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

[Jhhnn]

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

It does, but it doesn't do anybody else much good, at all.

If you haven't noticed, there's no down in trickledown, only up-.

Table 5-

http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Notice the time frame when tippy-top income was greatest, 2005-2007. That's when the wage slaves lined up to buy into the housing bubble ripoff.

Anybody who's buying while the big boys are selling is getting screwed, bet on it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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...

Instead of having the extremes of outright communism on one end and laissez-faire capitalism on another, is there a possibility that there might be a middle ground where people would still receive lucrative awards for their efforts without receiving more wealth than they actually produced?

Is it really possible for someone to actually produce enough wealth or to contribute enough productive ideas in one year to justify a $10 million/year income unless that person is an inventor or a scientist? Just put a little thought into it and the notion that the super rich are actually earning their money and producing wealth begins to look ludicrous.

 

[mephiston5]

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.

Because we are overly optimistic. One day, we think, we too will have such wealth.

We are protecting a vision of the future most of us will never achieve.

 

[werepossum]

Instead of having the extremes of outright communism on one end and laissez-faire capitalism on another, is there a possibility that there might be a middle ground where people would still receive lucrative awards for their efforts without receiving more wealth than they actually produced?

Is it really possible for someone to actually produce enough wealth or to contribute enough productive ideas in one year to justify a $10 million/year income unless that person is an inventor or a scientist? Just put a little thought into it and the notion that the super rich are actually earning their money and producing wealth begins to look ludicrous.

Considering that a couple investment banks have been in the news for losing literally billions on a handful of trades, it's pretty clear to me that some people can easily be worth $10 million/year income. Similarly, while I'm no fan of Jeffrey Imedlt, one wrong decision can easily put hundreds of people out of work and cost thousands of people millions (in the aggregate) in investment income.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Considering that a couple investment banks have been in the news for losing literally billions on a handful of trades, it's pretty clear to me that some people can easily be worth $10 million/year income. Similarly, while I'm no fan of Jeffrey Imedlt, one wrong decision can easily put hundreds of people out of work and cost thousands of people millions (in the aggregate) in investment income.

I guess that depends on the nature of the trades. If the money losses or gains are just the result of people pushing papers around without any direct connection to the production of wealth, then it seems like it's just a case of the wealthy jockeying for the ownership of the capital. Is that really wealth production?

I would agree the organizing labor to produce wealth efficiently constitutes adding value, but how much talent does it really take to do that and is that something that other people could do almost as well? Maybe there is an argument to be made that decisions about direct investments into potentially useful new technology or method's of production can be worth more than $10 million/year.

 

[Jhhnn]

Considering that a couple investment banks have been in the news for losing literally billions on a handful of trades, it's pretty clear to me that some people can easily be worth $10 million/year income. Similarly, while I'm no fan of Jeffrey Imedlt, one wrong decision can easily put hundreds of people out of work and cost thousands of people millions (in the aggregate) in investment income.

I guess that depends on the nature of the trades. If the money losses or gains are just the result of people pushing papers around without any direct connection to the production of wealth, then it seems like it's just a case of the wealthy jockeying for the ownership of the capital. Is that really wealth production?

I would agree the organizing labor to produce wealth efficiently constitutes adding value, but how much talent does it really take to do that and is that something that other people could do almost as well? Maybe there is an argument to be made that decisions about direct investments into potentially useful new technology or method's of production can be worth more than $10 million/year.

It's called financialization, and is not investment, but rather gambling. It's a zero sum game, other than the fees taken off the top by facilitators. No real goods, services or facilities are produced as a result of it, but enormous sums change hands.

 

[werepossum]

I guess that depends on the nature of the trades. If the money losses or gains are just the result of people pushing papers around without any direct connection to the production of wealth, then it seems like it's just a case of the wealthy jockeying for the ownership of the capital. Is that really wealth production?

I would agree the organizing labor to produce wealth efficiently constitutes adding value, but how much talent does it really take to do that and is that something that other people could do almost as well? Maybe there is an argument to be made that decisions about direct investments into potentially useful new technology or method's of production can be worth more than $10 million/year.

My first example was not wealth production; it is as Jhhnn says a zero sum game. This is usually where the really big money is made or lost as wealth can be leveraged (and thus lost) to a much greater degree than in production. However, when deciding compensation one looks not at the amount of wealth produced, but rather at the utility of the individual. A corporation's lead counsel creates zero wealth but is almost always far more valuable to the corporation due to her actions in preventing loss and sometimes (e.g. patent lawsuits) gaining for the corporation wealth that someone else created.

My second example was wealth production. Gains and losses in wealth-producing ventures necessarily happen much more slowly, but that doesn't negate their effect. And while I'm all about wealth production, value to a corporation isn't measured by my values but by the corporation's unique nature, needs, risks and opportunities. Those vary so a corporation's most valuable hire or employee might be an engineer, scientist, salesmen, financial guru or lawyer, but as those responsible for selecting those individuals and implementing their utility the CXOs are always critical to a corporation's health.

 

[Matt1970]

Instead of having the extremes of outright communism on one end and laissez-faire capitalism on another, is there a possibility that there might be a middle ground where people would still receive lucrative awards for their efforts without receiving more wealth than they actually produced?

Is it really possible for someone to actually produce enough wealth or to contribute enough productive ideas in one year to justify a $10 million/year income unless that person is an inventor or a scientist? Just put a little thought into it and the notion that the super rich are actually earning their money and producing wealth begins to look ludicrous.

You almost had a good arguement but taking from someone because you feel they don't deserve it or didn't earn it is wrong. Because your idea, invention or plan earned you $10 Million, you don't deserve it and it should be confiscated by the Government, who didn't do any work to deserve it, and given to someone else who also didn't do any work to deserve it? Nobody wants to take away from those who truely need support, but the money given to them cannot be justified because it was taken from those who didn't deserve so much.

 

[momeNt]

Why? Because we don't confiscate wealth. Income taxes will always allow wealth to grow, and when our economic policies debase everybody's wealth but those at the tippy top, and we refuse to change our economic policies, we must turn to the taxation of wealth, not income.


FWIW, i would vote for changing our economic policies, but that makes me insane. It's less insane apparently to tax wealth.

 

[Yellowbeard]

The concept of turning the government into "Robin Hood" is an insane fairy tale.

 

[werepossum]

The concept of turning the government into "Robin Hood" is an insane fairy tale.

Never trust a woman or a government. Or . . . ah heck them, I'll eat it first! Won't be the first head I've eaten."

One of my all-time favorite movies.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Never trust a woman or a government. Or . . . ah heck them, I'll eat it first! Won't be the first head I've eaten."

One of my all-time favorite movies.

ROFLMAO....mine too, I own it on DVD, VHS, and it's backed up on my server.

"Yeah, it would ooze a lot but I can live with that!"

It's sad, quite a bit of the cast from that movie is dead now. Marty Feldman died during the making, Graham Chapman, Madeline Khan, Peter Boyle......seems like 1 or 2 other Python guys might be gone too. Gettin old sux.

Sorry for the derail, back to the fairy tale.