Wealth concentration returning to ‘levels last seen during the Roaring Twenties' (1 Viewer)

[Dedfin]

... are we suggesting that Aaron Rogers give money back?

Because at $80m a year, he's skewing the "wealth concentration".

NFL top salaries 2018

... or how about George Clooney give back the $239m that he made last year?

Top paid movie actors 2018

Oprah's worth $4b ... that's $4,000,000,000

maybe she should have to give some back?

Lets not blame it on the successful. 

It's not about blame, genius.

 

[Otis]

I guarantee you there are people on this board that don't think it's a bad idea for billionaires to keep all their money. They just dont address it directly. Instead they call progressives insane and other low level #### because they know they cant defend this.

Why would they think that?  It takes money out of circulation, and therefore hurts the economy, and it takes it away from people in need who could deploy it to materially change their lives.

I’m not talking about a guy who has $10M saved up for retirement and to take care of his family.   I’m talking about a guy who has $500M or a billion. 

 

[gianmarco]

Like this guy?

 

[James Daulton]

No, we can't.

Why not?

 

[Sand]

Why not?

It would run afoul of Citizens United.  You'd be quashing a citizen's first amendment rights of expression, which include what they spend money on.  Pretty clearly unconstitutional.

 

[James Daulton]

It would run afoul of Citizens United.  You'd be quashing a citizen's first amendment rights of expression, which include what they spend money on.  Pretty clearly unconstitutional.

So pinning max CEO compensation to a multiple of worker wages would trigger Citizens United?

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Gates is doing great things on his own.

He also thinks he should be taxed at a much higher rate.

I agree with him.  The super rich paying just a bit extra goes a long way.  Even 1%.   You just can't tax them to the point they put the money outside the US.  Or more likely move more into their shelters that tax capital gains at 15% rather than the income tax rate.

I'm fairly well off, a Republican, anti tax, and I'd still not mind putting another 2% in the kitty IF it was spent right.  Not for handouts, museums, arts, etc.  But for expenditures that create economic benefits, like local transportation projects, or reduce the level at which we have to support poverty, like educating people better.  But Congress pork barrels so much to local interests.  I worked for 10+ years in govt and consulting to govt.  The waste I saw at the Federal level is insane.  I'm talking hundreds of billions with these projects.  The govt would be better eliminating DOT and DoEd, and giving the money directly to the state agencies for these for them to decide how to use it.

I don't mind paying taxes.  I mind the wasted dollars we send to Uncle Sam and their unbalanced budget.

 

[The General]

I agree with him.  The super rich paying just a bit extra goes a long way.  Even 1%.   You just can't tax them to the point they put the money outside the US.  Or more likely move more into their shelters that tax capital gains at 15% rather than the income tax rate.

I'm fairly well off, a Republican, anti tax, and I'd still not mind putting another 2% in the kitty IF it was spent right.  Not for handouts, museums, arts, etc.  But for expenditures that create economic benefits, like local transportation projects, or reduce the level at which we have to support poverty, like educating people better.  But Congress pork barrels so much to local interests.  I worked for 10+ years in govt and consulting to govt.  The waste I saw at the Federal level is insane.  I'm talking hundreds of billions with these projects.  The govt would be better eliminating DOT and DoEd, and giving the money directly to the state agencies for these for them to decide how to use it.

I don't mind paying taxes.  I mind the wasted dollars we send to Uncle Sam and their unbalanced budget.

Agreed that people should be upset about waste. I guess it's how people define waste is the rub. I have never worked a government gig but when I do deal with them the offices seem pretty spartan, their travel budgets limited. I'm sure there is money being wasted and govt agencies should be audited all the time.

I'd argue that "handouts" for arts and museums is money well spent it in that they educate, expand culture, improve our lives. A good return on the investment. I'd argue lop 15% of the defense budget.

Taxing the uber wealthy is just a component of this but when I get guys like Gates, Buffett telling me that they way they are taxed is broken I'm listening.

When I see these stats that all show the top 1% flourishing while the lower half of the country is stagnant while we are in "the greatest economy of all time" record low unemployment and all, something isn't right IMO and some balancing needs to be looked at in how our system is set up.

 

[Bossman]

Take from the rich and give to the poor? Sounds a lot like communism to me.

This is the land of opportunity. Capitalist pigs we are and will always be.  

Keep ur hands off my fat stacks!

 

[modogg]

some strange responses in here. the inequality has ballooned to such a point that it makes me throw up in my mouth to actually think about it.

for those in here who see no problem with it, how sustainable and for how long is this possible? is there a point where it is too much?

 

[GoBirds]

I agree with him.  The super rich paying just a bit extra goes a long way.  Even 1%.   You just can't tax them to the point they put the money outside the US.  Or more likely move more into their shelters that tax capital gains at 15% rather than the income tax rate.

I'm fairly well off, a Republican, anti tax, and I'd still not mind putting another 2% in the kitty IF it was spent right.  Not for handouts, museums, arts, etc.  But for expenditures that create economic benefits, like local transportation projects, or reduce the level at which we have to support poverty, like educating people better.  But Congress pork barrels so much to local interests.  I worked for 10+ years in govt and consulting to govt.  The waste I saw at the Federal level is insane.  I'm talking hundreds of billions with these projects.  The govt would be better eliminating DOT and DoEd, and giving the money directly to the state agencies for these for them to decide how to use it.

I don't mind paying taxes.  I mind the wasted dollars we send to Uncle Sam and their unbalanced budget.

Here’s your problem. 

 

[kutta]

some strange responses in here. the inequality has ballooned to such a point that it makes me throw up in my mouth to actually think about it.

for those in here who see no problem with it, how sustainable and for how long is this possible? is there a point where it is too much?

I’m probably one “who sees no problem with it.” Well, I sort of agree that it’s messed up. But there’s nothing I can think of to do about it. Most probably agree with @Otis that it’s not the guy with $10M saved that’s the problem. But what happens if we start arbitrarily taxing wealth because we just don’t think things are fair? Well, that guy with $10M suddenly finds he’s in the “rich” group and his wealth starts to get taxed. 

I just have a fundamental problem taking people’s things from them. We can’t pick and choose and say, “We’ll, that guy made something and “earned” his money but this guy didn’t so we’ll take his. 

So while I agree the wealth disparity is crazy and it does suck, I’m just not sure what to do about it - because I just can’t support arbitrarily taking people’s wealth from them.

 

[Warrior]

I’m not talking about a guy who has $10M saved up for retirement and to take care of his family.   I’m talking about a guy who has $500M or a billion. 

"I'm not talking about people like myself. I only want it to affect those that make more than me."

-This entire issue in a nutshell.

 

[wikkidpissah]

some strange responses in here. the inequality has ballooned to such a point that it makes me throw up in my mouth to actually think about it.

for those in here who see no problem with it, how sustainable and for how long is this possible? is there a point where it is too much?

It's pretty clear that electronic media has delayed, if not subsumed, the riot cycle of revolution which, historically, would have likely begun by now.

 

[Slapdash]

Here’s the thing — those dudes you just have billions sitting in an account making more billions?  You can take away a billion from them and it has zero impact on their life. But out that billion in the hands of the bottom 50% and a bunch of them are impacted in profound ways. And in ways in which they put that billion back into the economy, allowing all to prosper. These old rich folks who inherited wealth are just depriving the economy; that money is sitting in a dark dusty bin somewhere kept away from the world. 

Frankly I don’t see how those people do it. Especially the ones who just inherited it. If I had that kind of loot, I’d put a billion into briefcases in the back of a tractor trailer and drive down the streets of Brooklyn handing suitcases to whomever needs it.  

I meant you can’t spend it all before you die. What’s the point??

Greed 

 

[fantasycurse42]

Good thing we have a Federal Reserve who have one mandate; protect the stock market.

At some point who knows when, all of their policy errors compounded will cause a massive black swan, but until then, the gap will continue to grow. 

 

[Sand]

So pinning max CEO compensation to a multiple of worker wages would trigger Citizens United?

Yes.  I don't think the government has the power to do this.  Maybe if they did government contracting and there was a FAR in place they'd be restricted in that case.  But a private corporation?  Nope.  Shouldn't and hopefully doesn't.  

I’m probably one “who sees no problem with it.” Well, I sort of agree that it’s messed up. But there’s nothing I can think of to do about it. Most probably agree with @Otis that it’s not the guy with $10M saved that’s the problem. But what happens if we start arbitrarily taxing wealth because we just don’t think things are fair? Well, that guy with $10M suddenly finds he’s in the “rich” group and his wealth starts to get taxed. 

I just have a fundamental problem taking people’s things from them. We can’t pick and choose and say, “We’ll, that guy made something and “earned” his money but this guy didn’t so we’ll take his. 

So while I agree the wealth disparity is crazy and it does suck, I’m just not sure what to do about it - because I just can’t support arbitrarily taking people’s wealth from them.

We can a bit with how taxation is structured.  We can forget about a direct wealth tax - it's clearly unconstitutional.  But you can tax folks who have a lot of ownership when they convert equity to cash.  

As I said, though, you have to be careful going down this road - the very wealthy are also very portable and can just decide to leave.  And there is the thought, as you brought up, of where the line is between "taxation" and "confiscation".  Certainly some in here have no issues with a huge amount being confiscated "for the greater good".  Others have big problems with it.

 

[Otis]

I’m probably one “who sees no problem with it.” Well, I sort of agree that it’s messed up. But there’s nothing I can think of to do about it. Most probably agree with @Otis that it’s not the guy with $10M saved that’s the problem. But what happens if we start arbitrarily taxing wealth because we just don’t think things are fair? Well, that guy with $10M suddenly finds he’s in the “rich” group and his wealth starts to get taxed. 

I just have a fundamental problem taking people’s things from them. We can’t pick and choose and say, “We’ll, that guy made something and “earned” his money but this guy didn’t so we’ll take his. 

So while I agree the wealth disparity is crazy and it does suck, I’m just not sure what to do about it - because I just can’t support arbitrarily taking people’s wealth from them.

The easiest way to do it is based on the tax system we already have.  Not that hard really:

- increase income tax dramatically over a certain threshold. ($10MM a year, or whatever it is)

- increase the tax on income created from wealth (again, over a certain amount -- Joe Blow shouldn't be taxed murderously on his 401k or retirement investments, but some guy who inherited a billion dollars should be brutally taxed over a certain amount on the interest on that billion dollars)

Some of these things, like everything in the tax code, will just have the effect of changing behaviors/having people looking for other tax avoidance vehicles, but if we do it plainly based on "if you make a crapload above a certain amount, it's getting taxed at 80%," that maybe takes some of the fudge factor out of it.

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't understand how, in a thread about wealth concentration, people keep coming back to tax policy.  Income <> wealth.  Unless we want to tax wealth, but I don't think anyone is going there.

Again, I don't advocate "penalizing" anyone.  to narrow the wealth gap, I'm more interested in bringing the bottom up than the top down.  How do we make it so the middle class can get ahead?

Step #1: Bring back unions. Besides taxes, the biggest swing factor from boom of the 1900s middle class was the battle (and I mean that literally) for workers rights. However, we have been eating away at union power and with it we see wages becoming stagnant, the pay for upper level management rising, etc. The owners have all the power right now. 

 

[Sand]

Good thing we have a Federal Reserve who have one mandate; protect the stock market.

At some point who knows when, all of their policy errors compounded will cause a massive black swan, but until then, the gap will continue to grow. 

This is true - one of the biggest reasons wealth inequality accelerated was the ZIRP policy under the last administration.  You can clearly see its effect coming out of the 2008 recession.

 

[Ilov80s]

If anyone is interested more in the topic, lots of great information here.

 

[fantasycurse42]

The easiest way to do it is based on the tax system we already have.  Not that hard really:

- increase income tax dramatically over a certain threshold. ($10MM a year, or whatever it is)

- increase the tax on income created from wealth (again, over a certain amount -- Joe Blow shouldn't be taxed murderously on his 401k or retirement investments, but some guy who inherited a billion dollars should be brutally taxed over a certain amount on the interest on that billion dollars)

Some of these things, like everything in the tax code, will just have the effect of changing behaviors/having people looking for other tax avoidance vehicles, but if we do it plainly based on "if you make a crapload above a certain amount, it's getting taxed at 80%," that maybe takes some of the fudge factor out of it.

Your thinking here is wrong. Bill Gates addressed this (FWIW, he is in favor of taxing very wealthy individuals, but doing so differently). Taxing income over a certain threshold isn't the smart way of going about it, his comments make a lot of sense.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/18220756/bill-gates-tax-rate-70-percent-marginal-modern-monetary-theory

 

[Tom Hagen]

I’m probably one “who sees no problem with it.” Well, I sort of agree that it’s messed up. But there’s nothing I can think of to do about it. Most probably agree with @Otis that it’s not the guy with $10M saved that’s the problem. But what happens if we start arbitrarily taxing wealth because we just don’t think things are fair? Well, that guy with $10M suddenly finds he’s in the “rich” group and his wealth starts to get taxed. 

I just have a fundamental problem taking people’s things from them. We can’t pick and choose and say, “We’ll, that guy made something and “earned” his money but this guy didn’t so we’ll take his. 

So while I agree the wealth disparity is crazy and it does suck, I’m just not sure what to do about it - because I just can’t support arbitrarily taking people’s wealth from them.

Don't we already do this with the federal estate tax?  Die with a net estate less than $11,400,000 and there is no tax.  Die with more than that and the estate (essentially the heirs) pays tax. 

 

[TripItUp]

Step #1: Bring back unions. Besides taxes, the biggest swing factor from boom of the 1900s middle class was the battle (and I mean that literally) for workers rights. However, we have been eating away at union power and with it we see wages becoming stagnant, the pay for upper level management rising, etc. The owners have all the power right now. 

Or is it that the free market is dictating worth?

 

[Ilov80s]

Or is it that the free market is dictating worth?

Perhaps, that is a big topic. I guess what it says is that most people aren't worth as much as they used to and are going to continue to lose value. That's not exacty a recipe for a healthy future. 

 

[TripItUp]

Perhaps, that is a big topic. I guess what it says is that most people aren't worth as much as they used to and are going to continue to lose value. That's not exacty a recipe for a healthy future. 

No, but with shortages in skilled labor areas, it may be time for the unskilled work force to find skills.

 

[Ilov80s]

No, but with shortages in skilled labor areas, it may be time for the unskilled work force to find skills.

That is for sure a result of the world's education system becoming so focused on college which was a mistake. If employers need those skilled laborers, are they paying to send workers to training for them? 

 

[Trey]

Don't we already do this with the federal estate tax?  Die with a net estate less than $11,400,000 and there is no tax.  Die with more than that and the estate (essentially the heirs) pays tax. 

In theory yes. In practice, how many people with 10M+ to their name haven't already sat down with an accountant, attorney, and financial advisor and figured out how to efficiently transfer wealth.

 

[Tom Hagen]

In theory yes. In practice, how many people with 10M+ to their name haven't already sat down with an accountant, attorney, and financial advisor and figured out how to efficiently transfer wealth.

12,711 in 2017 although that was with a $5.4 million exclusion

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It would run afoul of Citizens United.  You'd be quashing a citizen's first amendment rights of expression, which include what they spend money on.  Pretty clearly unconstitutional.

This makes no sense at all.  Citizens United is about political speech.  It’s not about how much people get paid.

 

[TripItUp]

That is for sure a result of the world's education system becoming so focused on college which was a mistake. If employers need those skilled laborers, are they paying to send workers to training for them? 

why is the employers responsibility?

 

[Ilov80s]

why is the employers responsibility?

That's an interesting proposition. If the business has a demand for something that isn't readily available, they might need to invest resources into it. I know that can be flipped the other way around as well but we have seen how that has backfired as well. There was a big demand for college educated workers so the supply side went crazy to fill it. Now those newly college educated are deep in debt and have watered down their value by creating too much supply. There needs to be a balance between labor and ownership. I think just looking at the data here we can see that things are way out of balanced right now. 

 

[Despyzer]

Not familiar enough with the rest of those guys, but I'll submit that Bill Gates may be the greatest philanthropist of our generation.

So far he has donated $28 billion to his own charity foundation and probably more than twice that much to other charities. The poor guy is down to just under a hundred billion dollars. If he decided to hand out $1 million a day, it would take him more than 245 years to do so. 

Edit to add: I'm not saying Gates isn't wonderfully philanthropic, just that this is a tiny dent in his fortunes.

 

[TripItUp]

That's an interesting proposition. If the business has a demand for something that isn't readily available, they might need to invest resources into it. I know that can be flipped the other way around as well but we have seen how that has backfired as well. There was a big demand for college educated workers so the supply side went crazy to fill it. Now those newly college educated are deep in debt and have watered down their value by creating too much supply. There needs to be a balance between labor and ownership. I think just looking at the data here we can see that things are way out of balanced right now. 

The market usually figures this stuff out IMHO.  In my field we are paying to train kids out of college, because the demand makes it profitable to do so.

 

[glock]

I'm sorry, but why is it again that so many consider income redistribution a vile socialist plot NOW-  bringing back the 70% tax rate on the wealthy that was in place back in the 70's ...you know- before it was cut to 50% ...and then 38%-  but NOT when trickle-down-economics was introduced with those cuts as wealth was redistributed to the upper crust??

see chart

 

[Ilov80s]

The market usually figures this stuff out IMHO.  In my field we are paying to train kids out of college, because the demand makes it profitable to do so.

Right, the burden of training the workforce is currently falling really heavily on the employees and they haven’t seen any corresponding increase in compensation while the ownership has seen their profits increase by 200-300%. I don’t think I trust the market to just naturally balance itself back out.

 

[TripItUp]

Right, the burden of training the workforce is currently falling really heavily on the employees and they haven’t seen any corresponding increase in compensation while the ownership has seen their profits increase by 200-300%. I don’t think I trust the market to just naturally balance itself back out.

not representative of my field, wages have gone way up(cybersecurity)

other, less lucrative fields I'm sure wages have been stagnant.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

We need to give the big corps more money/tax breaks. That will solve EVERYTHING.

 

[Ilov80s]

not representative of my field, wages have gone way up(cybersecurity)

other, less lucrative fields I'm sure wages have been stagnant.

Of course at micro levels there fields that have really taken off but at the macro level wages since the late 70s have been stagnant- just enough to keep up with health care costs while executive pay has skyrocketed. We all have our somewhat biased opinions but I do think it’s related to lower taxes leading to failing infrastructure, graft in health care and infrastructure and the attack on unions. The workers don’t much leverage anymore. I’m not anti business but I think things are out of balance. 

 

[eoMMan]

I'm cool with big estate taxes on large estates (like over 10 mil). A lot of entitled dooshwagons get too many large inheritances. If you make the tax large enough, maybe it'll encourage the dead guy to give more to charity before death.

And of course, get the government to use the tax money more efficiently (shudder).

 

[Ilov80s]

Tying into the tax issue. Michigan is experiencing a teacher shortage that is getting bad fast. We can’t even hire teachers right now. We have non qualified subs covering science and English classes because we have nobody that wants the jobs. This is pretty par for the course around here. Michigan per pupil education spending adjusted for inflation has dropped 15% in the last 20 years. Cost of college has doubled during that time. 

All the States are still trying to cover the costs of Special Education that Congress promised the Federal Govt woukd help pay for but has never come close to that commitment. Look at how messed up special education is. Texas actually engaged in one of the most coordinated violations of federal law ever when they openly denied 200,000 students with disabilities access to special education in order to save money. Now they need 10,000 SE teachers and $1.5 billion a year to cover SE. While this is bad, it’s not totally uncommon. 29 States have been found not providing proper special ed services in order to save money. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-08-21/texas-saved-billions-cutting-special-education-now-the-bill-comes-due

We have so many huge holes in our infrastructure that need  investment. Education just being one of them. 

 

[culdeus]

Why would they think that?  It takes money out of circulation, and therefore hurts the economy, and it takes it away from people in need who could deploy it to materially change their lives.

I’m not talking about a guy who has $10M saved up for retirement and to take care of his family.   I’m talking about a guy who has $500M or a billion. 

Why is taking money out of circulation bad?  Couldn't someone argue that it is deflationary?

 

[Dedfin]

Why would they think that?  It takes money out of circulation, and therefore hurts the economy, and it takes it away from people in need who could deploy it to materially change their lives.

I’m not talking about a guy who has $10M saved up for retirement and to take care of his family.   I’m talking about a guy who has $500M or a billion. 

Beats me. I mean we have an actual economics professor and you don't hear peep from him explaining this stuff. I don't think anyone can anymore. It's a religion.

 

[Sand]

So far he has donated $28 billion to his own charity foundation and probably more than twice that much to other charities. The poor guy is down to just under a hundred billion dollars. If he decided to hand out $1 million a day, it would take him more than 245 years to do so. 

Edit to add: I'm not saying Gates isn't wonderfully philanthropic, just that this is a tiny dent in his fortunes.

It isn't a purity test, nor is it a tiny dent.  If he's worth 90 billion now that means he given away about half of his net worth.  I know he's said he plans to give most of it away.  He seems to be on that track.

 

[Sand]

Why would they think that?  It takes money out of circulation, and therefore hurts the economy, and it takes it away from people in need who could deploy it to materially change their lives.

I’m not talking about a guy who has $10M saved up for retirement and to take care of his family.   I’m talking about a guy who has $500M or a billion. 

Actually Otis, this is unfortunately completely wrong for many of these folks that have a #### ton of money.  These folks typically have significant equity in ongoing businesses.  This isn't stagnant money.  This is ownership of a dynamic corporation(s) that employs people, invests in itself, buys products and raw materials, etc., etc..  I'm sure one can find example of folks that have huge piles that do nothing but move money around :cough:GeorgeSoros:cough:, but there are are large percentage where their money is anything but stagnant.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I’m probably one “who sees no problem with it.” Well, I sort of agree that it’s messed up. But there’s nothing I can think of to do about it. Most probably agree with @Otis that it’s not the guy with $10M saved that’s the problem. But what happens if we start arbitrarily taxing wealth because we just don’t think things are fair? Well, that guy with $10M suddenly finds he’s in the “rich” group and his wealth starts to get taxed. 

I just have a fundamental problem taking people’s things from them. We can’t pick and choose and say, “We’ll, that guy made something and “earned” his money but this guy didn’t so we’ll take his. 

So while I agree the wealth disparity is crazy and it does suck, I’m just not sure what to do about it - because I just can’t support arbitrarily taking people’s wealth from them.

I agree with you in a vacuum but that's not what is happening.  Money has influenced policy, so there is no balance.  The middle class has not got a raise in 40 years.  We just had a 1.8 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.  Guess who is paying for it?  

We are the richest country in the world and only first world country with people uninsured, dying and declaring bankruptcy because of it.  So, let's just say, I'm pretty sure the rich have been take care of enough.  I believe 20% of people own 80% of the stock market.  This isn't capitalism, it's corporate socialism.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Actually Otis, this is unfortunately completely wrong for many of these folks that have a #### ton of money.  These folks typically have significant equity in ongoing businesses.  This isn't stagnant money.  This is ownership of a dynamic corporation(s) that employs people, invests in itself, buys products and raw materials, etc., etc..  I'm sure one can find example of folks that have huge piles that do nothing but move money around :cough:GeorgeSoros:cough:, but there are are large percentage where their money is anything but stagnant.

Show your work.  Total bs.  They buy raw materials from companies where and employ people from where?  

 

[James Daulton]

Actually Otis, this is unfortunately completely wrong for many of these folks that have a #### ton of money.  These folks typically have significant equity in ongoing businesses.  This isn't stagnant money.  This is ownership of a dynamic corporation(s) that employs people, invests in itself, buys products and raw materials, etc., etc..  I'm sure one can find example of folks that have huge piles that do nothing but move money around :cough:GeorgeSoros:cough:, but there are are large percentage where their money is anything but stagnant.

So the Walton's stock they own in Walmart is helping keep people employed and used to invest to buy products and raw materials?

Negative ghost rider. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

So the Walton's stock they own in Walmart is helping keep people employed and used to invest to buy products and raw materials?

Negative ghost rider. 

Don't forget the suck on the government because they don't pay a living wage and healthcare for employees.  

 

[Dedfin]

Don't forget the suck on the government because they don't pay a living wage and healthcare for employees.  

They effectively use the fed and state govt to subsidize their payroll since wo many of those employees are on an ent card and/or other assistance. Sure that's supply side economic working as intended.