end. A poor person taxed at that rate doesn't give a shit about wealth - only having food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head. This breeds revolution, which never bodes well for those at the top sitting on millions/billions.

Maybe this is drifting too far off the topic of the thread, but is the term "revolution" even meaningful in modern day America? The delta between the weapons, resources, etc. available to the government vs. that which is available to the average middle class citizen has grown tremendously over the years.

I don't think all of middle class America could stage a true revolution even if they wanted to. The US military is simply too powerful. Any literal revolution would be easily crushed.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Tax the working poor like that, and we are back to feudalism. Think of that as trickle-down economics taken to its extreme (and some would say logical) end. A poor person taxed at that rate doesn't give a shit about wealth - only having food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head. This breeds revolution, which never bodes well for those at the top sitting on millions/billions.

Maybe this is drifting too far off the topic of the thread, but is the term "revolution" even meaningful in modern day America? The delta between the weapons, resources, etc. available to the government vs. that which is available to the average middle class citizen has grown tremendously over the years.

I don't think all of middle class America could stage a true revolution even if they wanted to. The US military is simply too powerful. Any literal revolution would be easily crushed.

The revolution chatterboxes are saying that the US military would never fire upon the people, especially if they are revolting against an unjust US government. And I don't think that theory is that farfetched either...and it's even possible that a military leader could head such a rebellion.

However, I put the probably of something like that coming even close to happening is close to 0. But then again if someone told you in 2006 that Citi, B of A, lehman, bears would be insolvent in 2008 you would have dismissed them as crazy...

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Hell, you can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING all day long and live off the interest if you had enough net "worth".

So funny you can say something like that yet advocate a 90% top rate. Do you not get what the problem is? At a 90% top rate, private capital will sit the sidelines and as you put it the wealthy will do nothing all day and "live off the interest." Remove such barriers and private capital immediately goes into the market and goes to work rather than sitting in Larry Ellison's bank account (or shit, overseas where there is opportunity). You can call that "trickle down" economics all you want, but it's just fact of life.

Working your arse off can get you to a comfortable standard of living. However, I do not think that you "deserve" to be in the top 5% solely by being a "risk-taker". Those that do this are the truly lazy ones, imho. Risk should be rewarded, but not so much as to overshadow an honest day's (or career's worth) of work. If you want to get into that top segment, you have to do both. However, today's society has moved to the point where labor is being rewarded less and less and risk more and more. This is dangerous in addition to being morally dubious. It is un-American.

Funny, society disagrees with you. The risk takers are awarded the returns that society awards them. And your last statement is straight up retardation. If the playing field is fair, and the market rewards risk takers at a higher rate than laborers, it is absofuckinglutely American. And it should push the average american to become risk takers rather than be pussy laborers.

90% was an extreme that we historically had experienced (minus the usual loopholes, etc.). It was merely an example. Compare that to todays paltry ~35% when people complain about the incentives going away when a tax increase of a few percentage points is discussed. I wouldn't agree with 90% top rate, but something lower than that, yet higher than what we have now, is not without precedent as far as that issue is concerned. Society may disagree with me as far as how investment/risk/labor is currently rewarded, but that does not make it right. Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. This is the result. What is unamerican is when a few people in this country get rich while screwing over the guy who spent his entire life working for a living, only to see his retirement funds and/or pension wiped out because of the same "risk-takers". Ask anyone still around who lived during the depression. The wealthy can really screw the rest of society over who wanted nothing more than an honest days pay for an honest day's work.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
The wealthy can really screw the rest of society over who wanted nothing more than an honest days pay for an honest day's work.

:laugh: You are full of irony. Honest day's pay for honest day's work = wages + benefits.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JS80
The amalgamation of one's wealth does correlate very well with how productive one is in society, and considering 95% of the population is stupid and lazy and are leeches of the other 5%, the distribution looks very fair.

/facepalm

Maybe I should check my sarcasm meter, but I don' think that this is accurate. This kind of thinking is no different than a modern day divine right of kings. The wealthy are all wealthy because the rest of us are lazy and therefore don't deserve more than a pittance. The only way to measure one's productivity is their net worth. :roll:

The L curve may be misleading and blow things a bit out of proportion as far as wealth distribution goes, but I cannot accept that things as they are now are sustainable and correct. Labor should be rewarded, but not less so than investments.

Labor is already rewarded through wages and benefits. And it is rewarded less so than investments because labor's reward is defined with no downside loss risk. /facepalm right back at you.

If labor is rewarded less so than risk, then how are those not in the top 5% as you put it, lazy? Working your arse off, no matter how productive you are, will never reward you enough to be in that top percentile bracket.

Working your ass off and being productive will get you to a high enough part of the bracket to make six figures and live comfortably. If you want to join the top 5%, you have to take investment risk. How hard is that to understand? Who is keeping laborers from saving their money and risking the capital to hit it big?

The distribution of wealth merely is a reflection of what percent of society are risk takers and what percent are laborers.

Working your arse off can get you to a comfortable standard of living. However, I do not think that you "deserve" to be in the top 5% solely by being a "risk-taker". Those that do this are the truly lazy ones, imho. Risk should be rewarded, but not so much as to overshadow an honest day's (or career's worth) of work. If you want to get into that top segment, you have to do both. However, today's society has moved to the point where labor is being rewarded less and less and risk more and more. This is dangerous in addition to being morally dubious. It is un-American.

LOL - your very notion that "labor needs to be rewarded based on some morally dubious socialistic formula" - THAT's un-American.

Socialistic? Please. Where did I advocate nationalization of ANYTHING? A progressive taxation structure is not Socialism, and neither is treating income from labor (work) the same as investment (risk) socialism. A moderate/reasonable distribution of wealth is American. Too much in one direction (towards the top) or towards equalization are equally as bad.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Tax the working poor like that, and we are back to feudalism. Think of that as trickle-down economics taken to its extreme (and some would say logical) end. A poor person taxed at that rate doesn't give a shit about wealth - only having food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head. This breeds revolution, which never bodes well for those at the top sitting on millions/billions.

Maybe this is drifting too far off the topic of the thread, but is the term "revolution" even meaningful in modern day America? The delta between the weapons, resources, etc. available to the government vs. that which is available to the average middle class citizen has grown tremendously over the years.

I don't think all of middle class America could stage a true revolution even if they wanted to. The US military is simply too powerful. Any literal revolution would be easily crushed.

You make a good point. Any 'revolution' today would either be accomplished through democratic or other non-militaristic means. Besides, despite the power of the US military, they cannot hold any nation of our size and low populaiton density under seige. It just won't get to that point because it takes an extreme effor to piss enough people off for that to happen.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Socialistic? Please. Where did I advocate nationalization of ANYTHING? A progressive taxation structure is not Socialism, and neither is treating income from labor (work) the same as investment (risk) socialism. A moderate/reasonable distribution of wealth is American. Too much in one direction (towards the top) or towards equalization are equally as bad.

Socialism isn't just nationalization, you've heard about Karl Marx and his schtick? That's who you sound like.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This thread title prove's statistics can be anything you want them to be, and can be manipulated for a purpose.

Because people don't understand the L shaped distribution of income in this country and how dramatically it skews the results of statistics such as these. The mathmatecal calculations are correct but lead you to the absolute incorrect assumtion

A more proper statistical approach would be to remove the statistical curve breakers (Forbes 200 or similar, which represent .000001 of the pop.) an do the calculation. Because the question really is how does the tax burden compare for 0-100k, 100k-xxmil excluding the top 200 ultra rich.

This would paint a very different picture, and would truly show 99% vs 1% of the population tax burden.

 

[palehorse]

I can't think of anything more un-American than the forced redistribution of wealth. If that's what you're after, take a fucking hike... seriously, GTFO.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I can't think of anything more un-American than the forced redistribution of wealth. If that's what you're after, take a fucking hike... seriously, GTFO.

or....vote for change? lulz.

 

[Zebo]

I'll repeat a favorite saying, 'politicians have to LOOK good to the voters, and DO good for the donors.'

I find it ironic you can be such a partisan -e.g. ( everything republicans do is evil and bad while everything democrats do is wonderful and saintly) while, at the same time, understanding this axiom.

Looks arnt everything Craig.

Anyway L curve is accurate - The Mechanics of how we got there is three fold while the cause is singular, the donor class wanted it this way and got it:
1. Ending progressive taxation
2. Instead of pursuing Fair Trade our companies pursued Free Labor and Corporate Shills called it Free Trade and expense of American labor and unions.
3. Mass immigration, preferably illegal, to upset the supply and demand curve for remaining jobs available.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: irwincur
What some people forget however is that those at the top 10 percent tend to also be wealth generators for those in the lower 90 percent. They are the employers and business owners. They have undertaken a significant amount of personal risk to see to it that they could provide others with work. Risk vs reward is a clear concept. The more risk involved, tyipcally the more you can expect as a reward.

Now, when you take away the wealth in the top 10 percent and just give it away, you reduce the incentives in the reward side of the puzzle. So if risk does not compete with reward, you will eventually have less money at the top, more in the middle and bottom, but much less incentive to get to the top. Without people moving to the top, the middle grows and those that take risk decline - meaning that at some point real wealth also declines because there are not enough new business owners or employers risking their safe middle class lives to supply any more jobs.

Eventually, the cycle stops and almost all of the money has to be managed by a broker who can redistribute. This happens because people without jobs still deserve a decent lifestyle (or so the argument goes). However, with more and more people out of work, because the supply is reduced, more and more people are on the dole. It creates an endless cycle towards higher and higher taxes, a reduction in real wealth, and government distribution to equalize the system.

Which is why Socialism ends up at Communism - because eventually to manage the system, you must take all money and property focefully to meet the needs of everyone. All people are then employed by the government because they become the only entity holding the wealth. And with the wealth, they also hold power over liberty and personal freedoms.

So as bad as free markets are, they insure that the people have more control over money and property than the government does. This in turns buys their rights and liberties - as the people are not beholden to the government - the government requires the wealth of the people to operate.


Pretty sad that we are half way to pure Socialism, which puts us a short skip away from total loss of rights, liberty, and property. Once we move too far down this path it is almost impossible to reverse without a major public upheaval and a refresh of this cycle.

The statement that a free market is done when the majority realize that they can vote themselves gifts from the treasurey rings absolutely true. Within the next 10 years, expect a permanant majority voting block to be completely on the government dole. Within 20 we will have gone too far. Within 40 - 50, the US will be the United Socialist States of America (or a safe name for the new USSR - a pure Communist nation).

hmmm

I don't agree with a lot of this such as the BS about risks takers and it being earned since lots of wealth is brought though opportunity others do not have. Also, your points about socialism being bad is weak since some is necessary and beneficial like universal education (my only problem with it is there is no work requirement to get it leading to a myriad of social issues and proven exponential growth) Socialism, is only brought though progressive taxation and this BS about their incentive, it did not go away when tax rate was 90% prior to 1963. No shortage of wannabe millionaire back them, trust me.

I do agree with every other point such as the development of a communist state and abrogation of rights afterwards.

And that's the problem and why you need balance so socialists don't take over, and they will, when things get to out of whack like L curve represents. Whether though violent revolution or the ballot box you can't have 1% owning everything and expect the rest just to put up with it.

 

[SirStev0]

Two Words. Paris Hilton. Now all your arguments are invalid.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let's examine the richest people in America.


1. Bill Gates
91,000 employees

2. Warren Buffet
233,000 employees

3. Larry Ellison
87,000 employees

4-7 The Waltons
2,100,000 employees

8. Michael Bloomberg
10,800 employees

9-10 Koch brothers
80,000 employees


Fuckers, hang them all and redistribute their wealth. It's completely UNFAIR!

The waltons didnt work for a dime of what they have...

Their father did.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let's examine the richest people in America.


1. Bill Gates
91,000 employees

2. Warren Buffet
233,000 employees

3. Larry Ellison
87,000 employees

4-7 The Waltons
2,100,000 employees

8. Michael Bloomberg
10,800 employees

9-10 Koch brothers
80,000 employees


Fuckers, hang them all and redistribute their wealth. It's completely UNFAIR!

The waltons didnt work for a dime of what they have...

Their father did.

IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: irwincur
What some people forget however is that those at the top 10 percent tend to also be wealth generators for those in the lower 90 percent. They are the employers and business owners. They have undertaken a significant amount of personal risk to see to it that they could provide others with work. Risk vs reward is a clear concept. The more risk involved, tyipcally the more you can expect as a reward.

Now, when you take away the wealth in the top 10 percent and just give it away, you reduce the incentives in the reward side of the puzzle. So if risk does not compete with reward, you will eventually have less money at the top, more in the middle and bottom, but much less incentive to get to the top. Without people moving to the top, the middle grows and those that take risk decline - meaning that at some point real wealth also declines because there are not enough new business owners or employers risking their safe middle class lives to supply any more jobs.

Eventually, the cycle stops and almost all of the money has to be managed by a broker who can redistribute. This happens because people without jobs still deserve a decent lifestyle (or so the argument goes). However, with more and more people out of work, because the supply is reduced, more and more people are on the dole. It creates an endless cycle towards higher and higher taxes, a reduction in real wealth, and government distribution to equalize the system.

Which is why Socialism ends up at Communism - because eventually to manage the system, you must take all money and property focefully to meet the needs of everyone. All people are then employed by the government because they become the only entity holding the wealth. And with the wealth, they also hold power over liberty and personal freedoms.

So as bad as free markets are, they insure that the people have more control over money and property than the government does. This in turns buys their rights and liberties - as the people are not beholden to the government - the government requires the wealth of the people to operate.


Pretty sad that we are half way to pure Socialism, which puts us a short skip away from total loss of rights, liberty, and property. Once we move too far down this path it is almost impossible to reverse without a major public upheaval and a refresh of this cycle.

The statement that a free market is done when the majority realize that they can vote themselves gifts from the treasury rings absolutely true. Within the next 10 years, expect a permanent majority voting block to be completely on the government dole. Within 20 we will have gone too far. Within 40 - 50, the US will be the United Socialist States of America (or a safe name for the new USSR - a pure Communist nation).

Trickle. down. economics. does. not. work. The past decade or so has shown us that although there is a legitimate trickle-down effect, it should not be used as a guide to forming economic policy. Nice job invoking the red boogeyman, too. There is a HUGE difference between a progressive enough tax structure designed to achieve a reasonable wealth distribution and the communal/governmental ownership of the means of production from start to finish. We once had a top income tax rate of 90% and guess what - the incentives to make even more money for those at the top were still as strong as ever. Unless you put a static/fixed cap on how much money you can earn (or tax 100% at some level), then that incentive will still be there. Nobody forgoes a good-faith effort to prosper to spite the tax man once you get into the top brackets. It is like taking a vow of poverty for the tax breaks - it makes no sense. An excessive concentration of wealth in any society is just as dangerous to democracy as actual socialism. Democracy with such a wealth distribution leads to oligarchy, which leads to fascism/tyranny. We have been seeing that happening again before our eyes.

Robin. hood. economics. does. not. work.

Hell, by your logic (bolded above), we should start taxing poor people at 90%, and remove that tax when they get above the poor level. That way there is incentive to make enough money to not be poor anymore!

Except every recession since 1950 has been on the republican watch.

Pure free-market capitalism has proven time and again that it doesnt work. The "other" method has.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let's examine the richest people in America.


1. Bill Gates
91,000 employees

2. Warren Buffet
233,000 employees

3. Larry Ellison
87,000 employees

4-7 The Waltons
2,100,000 employees

8. Michael Bloomberg
10,800 employees

9-10 Koch brothers
80,000 employees


Fuckers, hang them all and redistribute their wealth. It's completely UNFAIR!

The waltons didnt work for a dime of what they have...

Their father did.

IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!!

The hanging part may be closer than you think. SHTF I would not want to be a rich guy.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alchemize

IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!!

[/quote]

Funny how you can preach fairness when you are the have and someone else is the have-not.

However when it comes to "unfair" taxation. You cry the exact same tune.

The problem is theres 95 of us and 5 of you.