CNN: Viral video shows how wealth is really distributed

[alexey]

I agree. The rich are too rich. When rg3 goes.for his.contract extension we should only give him $50k a year. After all he doesn't need a fancy new car. Its not my business what other people make. Is it your business how many tv's your neighbor has? How about his disposable income? No, its not your business.

some people were born poor, some middle, and some wealthy. Yes the wealthy people have an easier time staying/growing their wealth but its not impossible to become wealthy when born poor. It's also easy to become poor when born into the middle class. Bottom line is if you want to change your status do something about it. Nobody is stuck slinging burgers or driving a bus. If you want something go and get it.

Oprah was born dirt poor and she made it. I can give you examples of people like john mccaffrey I knew growing up in the middle class who is now dirt poor and in and out of jail.

There may be a problem with our system where hard working value producing people are getting systematically underpaid. If so, that is a problem indeed.

This problem of things being out of whack has nothing to do with how many cars or tvs some people have, or whether it is still possible for some lucky talented hardworking people to make it. What matters is that our system is becoming unstable.

[kramdizzle]

There may be a problem with our system where hard working value producing people are getting systematically underpaid. If so, that is a problem indeed.

This problem of things being out of whack has nothing to do with how many cars or tvs some people have, or whether it is still possible for some lucky talented hardworking people to make it.

So what should we do? Take the top 1% income down to $500,000 a year and divide the read of their money among the rest of us? I am open to hearing a suggestion

[Burgold]

What some are forgetting is the symbiotic relationship. You need a middle class or a poor that can buy the widgets, the Redskins t-shirts, or game tickets for them to sustain their wealth. If all the wealth flows upwards then the result is not opportunity or drive, but desperation and despair. It's actually not about fairness or about redistribution, but the health of the nation and national security.

[dchogs]

Well one obvious way is the blurred line between Wall Street & the WH. Or how about the tax free deals handed to Facebook and GE under this Administration? I don't get why you are so thin skinned though. I don't come on this board and call you mindless because we have differing views of what might constitute the most equitable set up for the largest possible swath of our country's people. BTW: the system has served me very well but I realize it's not perfect and never will be. Hope your day gets better.

It is hardly Wall Street and THIS administration. The truth is that government has been in bed with the uber-wealthy for a long time. The 1% has been pulling political strings to derive unequal benefits for decades. The results of inequality have been accelerating... More and more unequal, faster and faster. Obama may not be throwing the E-brake on this runaway train, but previous administrations haven't either.

This isn't envy. This is simple common sense and basic fairness.

The middle class "pile" could be the same, but the upper class's is growing and the lower class's is shrinking.

[alexey]

So what should we do? Take the top 1% income down to $500,000 a year and divide the read of their money among the rest of us? I am open to hearing a suggestion

There are tons of things that can be done to reverse the trend. The problem is that we are not going to do them. Money has so much power in the information / media consolidation age.

We could start by taxing earnings from work a bit less and taxing earnings from investments a bit more, for example.

[Mad Mike]

I could have done without a lot of the snide commentary. It was unnecessary and cheapened the video. I shut it off after "good ole American dream" comment.

What a ****ing jackass.

Really? This kind of information is presented to you and you shut it off because of the tone? Color me disappointed.

---------- Post added March-9th-2013 at 06:01 PM ----------

Envy politics will always sell to some degree.

BULL****.

This isn't "ENVY" politics. It's SELF PRESERVATION politics. Because every day we do nothing about it, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It's not class warfare to point out that the the top 1% are committing class warfare on the rest of us. It's an admission of reality.

[Larry]

We could start by taxing earnings from work a bit less and taxing earnings from investments a bit more, for example.

How about taxing all income the same, just for starters?

[Destino]

I watch that video and remember Romney demanding 0% capital gains. Envy politics is what they call it now? Beautiful.

[Burgold]

I watch that video and remember Romney demanding 0% capital gains. Envy politics is what they call it now? Beautiful.

Envy politics mixed a little with Stockholm syndrome.

[Koolblue13]

If you don't think the top 1% controls this country like a game, you're nuts.

[kramdizzle]

There are tons of things that can be done to reverse the trend. The problem is that we are not going to do them. Money has so much power in the information / media consolidation age.

We could start by taxing earnings from work a bit less and taxing earnings from investments a bit more, for example.

Sure, because only the rich invest. So the couple who have been saving and investing since they were young but never made more than 60k in a year get taxed at a higher rate when they cash out and retire to make it "fair" for the poor people.

[PeterMP]

Interestingly, the top 1% has shifted from earning most of their income from investments to earning most of their income from wages.

Now partly that's because that stock options are considered wages:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezOUP04US.pdf

Want to do something about wealth inequality, tax stocks from options differently:

"Part of the recent increase in top wages is due to the development of stock-options that are reported as wages and salaries on tax returns when they are exercised."

Also decreases of tax progressitivity have been an issue:

"Our results suggest that the decline in income tax progressivity since the 1980s, the re

duction in the tax rate for dividend income in 2003, and the projected repeal of

the estate tax by 2011 might produce again in a few decades levels of wealth

concentration similar to those of the beginning of the twentieth century."

And the biggest issue is we aren't really talking about the top 1%. We're talking about the top 0.01%, while wealth has increased at every level at the top, most of the top 1% are first or second generation wealthy whose wealth is mostly pure income based (with stock options issue).

"In 1915, the top 0.01 percent earned 400 times more than the average; in 1970, the average top 0.01 percent income was “only” 50 times the average; in 2002, they earned about 300 times the average income. "

IF, we mantain a robust estate tax system and public education system (with financial support for higher education), the wealth of the top 1% should not concentrate at a generational level.

The top 0.01% is another issue.

The other thing to do is tax stock transactions. People doing life long investing to retire will make relatively few and small transactions.

People that are making money off of ineffecienties of the system and not trying to invest money based on long term growth (e.g. speed traders) will get hammered.

We also need to do something about the decrease in dividends, but that's harder.

[Larry]

I watch that video and remember Romney demanding 0% capital gains. Envy politics is what they call it now? Beautiful.

I don't remember him saying that. (Although I'm pretty certain that he was the only Republican candidate who didn't.)

---------- Post added March-9th-2013 at 04:32 PM ----------

And the biggest issue is we aren't really talking about the top 1%. We're talking about the top 0.01%, while wealth has increased at every level at the top, most of the top 1% are first or second generation wealthy whose wealth is mostly pure income based (with stock options issue).

"In 1915, the top 0.01 percent earned 400 times more than the average; in 1970, the average top 0.01 percent income was “only” 50 times the average; in 2002, they earned about 300 times the average income. "

IF, we mantain a robust estate tax system and public education system (with financial support for higher education), the wealth of the top 1% should not concentrate at a generational level.

The top 0.01% is another issue.

Agreed.

After looking at the numbers, I strongly suspect that my Doctor probably represents the top 1%. Whereas Mitt Romney represents more like the top .01%.

[Mad Mike]

Meanwhile back in the land and mind of the uber rich...

http://gawker.com/5989652/bloomberg-thinks-nycs-homeless-problem-is-because?popular=true

Mayor Bloomberg believes that the reason behind New York City's staggering rise in homelessness is not because of the city's high unemployment or incredible inequality, but rather people (who would be in an income bracket very much like the mayor's) who take limos and private jets on their way to the homeless shelter.

In his weekly radio address this Friday, Bloomberg said,

"You can arrive in your private jet at Kennedy Airport, take a private limousine and go straight to the shelter system and walk in the door and we've got to give you shelter."

Yeah, because everyone wants to live in a homeless shelter whether they need to or not.

[alexey]

Sure, because only the rich invest. So the couple who have been saving and investing since they were young but never made more than 60k in a year get taxed at a higher rate when they cash out and retire to make it "fair" for the poor people.

People like that couple get shafted by the current system, helping them is the purpose of the proposal, they can get a net benefit if taxes on work are lowered while taxes on investments/dividends/etc are raised.

Also, you know all this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree. The rich are too rich. When rg3 goes.for his.contract extension we should only give him $50k a year. After all he doesn't need a fancy new car. Its not my business what other people make. Is it your business how many tv's your neighbor has? How about his disposable income? No, its not your business.

some people were born poor, some middle, and some wealthy. Yes the wealthy people have an easier time staying/growing their wealth but its not impossible to become wealthy when born poor. It's also easy to become poor when born into the middle class. Bottom line is if you want to change your status do something about it. Nobody is stuck slinging burgers or driving a bus. If you want something go and get it.

Oprah was born dirt poor and she made it. I can give you examples of people like john mccaffrey I knew growing up in the middle class who is now dirt poor and in and out of jail.

Ahh there it is again, the myth that working hard and being a go-getter will result in you being the 1%..."Just work harder you dumb schlep!"

[Elessar78]

Nice video, Comrade Alexey.

Sure there's great income inequality but it's not just a matter of the top class bullying their way there. There are lots of behaviors that contribute to being able to amass wealth. Maybe not in the top 1% but certainly people in the top 20%.

Once you've achieved a certain level of income then it's easier to amass because you have so much more surplus income.

Is the chart about income earners or net worth? Also, "poor" in America is a very relative term—for the most part they have basic clothing, food, shelter, and healthcare. Poor in other parts of the world only have these categories in varying degrees.

[Burgold]

Nice video, Comrade Alexey.

Sure there's great income inequality but it's not just a matter of the top class bullying their way there. There are lots of behaviors that contribute to being able to amass wealth. Maybe not in the top 1% but certainly people in the top 20%.

Once you've achieved a certain level of income then it's easier to amass because you have so much more surplus income.

Yeah, but they've (the top bracket) have also rigged the system very strongly to their benefit.

[kramdizzle]

Ahh there it is again, the myth that working hard and being a go-getter will result in you being the 1%..."Just work harder you dumb schlep!"

It doesn't always lead to success, but sitting on your butt doing nothing never leads to success

[Burgold]

It doesn't always lead to success, but sitting on your butt doing nothing never leads to success

Tell that to some of our wealthiest citizens who did so by inheriting their wealth and letting their brokers do all their work.

[PeterMP]

Nice video, Comrade Alexey.

Sure there's great income inequality but it's not just a matter of the top class bullying their way there. There are lots of behaviors that contribute to being able to amass wealth. Maybe not in the top 1% but certainly people in the top 20%.

Once you've achieved a certain level of income then it's easier to amass because you have so much more surplus income.

Is the chart about income earners or net worth? Also, "poor" in America is a very relative term—for the most part they have basic clothing, food, shelter, and healthcare. Poor in other parts of the world only have these categories in varying degrees.

Everybody understands there is going to be income inequality, but the fact of the matter is that we have an extreme level of income inequality and it is getting worse.

[alexey]

Nice video, Comrade Alexey.

....

It's "mister Alexey".

I get a sense that you are responding to your own interpretation of the video (communist propaganda) and not its actual content (highlighting a fact of a mismatch between people's perception and realty).

---------- Post added March-10th-2013 at 09:29 AM ----------

It doesn't always lead to success, but sitting on your butt doing nothing never leads to success

That is also true.

Some rich people are smart and hard working. Some poor people are not. These obvious facts are pathetically useless. Everybody knows them.

[Burgold]

Think of a 5 k run. In this run, 5% of the entrants will run on a pleasant 5 degree downslope while the rest will have to run up a 30 degree incline. Now, imagine that the 5% with the decline realize that they could still be overtaken so the night before the race they pitted the incline with landmines and covered the road with grease. Sure, upward mobility is still possible, but there's some serious cheating go on these days.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It doesn't always lead to success, but sitting on your butt doing nothing never leads to success

Oh lovely, those are the alternatives...work hard and be rich...or not and end up grinding your entire life away to get no where...or sit on your arse.

Keep on dangling that carrot, people have a better chance at winning the lottery.

Tell that to some of our wealthiest citizens who did so by inheriting their wealth and letting their brokers do all their work.

No joke, ever wonder why they wanted to end the inheritance tax and cap gains? Not to mention the brokers who aren't even investing in companies any more (at least not like they used to do) but instead are simply running algorithms that buy and trade bulk stocks and hold them for only seconds while the stock increases a fraction of a point only to sell those same bulk stocks moments later. This isn't grandma and granpa investing in AT&T and holding those shares for 10 or 20 years. Although the rich as they complain about cap gains taxes would tell you that they're fighting for those old stock shares. Yeah right.

[Burgold]

That is also true.

Some rich people are smart and hard working. Some poor people are not. These obvious facts are pathetically useless. Everybody knows them.

There's an underlying assumption though that all rich people seem to have earned and merited their wealth through hard work. That's not the case just as it's not the case that all poor are lay and shiftless.