Why do we continue to allow so few to hoard to much wealth?

[shortylickens]

OP: Why don't you go out and make a lot of money, and then surprise everyone by giving it away? You can lead by example! Maybe you can start a following, and show people how much fun it is to work real hard and then give it all away.

Oh wait, it's easier to let someone else do all the work, and then simply take it from them. NM.

:hmm:

wwybywb?

 

[CZroe]

Why does the world think it's wrong to hoard what is yours?

 

[Jhhnn]

We better go back to Vietnam then because wages have been falling since 1970. I do not see any significant change in the decline during the 80's so keep blaming it on Reaganomics when you even post evidence to the contrary. Your “republicans cheered it on” is theoretical non-sense.

Not at all. If Saint Ronnie were the champion of the people as his worshippers claim, he'd have made some effort to turn it around, instead of breaking Union balls, cutting top tier income taxes, & raising payroll taxes on working people.

Yeh, yeh, I know- he was the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with... but you'd end up paying.

Dubya, of course, played the same game, only harder & deeper, but average Righties still think he was "right", despite the all too wrong results.

Nehalem's little graphic about science vs faith says it all. Despite the results, Righties *Still Believe* in all the things that brought Reagan & Bush to the presidency, *Still Believe* that massive shifting of income to the tippy-top harms working people not at all, *Still Believe* in the infinite pie theory of wealth & income.

They always will, because they *Still Believe* that they'll be rich themselves, someday, but only if we allow the ultra wealthy to take an increasingly bigger slice of the pie. That's contradictory on its face, but they can't see it, because it's not what they want to believe, not what fits with their sanctification & worship of America's wealthiest.

 

[disappoint]

Money someone else earns belongs to the people? After you rob the rich of everything they have, who is going to earn the money dumbass?

I don't think anyone advocates robbing the rich. Just passing laws that disallow them to rob the poor.

 

[disappoint]

They have cut my taxes. I will let ya digest that before I tell you more.

Is that adjusted for inflation? Is it adjusted for lower average incomes? Is it adjusted for a declining dollar? The lie continues when you don't know what the lie is.

 

[werepossum]

Not at all. If Saint Ronnie were the champion of the people as his worshippers claim, he'd have made some effort to turn it around, instead of breaking Union balls, cutting top tier income taxes, & raising payroll taxes on working people.

Yeh, yeh, I know- he was the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with... but you'd end up paying.

Dubya, of course, played the same game, only harder & deeper, but average Righties still think he was "right", despite the all too wrong results.

Nehalem's little graphic about science vs faith says it all. Despite the results, Righties *Still Believe* in all the things that brought Reagan & Bush to the presidency, *Still Believe* that massive shifting of income to the tippy-top harms working people not at all, *Still Believe* in the infinite pie theory of wealth & income.

They always will, because they *Still Believe* that they'll be rich themselves, someday, but only if we allow the ultra wealthy to take an increasingly bigger slice of the pie. That's contradictory on its face, but they can't see it, because it's not what they want to believe, not what fits with their sanctification & worship of America's wealthiest.

I know you can't possibly understand this, but I'll try anyway.

Conservatives don't set morality by what is likely to give us the most money, now or in the future. Something is right, or something is wrong, independently of whether we'll have more or less money because of it. I'll never be wealthy, and I can accept that without having a burning desire to punish those who are wealthy or expecting them to make my life easier or better simply because I exist. I don't assume that anyone with more money has behaved illegally or immorally to reach that state. I don't feel entitled to their money simply because they can afford it. I don't feel entitled to set a lifestyle or income at which they "have enough" so that I may take my share of the "excess". This has absolutely nothing to do with any desire to preserve their privileges in the expectation that I too will one day enjoy them.

Some people never grow beyond the small child stage of believing that the world revolves around them and they are entitled to whatever they want. We call those people progressives, and they are always willing to give you the shirt off someone else's back - as long as it helps them get something too.

 

[SandEagle]

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Warren Buffett

 

[Matt1970]

Is that adjusted for inflation? Is it adjusted for lower average incomes? Is it adjusted for a declining dollar? The lie continues when you don't know what the lie is.

That graph is % Inflation is irrelevant

 

[CZroe]

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Warren Buffett

Out of context. He was being self-depricating because he's not on that side and wants to pay higher taxes. It's not a quote from some cocky mad-with-power rich guy.

 

[Jhhnn]

I know you can't possibly understand this, but I'll try anyway.

Conservatives don't set morality by what is likely to give us the most money, now or in the future. Something is right, or something is wrong, independently of whether we'll have more or less money because of it. I'll never be wealthy, and I can accept that without having a burning desire to punish those who are wealthy or expecting them to make my life easier or better simply because I exist. I don't assume that anyone with more money has behaved illegally or immorally to reach that state. I don't feel entitled to their money simply because they can afford it. I don't feel entitled to set a lifestyle or income at which they "have enough" so that I may take my share of the "excess". This has absolutely nothing to do with any desire to preserve their privileges in the expectation that I too will one day enjoy them.

Some people never grow beyond the small child stage of believing that the world revolves around them and they are entitled to whatever they want. We call those people progressives, and they are always willing to give you the shirt off someone else's back - as long as it helps them get something too.

You merely reinforce what I offered, unknowingly.

You believe in the rightness or wrongness of anything w/o questioning your own assumptions.

Why do you believe it's right for the Rich to use their existing wealth, power & influence to take a bigger & bigger piece of the pie, to the detriment of everybody else? What is the ultimate result of that?

Do median families & below really deserve a much smaller share of national income than 30 years ago? Does the top 1% deserve twice as much? Why? Have the relative efforts involved changed that much?

Why do you think that high taxes are some sort of "punishment" for ultra high incomes, when those earners spend only a small fraction of their earnings to support their lifestyles, no matter how lavish? How much "punishment" would be involved in Mitt taking home 70% of $2M/mo rather than 86%?

Do you not recognize that the Wealthy obviously gain much more from the system, the fact that they are safe & wealthy being tribute to that?

How can you fail to recognize that the wealthy gained tremendously from the housing bubble to the long term detriment of everybody else? Even as America's wealthiest cashed in at the height of the bubble, got liquid, witnessed by their enormous share of national income at that time, their pundits & prognosticators were telling us all to buy, on credit, like this-

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218126/hate-burst-your-housing-bubble/jerry-bowyer

We've been gamed, and badly. Righties, apparently, see that as "right". The answer, obviously, is to give the perps & the beneficiaries another tax cut, right?

 

[nehalem256]

Nehalem's little graphic about science vs faith says it all. Despite the results, Righties *Still Believe* in all the things that brought Reagan & Bush to the presidency, *Still Believe* that massive shifting of income to the tippy-top harms working people not at all, *Still Believe* in the infinite pie theory of wealth & income.

They always will, because they *Still Believe* that they'll be rich themselves, someday, but only if we allow the ultra wealthy to take an increasingly bigger slice of the pie. That's contradictory on its face, but they can't see it, because it's not what they want to believe, not what fits with their sanctification & worship of America's wealthiest.

Well its better than believing Reagan was a time-traveling wizard as liberals do.

 

[Phokus]

I know you can't possibly understand this, but I'll try anyway.

Conservatives don't set morality by what is likely to give us the most money, now or in the future. Something is right, or something is wrong, independently of whether we'll have more or less money because of it. I'll never be wealthy, and I can accept that without having a burning desire to punish those who are wealthy or expecting them to make my life easier or better simply because I exist. I don't assume that anyone with more money has behaved illegally or immorally to reach that state. I don't feel entitled to their money simply because they can afford it. I don't feel entitled to set a lifestyle or income at which they "have enough" so that I may take my share of the "excess". This has absolutely nothing to do with any desire to preserve their privileges in the expectation that I too will one day enjoy them.

Some people never grow beyond the small child stage of believing that the world revolves around them and they are entitled to whatever they want. We call those people progressives, and they are always willing to give you the shirt off someone else's back - as long as it helps them get something too.

Your the type of person who deserves to have his job shipped out of the country.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't think anyone advocates robbing the rich. Just passing laws that disallow them to rob the poor.

Take back what belongs to the people, and redistribute it to everyone.

There are plenty more where that came from

 

[Jhhnn]

Well its better than believing Reagan was a time-traveling wizard as liberals do.

Nobody believes that. He just poured gasoline on the fire. Years later, GWB added explosives.

 

[Matt1970]

Nobody believes that. He just poured gasoline on the fire. Years later, GWB added explosives.

You have absolutely no proof of that. All the graphs you can produce show relatively little change during the 80's.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have absolutely no proof of that. All the graphs you can produce show relatively little change during the 80's.

Economic policy has a cumulative effect when earned income grows only in a linear fashion, while investment income grows exponentially, particularly when released from effective taxation & minus the constraints of capital controls that keep investment grounded in the American economy.

it's the wheat & chessboard problem in real life-

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

 

[SparkyJJO]

If you want everything to be "equal" go live in a heavy communist country. Hint - financial "equality" never results in everyone having 100k, or even 50k. How about everyone in borderline poverty at best, while those in power to keep you there still live quite well. Don't think badly of dear leader however, he's doing it for your own good...

 

[Yellowbeard]

For some strange reason, I read this entire thread. Like any thread there are good responses and bad responses and on both sides of the issue. I picked a couple of favorites. And this is my off work, personal opinion.

When you make more money off someone else hard labor then they do, you are guilty of exploitation. The rich make nearly all of their money through exploitation.

This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have read in......many long years.Here's a good ole fashioned blue collar rebuttal.

Jim is a highly skilled carpenter and has learned his trade over many long years of hard work. Jim hires Jose, a documented immigrant and unskilled laborer (that wants to become a skilled carpenter) and pays him a fair wage to carry lumber and be a carpenters helper. Jim buys the lumber, provides the tools, gives Jose a ride to work in his work truck, etc etc etc. Jim makes more than Jose. Jose makes a fair wage, learns carpentry skills, becomes a skilled carpenter, goes into business for himself, hires Jim as a subcontractor on big jobs, marries Jim's daughter, and they all live happily ever after.

I know you can't possibly understand this, but I'll try anyway.

Conservatives don't set morality by what is likely to give us the most money, now or in the future. Something is right, or something is wrong, independently of whether we'll have more or less money because of it. I'll never be wealthy, and I can accept that without having a burning desire to punish those who are wealthy or expecting them to make my life easier or better simply because I exist. I don't assume that anyone with more money has behaved illegally or immorally to reach that state. I don't feel entitled to their money simply because they can afford it. I don't feel entitled to set a lifestyle or income at which they "have enough" so that I may take my share of the "excess". This has absolutely nothing to do with any desire to preserve their privileges in the expectation that I too will one day enjoy them.

Some people never grow beyond the small child stage of believing that the world revolves around them and they are entitled to whatever they want. We call those people progressives, and they are always willing to give you the shirt off someone else's back - as long as it helps them get something too.

Bravo, no need for further comment.

 

[Matt1970]

Economic policy has a cumulative effect when earned income grows only in a linear fashion, while investment income grows exponentially, particularly when released from effective taxation & minus the constraints of capital controls that keep investment grounded in the American economy.

it's the wheat & chessboard problem in real life-

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

So when released from effective taxation & the constraints of capital controls, investment income flourishes. I am glad to see you are learning.

 

[Genx87]

Look at this Gina Rinehart evil b*tch, she has 30 billion dollars, and new she wants to bring back slavery. Next look at Rupert Murdoch around 8 billion dollars, all made from lying to the people.

The top 1% hold close to 40% of the wealth in the developed world, just sickening. While we have countless starving in the world these people are living it up lavishly. They continue to make money by exploiting the poor class of people, going as far as using actual slave labor in impoverish nations to make their wealth.

Why doesn't the world do something about this. It is just sickening.

I agree, why do we allow 435 members of the house, 100 members of congress, and two in the executive branch the keys to nearly 4 trillion dollars?

 

[Cozarkian]

Conservatives don't set morality by what is likely to give us the most money, now or in the future. Something is right, or something is wrong, independently of whether we'll have more or less money because of it. I'll never be wealthy, and I can accept that without having a burning desire to punish those who are wealthy or expecting them to make my life easier or better simply because I exist.

I completely agree, but I'd like to present an economic argument that justifies some government policies that promote wealth redistribution (such as progressive taxation).

We will likely agree that wages for employers and laborers should be set by the competitive market. Government interference with the competitive market should be limited. However, one task the government should perform is correction of market imperfections.

The current method of wealth distribution between wealthy employers and laborers is a representation of market imperfections. For example, a perfect market requires perfect information. However, in a typical job interview, the employer knows the salaries of other current adn former employers, the number of qualified applicants, and the company's costs and revenues. This is all information the applicant lacks. The only extra information the applicant has is how long he/she can remain unemployed before defaulting on their mortgage payments. This lack of perfect information creates a disparity in bargaining power that allows employers to pay below-market wages.

On a wider scale the transaction costs of moving (including social costs - closeness to family and friends, weather, etc...) can artifically deflate wages in high population centers. Absent transaction costs, people would move to locations where there are numerous job openings and higher competitive wages (like South Dakota), forcing employes in large cities to offer higher wages to retain employees and reducing their wealth.

This latter problem also illustrates why it is important for government to have the correct policies. Tax credits for travel expenses when moving to a new job or selling a primary residence can alleviate the transaction costs from moving to a new locality. On the other hand, perpetual unemployment and generous welfare payments encourage people not to move when they should.

 

[Budmantom]

Look at this Gina Rinehart evil b*tch, she has 30 billion dollars, and new she wants to bring back slavery. Next look at Rupert Murdoch around 8 billion dollars, all made from lying to the people.

The top 1% hold close to 40% of the wealth in the developed world, just sickening. While we have countless starving in the world these people are living it up lavishly. They continue to make money by exploiting the poor class of people, going as far as using actual slave labor in impoverish nations to make their wealth.

Why doesn't the world do something about this. It is just sickening.

Why don't you do something about it?

Getting a job would be a good start.

 

[brianmanahan]

Get started. It's not going to get done with you sitting behind a computer all day.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH

snap

 

[werepossum]

I completely agree, but I'd like to present an economic argument that justifies some government policies that promote wealth redistribution (such as progressive taxation).

We will likely agree that wages for employers and laborers should be set by the competitive market. Government interference with the competitive market should be limited. However, one task the government should perform is correction of market imperfections.

The current method of wealth distribution between wealthy employers and laborers is a representation of market imperfections. For example, a perfect market requires perfect information. However, in a typical job interview, the employer knows the salaries of other current adn former employers, the number of qualified applicants, and the company's costs and revenues. This is all information the applicant lacks. The only extra information the applicant has is how long he/she can remain unemployed before defaulting on their mortgage payments. This lack of perfect information creates a disparity in bargaining power that allows employers to pay below-market wages.

On a wider scale the transaction costs of moving (including social costs - closeness to family and friends, weather, etc...) can artifically deflate wages in high population centers. Absent transaction costs, people would move to locations where there are numerous job openings and higher competitive wages (like South Dakota), forcing employes in large cities to offer higher wages to retain employees and reducing their wealth.

This latter problem also illustrates why it is important for government to have the correct policies. Tax credits for travel expenses when moving to a new job or selling a primary residence can alleviate the transaction costs from moving to a new locality. On the other hand, perpetual unemployment and generous welfare payments encourage people not to move when they should.

All valid points. I think progressive taxation is reasonable to an extent, even though fundamentally I think it's unfair, simply because incomes do vary so much. On very few things, especially within economics, would I stand purely on principle. The problem to me is when we begin transferring wealth simply because there is an inequity (as opposed to a disability.) In general that isn't a sharp black line, it's a wide, fuzzy gray line, but when people are demanding free education (as opposed to loans) at someone else's expense, that line has clearly been crossed.

 

[werepossum]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH

snap