15 Stunning Facts and Charts About Wealth & Inequality in the USA
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
What would you suggest, then? Make them pay 95% of the total federal taxes, leaving them reluctant to invest in the economy? The rich in this country are responsible for tens, sometimes hundreds of billions of dollars annually in capital gains tax revenues to the IRS alone, not to mention corporate income, individual income and social security taxes that they shoulder the bulk of. In 2000, more than $150 billion was collected in capital gains taxes alone. The redistribution of wealth eliminates a more than decent amount of these tax revenues and encourages people with "excessive" amounts of money to turn their backs on the economy. We, as a country, rely on capital investment and individuals with large amounts of disposable income to fuel this country with their capital.
I never understood the gripe people have with the rich. Should we penalize innovation and individual drive, determination and personal successes because not all of us can make $100 million dollars in a lifetime? Who are any of us to say that a person has too much money? If you really are upset about the disparity of wealth in this country, maybe you should first take a look at yourself... If you're posting articles about redistribution of wealth, using a computer that was made in part or in whole by, or runs any software from Microsoft, Oracle or Apple you are equally to blame for increasing the personal fortunes of Bill Gates (Net worth: $53 billion) and/or Larry Ellison (Net worth: $27 billion) and/or Steve Jobs (Net worth: $5.5 billion), or if you have ever patronized any stores/brands etc. that are currently held either wholly or partially by Berkshire Hathaway (i.e. Coca-Cola, Wrigley, GEICO, Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Russell Athletics, See's Candy, The Washington Post, American Express, Wells Fargo, etc. etc. etc.) you're then contributing to the personal fortune of Warren Buffett (Net Worth: $47 billion) or if you have ever shopped at WalMart, you're contributing to the collective $127 billion net worth of the Walton family. All of these factors reveal that you, personally, in some small way are ultimately helping to fuel the very same rift between rich and poor in this country that you're complaining about.
maildude
Postal Paranoiac
That was the weak point in setting up a free market system to begin with. If regulated, like it has been, it can continue for a long while...before its own foundation reveals its inequities, even to the most brainwashed Conservative. In such a case, leaving itself open to French or Nordic-type lower class revolution. Case in point: How many low-income rural families support a right-winged viewpoint based solely on "values" expressed and bolstered by the moneyed Right? These sheep are still poor in an unacceptable differential level, but they don't see this because the rich controllers have the resources to influence their opinions. This has been going on for a very long time. Did our "Founding Fathers" foresee this...and did they try to control it? These lawyers, landowners, and philosophers? Maybe. They saw what happened at the Bastille. But whether or not their intentions were pure, the outcome today might well be much different than they intended.
If only everyone who was rich actually had innovation, drive, and personal success. The majority of the wealthy are inherited wealthy, no self-made.
In that light, and coupled with the gross generalizations about those living on welfare in this thread, what is the difference between the fundamental lifestyle of someone on welfare and someone who inherited wealth?
There's also a difference between the Rich and the Super Rich. Most people assume all rich people are Super Rich. That's not true.
Philbert
Banned
:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
Jesus Christ would you please learn some history? What does Bastille have to do with anything? That was a struggle for basic human rights... not for taxing someone who makes more money than you do! Btw you should read some facts about Sweden... for instance that they lowered their taxes and are still lowering them since they managed to screw up their position as the (almost) richest country in the world by high taxes and brought their economy to a complete standstill in the 80's!
Well Bill Gates doesn't have a pile of $100B stashed under his bed but rather it has that money invested, whether it be stocks of Microsoft or some other company or deposited in a savings account. And that means that his money is used as an investment that creates new jobs and new value for the economy as a whole. Now if we transferred that money to the government, what would they do? I don't know, start another war? Government usually wastes taxpayer's money. They don't treat it nearly as carefully as private capital owners do. And that is true for any government in the world.
Of all the people I listed in that post, not one of them inherited wealth.
-Gates was from an upper-middle class family and it was his own innovation and drive, not an inheritence, that sparked his interest in computers and programming which led him to spend hours honing and perfecting his craft, leading to the formation Microsoft, that lead him to his fortune.
-Buffet as a child went door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines, worked in his grandfather's grocery store, delived newspapers, sold golfballs and stamps, and detailed cars. In 1945, in his sophomore year of high school, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in different barber shops. At about the age of 10, he purchased shares of Cities Service for himself and his sister. By the time he finished college, Buffett had accumulated more than $90,000 in savings measured in 2009 dollars.
-Ellison grew up in a two-bedroom apartment in Chicago's South Shore middle-class Jewish neighborhood; he founded Oracle in 1977, putting up $1400 of his own money and using his drive and determination to turn it, and himself into multi-billion dollar enterprises.
-Sam Walton (the founder of WalMart) lived with his parents on their Oklahoma farm until 1923. Sam's father decided farming did not generate enough income on which to raise a family, so he decided to go back to a previous profession of a mortgage man. Growing up during the Great Depression, Walton had numerous chores to help make financial ends meet for his family. He milked the family cow, bottled the surplus, and drove it to customers. Afterwards, he would deliver newspapers on a paper route. In addition, he also sold magazine subscriptions.
None of these sound like stories of wealthy and privileged childhoods to me. And nowhere in any of these histories does it mention any inherited wealth as you so incorrectly assumed. These are stories of people with, at best, middle class upbringings that had a drive and a determination to make something of themselevs.
And even if, as you say "The majority of the wealthy are inherited wealthy, no [sic] self-made," (of which I am hesitant to believe) their wealth, or their families' wealth had to originally derive from some form of personal determination to succeed. So, should we then say that those individuals who actually had the drive to make their living are not allowed to pass wealth down to their family members because they "didn't work for it?" Or that these individuals have no right to the wealth that they currently preside over (regardless of how they obtained it) because "they don't deserve it?" That's ridiculous.
The difference is that the ones who inherited the wealth did not receive it as a form of assistance from the government, and they, along with the rest of us, are funding the lifestyles of someone on welfare by way of government subsidies primarily fueled by taxable income (which includes, yes, inherited wealth). That's the whole concept, those with the money help those without money to subsist. But to what point should they/we be made to do so? At what point do we, as a society, concede that certain individuals on welfare have not shown an adequate desire to remove themselves from the welfare rolls? At what point do we, as a society, start to understand that it is ok to help have-nots as long as they are trying to help themselves? What benefit is it to simply tell an able bodied, mentally healthy individual that they don't have to even try to attempt to contribute to the society that helps to keep them alive? "No, don't worry about it, you just sit there and the people in this country will help you live. The people with the money that they (or a family member) have earned righteously, should cough it up to you. You're fully capable of working, but you don't really have the desire or motivation to, so we'll take care of you," is essentially the verbatim dialogue about welfare/wealth redistribution in this country.
Yeah because poor people are just poor because they choose to be.
The thought there are people that can bring themselves to belive that is mind-boggling. Good God, actually think about what you said for a second. While there are a minority of people that abuse the system most of that belief is just bull shit rationalizing to try and make your position something that seems just or to deflect the selfishness of it.Wouldn't the the smartest solution to that be to make sure everybody had a job that paid a true living wage that wanted one where they could support a family? That way there would be no welfare for people that had kids they couldn't support, and people that worked hard would be able to support a family. It would also get rid of stress and financial worry. Yet whenever somebody even thinks of things like that people like you scream about socialism, even if it's completely logical.
I don't know just what world you live in or where your getting your facts, but that's 100% absolutely positively completely utterly false. There is nothing...NOTHING that supports that. There are huge mountains of evidence that clearly show the opposite. That's about as far opposite from the truth as it can get, and one can't believe that without having no grasp of reality.
Your whole argument falls on a very extremely flawed and narrow look at things that relies on selectively used evidence (some would call it cherry picking) that is often used by people trying to make the case that the rich pay more than everybody else and pay more than they should, and that is you only look at federal income tax. Unfortunately, for all those poorer people out there than them, which is most people, there are a lot more taxes than federal income tax. Once you count things like state income taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, Medicare, and everything down to taxes on gas and other stuff that the rich don't need any more of than anybody else the rich end up paying around the same amount of every dollar they make as much of the middle class if not the poor in this country, even though they rightfully should pay more. Focusing on federal income tax is jut a way they use to gloss over that fact. That's why Warren Buffet can legitimately claim that the pays less per dollar he makes in taxes than his secretary. It's even worse when one counts that the rich also have ways of accumulating large amounts of wealth that most others don't have that aren't taxed at nearly the same rate, like owning large numbers of stocks and other things. All that still doesn't even take into account the rich can have whole financial and law firms working for them to hide their wealth for find tax shelters that aren't available to normal people.
Communism hasn't ever really been tried in any significant way by a country with a decent amount of resources. There was a ruthless totalitarian oligarchy called the USSR that tried to pass itself off as "communistic" but that was just a lie to cover the fact they were a ruthless totalitarian oligarchy. China uses a similar system now except it pretends to be communistic even less. It's really just a capitalistic system run by a one party totalitarian government. Communism is an economic system that has never actually been seriously implemented and for some reason it gets put in with and labeled with the unethical and evil regimes that didn't really use it.
I believe that if true communism had been brought about by a country that cared more about it's people and wasn't totalitarian and brutal in nature more of the world, including us, would look a lot more favorably on it today and I believe it would have worked out. That's not to say I don't have problems with it, or don't think there are good things about capitalism, but I want a heavily modified capitalism with strong socialist tendencies that makes thing fair and ethical for all involved at least where we don't let the poorest of us fall past a certain point. A true measure of a country is how it treats is poorest people not it's riches.
As far as your question of whether it would it work in the US. Sure, there's no reason it couldn't once we get passes the greed and selfishness that have permeated US culture so we would care about more than individual self interest.
Of course I could also point out that capitalism as far as what it's supposed to do has never really worked or been achieved either. It hasn't made the world a better place. It's not something that makes things fair or something that works for the betterment of everybody. Even it's few strengths, competition and innovation, are highly exaggerated in how much it effects them and brings them about. The only way capitalism "works" is if somebody believes that by "work" it highly concentrates wealth and power into the hands of the few at the expense of everybody else. That's it's primary function.
I would argue that their biggest problems right now and the reason they are in so much trouble is that 1. They got more capitalist in recent history 2. Like us they are starting to compete in the "global economy" and have to compete with people that don't mind using the near lowest most unethical methods that deprive human dignity to gain economic success. 3. They have leaders just as corrupt as ours.
Then again we aren't doing so hot economically either so maybe you should worry about the glass house you live in while throwing stones.
Plus, people like you conveniently neglect success from that system like from Scandinavian countries or success from countries that operate like China. Golly gee somehow I don't think you want to move more in the direction of what China is like. It seems that in both respects your reasoning doesn't hold water.
A whole new economic system doesn't need to show up we just need the wherewithal to go through the ones that already exist and don't focus on greed.
Enjoy it while it last, the middle class is shrinking every day. Despite what some people here might want to believe the rich are taking most of that portion of the wealth. It's not going to the poor. As far as the former "communist" countries are concerned you can't judge an economic system by what a corrupt political system does. Communism isn't mutually inclusive with that.
No it isn't. Reagan just mortgaged our future to enhance the economy back then and used one time tricks that can pretty much never be used again that hurt us today and will continue long from now. It's effect weren't felt in full force right away, and had a more insidious effect on America. Reagan built up debt, raided social security, had policies that shifted wealth to the rich more than anybody else if you count what his effects did after him. Plus, once he lowered taxes on the rich there is pretty much no where else to go to lower them again to get his artificial quick boost. It's not like anybody in the future can magically lower taxes to negative numbers to achieve the same effect. The relative amount of earning for most people didn't even go up because him. Even people at the 90% of wealth didn't really see any effect. For over half the country it went down. If you are among the rich you might love Reagan. If your anybody else you would have to be naive to believe he did any good for you.
Right! We live exactly the same as did the people in the middle ages!
So what's your point? Those people didn't live lives the same as people two thousand years before them. You're not actually going to say the advancement of humanity into the modern age was because of capitalism, are you? :rofl:
Even the advancement of the US wasn't because of capitalism. It was because of two factors.
1. The industrial revolution, which helped most of the Western World quickly.
2. We were very lucky at the aftermath of World War II with our location were we were left as one of two Superpowers in the world, and later we had enough might and power to outmaneuver the other one. In fact in a lot of ways were were lucky even before that in having a buffer of two huge oceans between the rest of the major powers in the world.
(3. Maybe a minor part of it was that we were the first nation to recognize most of the human rights and liberties most of the Civilized World does now so some people came over here because of that. Still that has nothing to do with capitalism.)
That is correct. But what is industry all about if not about capitalism? Why does one invest in a factory? Not because he thinks he will serve some greater purpose by doing so... but because he wants profit for himself!
People need to realize that for most people the basic motive for doing anything is their personal financial profit. That is why communism will never work. Nor is it something that we should strive for. People are different and of different abilities and of different personal goals and to try to make all people equal is nonsense and utterly unfair.
The rich do, in actuality pay more in taxes than everyone else. Maybe not as a percentage of their entire income, but in sheer dollars, they are responsible for more tax revenue than the rest of the country, that's a fact.
And you're trying to argue that the wealthy don't pay sales taxes, social security taxes, Medicare, and everything down to taxes on gas? That's ludicrous. So a billionaire buys a multi-million dollar house in say, California. They aren't subjected to property taxes that would be much higher than the purchse of a median price home? They don't purchase top end vehicles that are subject to sales tax? Most rich individuals don't have several vehicles that require high octane gasoline, in larger volume that is taxed? They don't buy high ticket items that are subjected to luxury taxes? They don't, at times, have yachts and private jets that take large amounts of expensive, specialized fuel that is also taxed, nevermind the payroll fees and taxes included in maintaining and operating such?
And as for your comment that
you're right. Large amounts of stock profits are not taxed at the same rate. If they have made a savvy investment, they then are subject to capital gains taxes which are set to increase in 2011 to 39.6% for short term and 20% for long term capital gains. I would say that they indeed pay taxes that most individuals will never be able to fathom.
Oh my God...................
:1orglaugh:1orglaughI've had more experience in East Central Europe/Yugoslavia than you and I know Communism does not work!
There's this guy that's just sitting out in my front yard....just sitting there. He's all smelly and hairy and dirty....ick! I opened my front door and poured a pitcher of lemonade on him earlier and told him to get lost. He's still just sittin out there....
I blame Bill Gates for not giving him a million. Damn hippies.
I blame Bill Gates for not giving him a million. Damn hippies.
The industrial revolution was arguably the beginning of modern capitalism, as well as extreme monetary stratification. Read the series of essays by Henry Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins that set the academic consensus that the bulk of the population, that was at the bottom of the social ladder, suffered severe reductions in their living standards during the industrial revolution.
And next I imagine you'll tell us all that Andrew Carnegie, and J.D. Rockefeller (the two richest capitalists in American history) gained absolutely nothing by way of the industrial revolution. Shortly after the initial industrial revolution, there was a sort of "second" industrial revolution, in which demand for cheap steel and more railways were unbelievably high. Carnegie would never have made his fortune if it weren't for advances in metalurgy and iron-making seen during the industrial revolution. And Rockefeller would never have been able to amass his fortune, and his informal title as the richest person in history, if it weren't for advances in the railway systems over the same period of time to deliver his oil around the country. Oil and railways that became necessities post "second" industrial revolution.
As well, it has been noted that Marxism, anti-capitalism, was born as a response to the industrial revolution. Marxism began "essentially as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution." According to Karl Marx, "industrialisation polarised society into the bourgeoisie and the much larger proletariat. He saw the industrialisation process as the logical dialectical progression of feudal economic modes, necessary for the full development of capitalism, which he saw as in itself a necessary precursor to the development of socialism and eventually communism."
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_5.pdf
Or take a look at a book called "The Improving State of the World," written by Indur M. Goklany, that basically echoes the idea that capitalism was essentially born out of the industrial revolution in that "industrialisation increases wealth for all, as evidenced by raised life expectancy, reduced working hours, and no work for children and the elderly."
Philbert
Banned
Right! We live exactly the same as did the people in the middle ages!
You are confusing Islam and Sharia Law with the 21st Century world we used to have...
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
none of this bullshit surprises me. The rich are getting richer because the rich are getting greedier. Our government is just a tool used by the corporations to play with money that isn't theirs. You can look at it this way. The American government is nothing more than an extremely elaborate money laundering scheme.
Supafly
Retired Mod
I marvel at the sher black and white trap that has this discussion in its claws.
This should really not be about either Manchester Capitalism OR full-fledged Communism with no more personal belongings.
Either some guys are not able to grasp the concept that there are so many ways in between, or they are sabotaging this one by not being willing to go there. I think the second would be far worse.
Okay, back to topic.
1. At least here in Germany, a moajority of larger companies manages to shift parts of their companies out of their home country and in the process of it handle taxes elsewhere where they practically do not pay real taxes.
2. The parliament (Any government, be they left Social Demecrats, Christian Demeocrats, whatsoever) fails to build a simple tax laws that does not allow for tax escapes and just puts a flat, twenty percent on every subject to taxation
3. the top 10% of finance owners in Germany own 61% of the finance. But only they have profited from the last 10 to 15 years, the middle class is dropping fast and the lowest 10% are worse off than a decade ago. Now they want to cut off the child support for single parents by 300 Euros, which is somewhat of a third of their total support, and not lay a finger on any wallet of the super-rich.
4. If we would just take the cream off the financial budget the top ten percenters have, we would have the most brutal attempts at budget balancing of our country smoothed out.
5. Sadly, the superrich have a lot of lobby power, and the poor have almost none
6. Again; If you keep on thinking black and white, you are not helping the situation
Thanks for starting by reading this post :hatsoff:
This should really not be about either Manchester Capitalism OR full-fledged Communism with no more personal belongings.
Either some guys are not able to grasp the concept that there are so many ways in between, or they are sabotaging this one by not being willing to go there. I think the second would be far worse.
Okay, back to topic.
1. At least here in Germany, a moajority of larger companies manages to shift parts of their companies out of their home country and in the process of it handle taxes elsewhere where they practically do not pay real taxes.
2. The parliament (Any government, be they left Social Demecrats, Christian Demeocrats, whatsoever) fails to build a simple tax laws that does not allow for tax escapes and just puts a flat, twenty percent on every subject to taxation
3. the top 10% of finance owners in Germany own 61% of the finance. But only they have profited from the last 10 to 15 years, the middle class is dropping fast and the lowest 10% are worse off than a decade ago. Now they want to cut off the child support for single parents by 300 Euros, which is somewhat of a third of their total support, and not lay a finger on any wallet of the super-rich.
4. If we would just take the cream off the financial budget the top ten percenters have, we would have the most brutal attempts at budget balancing of our country smoothed out.
5. Sadly, the superrich have a lot of lobby power, and the poor have almost none
6. Again; If you keep on thinking black and white, you are not helping the situation
Thanks for starting by reading this post :hatsoff:
