• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Whether you're a democrat or a republican you want Sweden's wealth distribution

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BoberFett said:
Of course idiots like Phokus pretend that better income would change that graph when it would do no such thing. Wealth is not income. The middle class destroys itself by using credit to keep up appearances. Big houses, new cars, homes full of gadgets and doodads. How many cars does the average Swedish family own? How large is the average Swedish home? How many big screen TVs do they have? Our middle class used to be successful because it used to know how to live within it's means. You can't change that with income, you'll just have more people with more useless crap, not more wealth.
Click to expand...
That's what Dave Ramsey calls buying things you don't need with money you don't have to impress people you don't like.

We have a very modest house and a modest income, and our house is paid for. Same with automobiles, relatively inexpensive 2003 & 2004. Bought a $5,000 motorcycle. Yet even though I didn't buy more house than I could afford, Obama and the Dems want to make me subsidize people who make as much or even considerably more than do we but who DID buy more house than they could afford. When government punishes good decisions and rewards bad decisions, expect many more bad decisions. Especially if those bad decisions come with great houses that other people help pay for.
 
nonlnear said:
Or, stated a little differently (hoping at least one way of saying it might get through to Phokus!): there are a lot of Americans, at all levels of income, who simply do not want wealth and do everything in their power to avoid acquiring any. How anyone can then view the inevitable outcome of such behavior as unjust baffles me.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Part of the problem, as mentioned previously, income has nothing to do with wealth. Accumulating wealth is a mindset that most Americans dont have. There is really no reason why someone making around the average income in the US ($50k/yr as of 2006) cant save 5 or 10% of their income. 5% of that would be $208/mo. Conservatively invested over 25 years that would grow to over $310,000. 35 years would be over $800,000.

But people dont have a saving mindset, they have a spending mindset. When looking for a house or apartment, people think "how much can I afford" as opposed to "whats the minimum I need to take care of me and my family's needs that will allow me to save as much as possible?". When buying a car they think "whats the lowest payment I can get, and whats the highest payment I can afford?" as opposed to whats the lowest total price I can get on this vehicle? There are very few reasons someone should make a purchase on credit, yet, although the statistics for debt are lower in the last couple of years, consumer debt is a serious problem.

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...ustry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php
On average, today's consumer has a total of 13 credit obligations on record at a credit bureau. These include credit cards (such as department store charge cards, gas cards, and bank cards) and installment loans (auto loans, mortgage loans, student loans, etc.). Not included are savings and checking accounts (typically not reported to a credit bureau). Of these 13 credit obligations, nine are likely to be credit cards and four are likely to be installment loans.​

Total U.S. revolving debt (98 percent of which is made up of credit card debt): $852.6 billion, as of March 2010 (thats $2,750 for every man, woman, and child in the US).​

Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $16,007​

Average total debt in 2009 (including credit cards, mortgage, home equity, student loans and more) for U.S. households with credit card debt: $54,000. (That's down from $93,850 in 2008.)​
Click to expand...

The fact is, as previously mentioned, we are a debtor nation. ​


The other problem is the definition of poor. It is VERY different in the USA than it is in most of the rest of the world. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Does the USA have people living in extreme poverty? Of course. Thats part of society. But all in all, our poor dont know how good they've got it comparitively.​


The fact is, until people honestly seperate the terms wealth and income, there can be no discussion. If someone making $55,000 saves 10% of his/her income, yet someone making $100k/yr lives paycheck to paycheck, who is wealthier? There have been alot of articles recently about January of this year being a monumental month as baby boomers become eligible for medicare and SS, and the strain that will put on the system. And there have been also many articles in the last 5 years talking about how the baby boomer generation hasnt properly saved as a whole, thus, again, putting a strain on our system. I propose if even half of the baby boomers had invested 10% of their income, our economy would be booming.

As far as wealth distribution, taxing the rich, etc goes...lets say we impose a 70% tax on incomes over, say, $250,000. What then? How would this extra income into the government benefit the middle class? How is this tax going to raise the income of the middle/lower tax? Fact is, those who would benefit the most would be the poor in the way of services, but mostly the government itself. It certainly wont provide a means for those poor to better themselves (i.e. it wont raise their incomes, nor will it create jobs), and it wont help middle income families somehow have a more comfortable living (i.e. lowering their expenses and raising their income). The whole tax the rich is an emotional response to class envy. Thats it. Taxing the rich will neither put savings in anyone's account, raise anyone's wage, nor lower the cost of goods and services. It's an empty action. Well, except for government. They will be the new wealthy. ​

Until we as a country, both public and private, learn a saving mindset, and re-evaluate our priorities, and not live beyond our means, nothing...NOTHING...will make life any better.
 
Last edited:
lol jokus comparing a nation that's all blonde hair blue eyes and who's women all look like supermodels to the diverse US. If my money was going to the welfare of a blonde bikini model I might not mind 50% taxes.
 
Phokus said:
http://www.slate.com/id/2268872/

100927_POL_wealthChart2.jpg


This is absolute fascinating. For one thing, No matter what political party you belong to, or your income distribution, the average American FAR understates how much of the wealth pie that the Oligarchs own and FAR overstates how much wealth the lower classes own.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to matter if you're a democrat or republican, but the average American wants a far more equitable distribution of wealth than what we currently have. Perhaps with a little more public education on how so far out of skew the wealth pie is divided up, we would elect politicians that looked after the common man's interest rather than that of the ruling class?

I find this fascinating because your average P&N conservative seems to belie this poll and it really says how much of their character is divergent from mainstream America, much less their average conservative counterparts.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Genx87 said:
In typical leftist stupidity. Jokus confuses wealth with income.

What him and his ilk dont realize is when they tax the shit out of the people earning an income they are in fact helping keep the very people they dislike in their place on the wealth distribution. Every dollar the govt takes from people earning an income is one less those people can put towards building wealth.

The truely wealthy dont earn an income. They generate wealth. You think Bill Gates earned his 40-60 billion drawing a salary(income)?
Click to expand...

Considering i'm for slashing income taxes on the middle class, like many liberals do, you make no sense.

In fact, i'm for raising estate taxes (which, by definition is a tax on WEALTH). Explain to me how i'm keeping mr. moneybags in his place on the wealth distribution by taking a piece of it when he passes away?

You make absolutely no sense.
 
BoberFett said:
You dumbshit, where you do you think all that crap that people buy with their overextended credit cards is being manufactured?
Click to expand...

You can save or overspend, it doesn't change the fact that the reason for outsourcing is because the capital class has deemed Americans to 'make too much money' compared to some growing economy. You are clueless.
 
blackangst1 said:
Yep.

Part of the problem, as mentioned previously, income has nothing to do with wealth. Accumulating wealth is a mindset that most Americans dont have. There is really no reason why someone making around the average income in the US ($50k/yr as of 2006) cant save 5 or 10% of their income. 5% of that would be $208/mo. Conservatively invested over 25 years that would grow to over $310,000. 35 years would be over $800,000.

But people dont have a saving mindset, they have a spending mindset. When looking for a house or apartment, people think "how much can I afford" as opposed to "whats the minimum I need to take care of me and my family's needs that will allow me to save as much as possible?". When buying a car they think "whats the lowest payment I can get, and whats the highest payment I can afford?" as opposed to whats the lowest total price I can get on this vehicle? There are very few reasons someone should make a purchase on credit, yet, although the statistics for debt are lower in the last couple of years, consumer debt is a serious problem.

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...ustry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php


The fact is, as previously mentioned, we are a debtor nation. ​


The other problem is the definition of poor. It is VERY different in the USA than it is in most of the rest of the world. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Does the USA have people living in extreme poverty? Of course. Thats part of society. But all in all, our poor dont know how good they've got it comparitively.​


The fact is, until people honestly seperate the terms wealth and income, there can be no discussion. If someone making $55,000 saves 10% of his/her income, yet someone making $100k/yr lives paycheck to paycheck, who is wealthier? There have been alot of articles recently about January of this year being a monumental month as baby boomers become eligible for medicare and SS, and the strain that will put on the system. And there have been also many articles in the last 5 years talking about how the baby boomer generation hasnt properly saved as a whole, thus, again, putting a strain on our system. I propose if even half of the baby boomers had invested 10% of their income, our economy would be booming.

As far as wealth distribution, taxing the rich, etc goes...lets say we impose a 70% tax on incomes over, say, $250,000. What then? How would this extra income into the government benefit the middle class? How is this tax going to raise the income of the middle/lower tax? Fact is, those who would benefit the most would be the poor in the way of services, but mostly the government itself. It certainly wont provide a means for those poor to better themselves (i.e. it wont raise their incomes, nor will it create jobs), and it wont help middle income families somehow have a more comfortable living (i.e. lowering their expenses and raising their income). The whole tax the rich is an emotional response to class envy. Thats it. Taxing the rich will neither put savings in anyone's account, raise anyone's wage, nor lower the cost of goods and services. It's an empty action. Well, except for government. They will be the new wealthy. ​

Until we as a country, both public and private, learn a saving mindset, and re-evaluate our priorities, and not live beyond our means, nothing...NOTHING...will make life any better.
Click to expand...

Your long post would actually mean something if the middle class wasn't being hollowed out and more people were competing for fewer and fewer jobs.
 
JS80 said:
lol you think i'm white
Click to expand...

Oh i know you're Korean, but you basically admitted that you hate taxes going to the 'browns' and 'blacks', but wouldn't mind if it was guaranteed it was going to what you think is the 'master race'. That's your M.O.
 
Phokus said:
Oh i know you're Korean, but you basically admitted that you hate taxes going to the 'browns' and 'blacks', but wouldn't mind if it was guaranteed it was going to what you think is the 'master race'. That's your M.O.
Click to expand...

lol putting words in my mouth! haha. So you think there are no worthless piece of shit poor people that are white/yellow/green?
 
Where's that picture of the lady who cant pay her electric bill because she lost her government assistance, but yet had the big flat screen TV and xbox 360 in the background???
 
JS80 said:
lol putting words in my mouth! haha. So you think there are no worthless piece of shit poor people that are white/yellow/green?
Click to expand...

Oh i don't have to put words in your mouth, you've made it clear time and time again that you wouldn't mind welfare as much in a homogeneous European country without all those pesky 'hispanics' (and presumably blacks, but that would definitely get you banned if you actually said that).

JS80 said:
lol jokus comparing a nation that's all blonde hair blue eyes and who's women all look like supermodels to the diverse US. If my money was going to the welfare of a blonde bikini model I might not mind 50% taxes.
Click to expand...

Gosh, if only the US wasn't 'diverse' and mostly 'blonde hair, blue eyes' JS80 would finally accept welfare.
 
Only fair answer for most person to the above question is "I have no idea to access how much wealth distributions. Seriously, how on earth does the interview expect their pollees to have the competence to express what a given wealth distribution would imply.

Phrase the question to "would you like to have illegals receiving welfare-benefits?" and you would get answers that is in direct conflict with this this poll.




Also being right next to Sweden and having the same wealth distribution. Take it from me, you do not want Sweden's wealth distribution. Inane amount of bureaucracy and moral hazard. A mindset that elevates victims to be an ideal. A mindset that promotes helplessness and entitlement.

If you want more wealth, start with yourself.
 
Last edited:
Phokus said:
Oh i don't have to put words in your mouth, you've made it clear time and time again that you wouldn't mind welfare as much in a homogeneous European country without all those pesky 'hispanics' (and presumably blacks, but that would definitely get you banned if you actually said that).



Gosh, if only the US wasn't 'diverse' and mostly 'blonde hair, blue eyes' JS80 would finally accept welfare.
Click to expand...

Please, I hate Europe, Europeans, and their welfare more than the poor piece of shit lazy fucks here in the US. And there you go, you keep assuming it's only hispanics+blacks that are poor lazy fucks. I don't discriminate by color. I discriminate by productivity.

And if you can't figure out that I was saying I would agree to welfare was in jest, then you are more retarded that I thought.
 
JS80 said:
Please, I hate Europe, Europeans, and their welfare more than the poor piece of shit lazy fucks here in the US. And there you go, you keep assuming it's only hispanics+blacks that are poor lazy fucks. I don't discriminate by color. I discriminate by productivity.

And if you can't figure out that I was saying I would agree to welfare was in jest, then you are more retarded that I thought.
Click to expand...

You've CLEARLY said you would accept welfare MORE under those certain preconditions, not only in THIS thread but others. That's what makes you a racist shit.
 
Phokus said:
You've CLEARLY said you would accept welfare MORE under those certain preconditions, not only in THIS thread but others. That's what makes you a racist shit.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear his post was sarcasm by exaggerating a common stereotype. You however are uptight.
 
Average total debt in 2009 (including credit cards, mortgage, home equity, student loans and more) for U.S. households with credit card debt: $54,000. (That's down from $93,850 in 2008.)
Click to expand...

that's a pretty damn big change in just 1 year
 
ElFenix said:
that's a pretty damn big change in just 1 year
Click to expand...

You noticed that too, eh? Seems pretty hard to believe that the entire country managed to wipe out $40k of debt a piece in one year.

Far be it from me, however, to contradict the mighty "Statistics".
 
BoberFett said:
What's an LOL is you attempting to draw some kind of connection between my actions and the out-of-control consumerism of the US middle class. Face it sparky, the middle class is failing in the US because it chooses to. No amount of your beloved big government meddling will change the fact that people spend instead of save, which is how wealth is built.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth

An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group.
Click to expand...

Putting away $25/mo instead of getting a subsidized iPhone won't make them wealthy. It will only garner them a small amount of savings.

When you have 20% of people owning 90% of the wealth, it is mathematically impossible to become "wealthy" for the remaining 80%.

So you set people in this position. Live in a tiny run down apartment, walk to work, eat rice and have no toys to play with and some savings in the bank; or mortgage a house, drive a car, eat interesting food and have the same toys as their friends and carry some credit card debt.

Which one is happier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top