Wealth distribution in the US

[Razgovory]

Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

Bit surprised that nobody pointed this out.  Maybe it was too obvious.

[garbon]

I don't know why they would think they should be raising children on a minimum wage. They barely have enough (/not enough) money to take care of themselves.

Yet millions do.

An entirely different discussion.

Not really.  Any system that holds that poors oughtn't to have kids is neither realistic nor equitable.

That's why it is another discussion because I don't think I was saying that.

[garbon]

Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

I'm glad I'm not saying that then. I also don't buy that the disparity actually shows that we are worse off than we were previously but more that we have less chances of improving our lot than in the past...and less chance than improving our lot up to that 1%.

[garbon]

Please, that is just plain naive. The fat cat candidate most certainly won - you can't BE a candidate in this world without being a fat cat's candidate. Uber Rich Dude #2 beat out Uber Rich Dude #1.

If you're already there than there seems there is nothing to be done but revolution, velvet or otherwise.

[Admiral Yi]

You really think the uber rich give two shits about income tax?
...

If they didn't have an insane amount of power, I suspect we would have a racially more progressive tax system.

The fact that they are contiunally growing that power and wealth simply demolishes any claim that somehow it "doesn't matter". THEY certainly seem to think it matters.

The fact that they are continually growing their wealth is a simple function of compound interest (or re-invested dividends, same thing).

Sav has much, much greater wealth than I do.  Unless something drastic happens, the difference will amplify over time as he recieves and re-invests returns on a larger capital base.  I'm sure that to Sav the fact that his nest egg is growing matters very much.  Whether this is unjust is another issue.

[DGuller]

Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream.

You didn't like Hoboken? 

[frunk]

This discussion has brought to mind a conservative argument for progressive taxation.

Those with greater wealth and income have disproportionately greater interest in society staying structured the same or similarly to what it is now.  The best means to ensure that is by the government being well funded and capable of carrying out its duties.  That greater interest in preserving the status quo should translate into greater contribution in taxes.

[Tamas]

This discussion has brought to mind a conservative argument for progressive taxation.

Those with greater wealth and income have disproportionately greater interest in society staying structured the same or similarly to what it is now.  The best means to ensure that is by the government being well funded and capable of carrying out its duties.  That greater interest in preserving the status quo should translate into greater contribution in taxes.

That is an excellent hint at the real reason behind welfare and redistribution: the rich using the middle class' money to buy off the poor from putting them on lamp posts.

Based on what you guys have been telling, I would eliminate the tax perks of the rich in the US first before trying to raise taxes across the board

[Ideologue]

Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

I'm glad I'm not saying that then. I also don't buy that the disparity actually shows that we are worse off than we were previously but more that we have less chances of improving our lot than in the past...and less chance than improving our lot up to that 1%.

In many concrete terms, I suspect we're less well off--the cost of shelter is certainly much higher (bottom 40% can probably forget owning a home unless they follow the Fahdiz Plan of living in flophouses and saving up $80k in cash from their dirtfarm job), the cost of education (which functions as a massive wealth transfer from all to a few rich), and I'm not sure that Otto's point about "cheap cars" is true, though I'll concede that it may be.

[garbon]

You'll always bleat about education so I write that one off.  As far as housing, it's been true for quite sometime now that most of us couldn't afford to buy houses, we just covered it all up with loans we couldn't really pay.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Is the position being put forth that because of the disparity those of us without such wealth are being forced to live in much worse conditions than we were previously accustomed?

Of course it is.  Don't be one of those people who says because poors can afford a microwave or have access to refrigeration, things are better than they ever were.

So when my great-great-grandfather got off the boat from Scotland he had been trained as a school teacher but the only work he could find on these shores was cleaning out the inside of industrial machinery in a 19th century factory. I'll compare his life story to the story of a guy I grew up. My friend James' father worked in the coal industry, in the late-70s he was killed on the job due almost entirely to the negligence of his employer. In the settlement large trusts were set up for James, his mother, and both sisters. Enough that after all three children had graduated college (fully paid for from the trust) they each individually had in excess of $1m in assets, their mother had a similar amount and held no employment from the time her first husband died until the present. My great-great-grandfather was killed at a facility owned by Bethlehem Steel in the 19th century, he was cleaning equipment and it was started while he was essentially inside of it and he was crushed to death. His family received no compensation, and in fact did not even receive his full paycheck for that week (only the hours he had worked prior to the accident.) There was no governmental support offered and minimal community support. My great-grandfather (who I actually knew as a child), then went to work at the age of 14 in a factory (dropping out of school) to support his 5 siblings and mother.

The poor are vastly better off than they are today. Evidence this by the fact here you are, whining on the internet instead of working 7 days a week 12 hours a day and 8 on Sunday.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You'll always bleat about education so I write that one off.  As far as housing, it's been true for quite sometime now that most of us couldn't afford to buy houses, we just covered it all up with loans we couldn't really pay.

Home ownership was rare in the past, it peaked within the last 20 years I think. Mortgages used to be unheard of and required extremely large down payments. Many people either rented a house or rented land (it used to be not uncommon to rent land and build a house on it, which created the interesting situation of not having the right to actually stay in a home you had built if the landowner evicted you.)

[Admiral Yi]

This discussion has brought to mind a conservative argument for progressive taxation.

Those with greater wealth and income have disproportionately greater interest in society staying structured the same or similarly to what it is now.  The best means to ensure that is by the government being well funded and capable of carrying out its duties.  That greater interest in preserving the status quo should translate into greater contribution in taxes.

If the argument is that the wealthy have a disproportionate wish to avoid anarchy, I don't think I buy it.  The wealthy can privatize security much easier because of economies of scale than the middle class can.

IMO the best argument for progressivity is that the government should leave people enough for the necessities of life.

[garbon]

Additionally, a stronger, more well funded government might turn around and antagonize its "benefactors".

[Sheilbh]

But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

The irony is 'meritocracy' was coined by a British writer in a satirical dystopian essay. It was a pejorative phrase that's now something we openly aspire towards.

The problem with meritocracy is that if success = ability + effort then there's very little reason helping people who don't have the ability or the effort, or don't put it in. That is, as in the dystopia, just 'sentimental egalitarianism'. A perfect meritocracy is justly unequal, anything like a welfare state is an act of gratuitous charity from the justly successful, to the justly unsuccessful.