Wealth Redistribution

[alexey]

It seems that "wealth redistribution" is usually mentioned in a context of taking away from rich and giving to the poor. This is strange because it appears that the opposite is actually the case. What are your views on this?

[HOF44]

Ther you go with those pesky facts again.

Wealth distribution in the US is out of whack and will one day be our downfall if not corrected. I guess if I was at the very top and in control of a lot of things I'd be tempted to mold policies and laws to keep me and my descendants there too.

[Kilmer17]

How is that redistribution?

It looks to me like everyone is going up?

[GibbsFactor]

I will say that it's ridiculous how few Americans represent so much of our GDP.

There comes a time when having 1 billion dollars is overkill. I mean how many houses and yachts do you really need? It's hard to fathom when so many can't pay their $400 rent or put clothes on their childrens back.

Sure many are just lazy but it's very very hard to get out of debt, to get out of a hole. You have more expenses because you can't pay your bill, your credit tanks, you get hit with late charges high interest rates, yada yada yada.

I'm all about keeping what you earn but when it's such a wide gap someone has to see how this is a problem. I don't know why it has to be capitalism or socialism or even anywhere in between. The Bill Gates and Oprah's of the world (bad example since both are fairly large philanthropists) should not be required by law to give back, they should be required by society.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wealth Redistribution is what they call it when a government does it.

When a company does it they call it Capitalism.

[AsburySkinsFan]

How is that redistribution?

It looks to me like everyone is going up?

Except for you know the bottom 90%.

[mcsluggo]

How is that redistribution?

It looks to me like everyone is going up?

not so good at reading graphs... ?

[Kilmer17]

Except for you know the bottom 90%.

Yeah, read the whole thing wrong. My bad.

Can we get a comparison to what the top pays as a percent of tax revenue?

[McD5]

These charts have nothing to do with wealth redistribution.

Why would you title the thread like that?

The charts show that "incomes for the top earners have gone up faster than for others?"

Is that some newsflash?

It takes money to make money. The top producers and eaners should expect to see their incomes go up faster than the rest.

They work harder, are more successful, and provide jobs and opportunity for the rest.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, read the whole thing wrong. My bad.

Can we get a comparison to what the top pays as a percent of tax revenue?

Sure, just as long as we get a graph that shows the comparison of percentage of yearly income paid in taxes too.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The charts show that "incomes for the top earners have gone up faster than for others?"

And where did that money come from?

Here's a hint look at the only arrow pointing down.

That's redistribution.

[boofMcboof]

I'd like to see a breakdown of the top 1% by career field. My guess is that the majority are involved with the FIRE (financial, insurance, real estate) sector, where most of the economic policies have favored and where the bailout money has gone. It's a purely extractive part of the economy that generates large profit margins with debt instruments, fees and rent costs which in turn are not technologically or economically necessary costs and offer little productive resources or capital employed other than people and paper. Consider it predatory wealth.

[Kilmer17]

Sure, just as long as we get a graph that shows the comparison of percentage of yearly income paid in taxes too.

I think thats fair as well.

Simply looking at earnings is a poor way to run a business.

[Prosperity]

welcome to the new plutocracy. Even if everybody was gaining wealth (which is what the free market platitudes usually say) the disparity alone would create social tensions. But, I am shocked to see that not only is tiny (numerically) minority doing relatively better, but the vast majority of the population is doing worse.

edit also, please provide a link

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm enjoying our fast race into becoming Central America. It's fun. We will probably have the 1400 Families, but it will largely be the same.

[Destino]

Yeah, read the whole thing wrong. My bad.

Can we get a comparison to what the top pays as a percent of tax revenue?

Sure but compare it to total income earned and include social security and medicare/medicaid.

[AsburySkinsFan]

welcome to the new plutocracy. Even if everybody was gaining wealth (which is what the free market platitudes usually say) the disparity alone would create social tensions. But, I am shocked to see that not only is tiny (numerically) minority doing relatively better, but the vast majority of the population is doing worse.

edit also, please provide a link

Shhhh...a rising tide raises all ships....oh...wait.

[McD5]

And where did that money come from?

Here's a hint look at the only arrow pointing down.

That's redistribution.

This thread is ridiculous.

First, it has nothing to do with wealth redistribution.

Secondly, this is like saying "the top quarterbacks in the NFL have seen their salaries rise faster than the lesser quarterbacks."

What is so shocking about that?

[alexey]

edit also, please provide a link

I googled it up, but those images have sources printed on them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This thread is ridiculous.

First, it has nothing to do with wealth redistribution.

Secondly, this is like saying "the top quarterbacks in the NFL have seen their salaries rise faster than the lesser quarterbacks."

What is so shocking about that?

It has EVERYTHING to do with wealth redistribution, the poor get poorer the rich get richer...where are they getting their money as they get richer...here's a hint they don't have money trees either.

[mcsluggo]

and that 90% of the population LOSING 4% of real income is truly shocking because the time period (from 2002 -2006) was not a time of bad economic growth...

furthermore this graph excludes capital gains ... which would scew even MORE towards the top earners.

it is very true that this is an issue that could REALLY come back to haunt this country. If the fruits of prosperity are not reaching a full 90% of the population DURING THE "GOOD" TIMES (this chart obviously doesn't show the beating that has occurred since 2008) then there IS going to be a populist backlash, and the turmoil and/or forced redistribution is going to lead to some serious economic drag

just look at what happens in Latin American countries that grow without having any appreciable benefits to the common citizenry, eventually a Hugo Chavez type is elected that sets the country back a full generation. The conservatives on this board (and everywhere) like to scoff at democrat communist policies.... if steam isn't let out of the boiler occasionally we all might get a chance to see what REAL economic populism looks like... and it won't be pretty.

[McD5]

It has EVERYTHING to do with wealth redistribution, the poor get poorer the rich get richer...where are they getting their money as they get richer...here's a hint they don't have money trees either.

The hell we don't have a money tree. It is called the Fed.

And again, this is identical to saying "the best QBs in the NFL have seen their salaries increase more than the lesser Qbs."

Does that surprise anyone? They are the best QBs. They earn it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Sure, just as long as we get a graph that shows the comparison of percentage of yearly income paid in taxes too.

"Percentage of income tax" is such a Rush Limbaugh scam.

Of course richer people pay a higher overall percentage of taxes. If I am making $30,000 and you are making $3,000,000 and our "percentage of income tax is the same," I'm being screwed to the wall.

The issue is simply, "What percentage of their overall income are the rich paying in taxes?" And even then, it matters how you define "income."

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The hell we don't have a money tree. It is called the Fed.

And again, this is identical to saying "the best QBs in the NFL have seen their salaries increase more than the lesser Qbs."

Does that surprise anyone? They are the best QBs. They earn it.

That implies that the richest people are the best people.

That is a troubling thought.

[Kilmer17]

Sure but compare it to total income earned and include social security and medicare/medicaid.

Absolutely.

I just dont like using that single graphic to make some Robinhoodesque statement about the state of Americans personal economies.