Redistribution of American Wealth

My memory is that my IRA was stagnant under Obama as my quarterly statements can prove and they and I do not have short memories. It only began to grow under Trump. And I researched the hell out of things before I invested but thanks for the unnecessary insult.

 

The professional opinion is that Africa will continue to grow to the point where emigration is necessary and Europe which is already overpopulated will be the main target.

 

I can't accept that employees should simply be grateful for their jobs - not when the owner is living the life of Reilly. I believe it is their responsibility to provide decent wages if they can afford them.

 

Ok. Then employees can expect to lose their livelihood to immigrants who are not as picky.

 

So, you are saying the Dow did not gain 150% under Obama? Can you show evidence for this?

But, if the Dow gained 150% under Obama, but your IRA was stagnant, then you clearly did something wrong with your investments. Maybe, you did not invest in stocks because the RW blogs told you "we are all going to die because of Obama"?

Which one of the two is it?

 

Oh Joy - like Europe is not already having huge problems with immigrants. My guess is that going forward the EU will be closing its doors - at least partly - if only for Social reasons . The leadership of some of the EU Nations are trying to keep the flood gates open but the People have had enough.

 

used to be the rich felt they had a duty to spend when they had too much, now we have greedy multibillionaire that are still scamming and hording more, trickle down is not working

 

By appointing all the usual Wall Street suspects to every important economic position.

 

Nancy, by herself has a net worth of 120 million? She is not married? She doesn't have any liabilities? You have no idea how this works do yous?

 

Almost all substantial accumulations of private wealth are obtained by privilege that harms others -- land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, etc. -- not productive contribution. There is a very good and obvious reason for that: the profits of production are competed away, but the rents of privilege cannot be competed away.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

 

A salary cap. What about stock options? Equity? What happens if there is a cap call, does that reduce or increase the amount they are permitted to earn?

 

Didn't read thread. The "wealth disparity" lie narrative is just that, a ginormous lie built on a whole house of lies. You will see many variants of it repeated here by the shill army of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM liars in attempting to -sell- their -product- (larger government, higher taxes, more redistribution, graft and illicit power) via all manner of lie narratives.

Just a couple examples, there are MANY, ALL the claims about "wealth disparity" are LIES:

1. The average CEO pay in the U.S. is about $400,000 as a matter of fact, not whatever XX millions the Complex Shill Army claims. Complex liars and shills distort the facts by considering only the CEOs of large public companies, 5,000 or so, and ignoring the other TWENTY NINE+ MILLION U.S. companies. What a monstrous lie right? Is anything they say NOT a lie in light of such distortion?
2. The definition of "wealth" the Complex shill army uses to craft wealth lie narratives is a lie itself. It includes only financial wealth like stocks, and totally -excludes- necessary components of real wealth such as residential real estate, personal property like automobiles, boats, and all other possessions. Again, who could be duped with such absurd definitions of wealth towards fooling you into believing "some rich dude got your slice?"
3. Speaking of "pieces of the pie that someone got more of," wealth is not static nor finite such that it is fixed in time or amount, earnings are not static, yet the Complex shill army pretends that wealth is static. I was "poor" when I started working at 13, but should young teens starting to work should be included in poverty stats? OF COURSE NOT. Many other examples of the "static wealth" fallacy possible.

Any Complex narrative on "wealth disparity" is a self-enriching lie, and anyone who espousing such is either a dupe or a purposeful liar, no "c" answer.

 

Who are all the usual Wall Street suspects????

 

I have and so have many others because those upright republicans in NW Arkansas hire the illegals because they work for cheaper.

 

APPLAUSE!!! Very well stated!!!

 

Tell that to Jesus Christ.

 

The trick that republicans try to do is reframe a complex issue into a simplistic statement which, on it's face, seems absurd.

The question of 'wealth disparity' is not as much of an argument on limits to wealth as it is an argument on the aggregate ever widening gap between the top and bottom rungs. It's getting wider and wider, and the idea that the people at the top are producing a commensurate more to enjoy the wealth accrual is a dubious proposition, at best. The system is rigged so wealth trickles upward. That is what progressives seek to change, i.e., the direction in order to shrink the gap.

As for wealth limits, I believe there should be, but it wold be a matter for political scientists to have a meeting of mind on, and vote on and settle the matter democratically. Off hand, 100 million or so for an individual, but that's just an opinion of an armchair politico, and it's really beside the point of this rebuttal to your premise. The idea behind my opinion is it's okay to be wealthy, but not to be so wealthy as to have as much power as your modest nation. Money is power, in case you didn't get the memo. Massive power that wealth affords, should be controlled by a democratically elected body of people, i.e., congress. I don't Believe one man should control, say, $130 billion as Bezos does.

 

If your net worth is on par with that of many nations, giving you the power of a nation, then it is very much the business of congress. That is my opinion of how it should be.

 

Coming into an election year, we will be spammed from every orifice of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex with propaganda narratives meant to a) divide people and foment irrational resentment, that lead to b) willingness to give more and more power over our lives to government and related entities, to suffer even more unjust levels of taxation, to engage in the fallacy that government force is somehow superior to voluntary choices... all of the preceding just so happen to also enrich Complex denizens of many stripes. This thread is about the "Wealth Inequality" propaganda narrative.

1. Any narrative, chart, claim, statistics, etc. on "wealth inequality" that does not also include a specific definition of the abstract term "wealth" is a lie narrative specifically crafted to deceive towards statist propaganda. By -excluding- several -mandatory- types of "wealth" from its definition, propagandists of the Complex seek to create the very false impression that some few group of people are getting very rich while the rest of us are not.

2. So how to define "wealth?" Mandatory categories of "wealth" include both very tangible and also intangible forms, but are reasonably easy to discuss.

3. Most people would likely include the general well-being of themselves, their family, their friends and communities as the most important category of "wealth." This is of course intangible, but there are several important tangible indicia of this kind of wealth. I will submit some questions, feel free to add, but -exclusion- of -any- such questions = lie narrative:

Are you safe? are you (will include family, friends and community in "you" going forward) at war? are you able to readily obtain food, clothing, shelter? are you suffering from privation? are you able to move about freely and express yourself freely, are you free to believe as you choose? are you able to worship as you choose or disdain worship? is "learning" available to you if you want it? Are you able to obtain emergency medical care? The answer to these things represents a very important component of your wealth, maybe the most important. Don't let them exclude it.

Before dismissing the above as givens, realize that most of the world's population do not possess all these forms of wealth to the degree we in the West possess them. Do not take them for granted. I claim that they are the most important, most fundamental characteristic of "wealth."

4. Personal property must be included in any reasonable definition of wealth, but is of course hard to calculate. This is so intuitive that it's fair to say that any definition of wealth excluding personal property is specifically crafted towards propaganda. After all, "money" "stocks" etc. are useless abstractions in one sense, personal property is the form of wealth we all use daily. What personal property do you, family, friends, community -own-? What kinds of clothing and are you able to replace it when it wears out? What kinds of innovations including everything from electric light bulbs to the supercomputer/phone in your hand? Do you own an automobile? Do you own things that give you pleasure, knowledge, entertainment?

5. Residential real estate -must- be included in any reasonable definition of the "wealth" of a group or country. More specifically, the amount of -space- you control, even if indebted or leased, is a very important indicia of real "wealth." At all socioeconomic strata, we in the West are immensely, obscenely, vulgarly wealthy in terms of residential real property in world historical terms.

6. Financial assets, the only category usually included in lie narratives on "wealth inequality" are inherently inflated, especially the stock equity in their own companies that comprises a -vast- majority of the "wealth" of the super wealthy as misrepresented by propagandists. YES, a -few- people get extremely wealthy in terms of stock equity, but it is abstract, volatile, inflated by a P/E multiple that does not apply to restricted or "tied up" equity, and subject to change. The average corporate decamillionaire can't just go "cash in" their wealth into tangibles, yet the propagandists want you to form the impression that they can.

7. So all that said, how to calculate "wealth" for purposes of measuring it?

Intangible, general QOL factors + personal property including ALL technological and innovation proliferation+ residential "space" controlled + financial assets

is a pretty good start. Please reply and include any -other- categories of wealth that I may be missing myself.

But the main point is that wealth is a complex quantity that must include several necessary components. It is NOT your bank account balance, your portfolio, your 401k or even the equity in your home, but IS an amalgam of many tangible and intangible quantities.

Do not allow statists of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, whose parasitic enrichment your tax dollars fund, to use YOUR OWN TAX DOLLARS to propagandize and advocate against you. Hold their feet to the fire and make them define their terms. After all YOU paid for ALL of their negative, resentment propaganda in the end.

 

Maybe you are too young to remember Geithner, Lew, Powell, Summers, Fischer, etc.?

 

Living the life of Reilly? Are those same employees investing time, money, energy into the creation of the company? Paying all the overhead costs related to running the company? Making decisions that impact multiple people?

If the answer is yes, then those people have started their own company.

 

Wealth accrual in the upper echelons is not about income.

The wealth gap is widening, the rich are getting richer an the poor are getting poorer. and it has nothing to do with the upper one tenth of one percent producing a commensurate increase in product or services deserving of the accrual that occurs to them.

If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, then it's reasonable to conclude that there is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, given that wealth isn't produced out of thin air. To some extent, one could argue they are producing more, but my argument is that that figure doesn't account for the total wealth increase. In many cities, the value of land has increased faster than inflation. So, the beneficiary, without having to work for it, are the land holders. That wealth accrual does not happen out of thin air. It comes from the pockets of people at the expense of those who cannot afford to hedge via such things as, land, housing, gold, etc.

My SocSec check has barely increased in the last 10 years, and it purchases 20% less than did 10 years ago. I venture to guess that the superrich are able to purchase more than 20% with their wealth accrual, the value of their holdings which increased faster than inflation. Therefore, the wealth is being upwardly distributed from the poor to the rich. IN this manner, the rich, effectively, pay no taxes, and the poor are paying the greater burden due to this hidden tax, because only two groups benefit from inflation: the rich and the originators of inflation, and that is the government ( due to fiat currency being created at a rate faster than GDP ).

So, as a progressive, I support a policy that corrects for this inequality of a system that is rigged in favor of the rich.

yes, there are grey areas, to wit:
As for the middle, those who purchased a house, and are living in it for life, as their incomes diminish from retirement, I am not saying I support a tax on this group, and their holdings and situation should be excluded from this equation. But, real estate speculators, I would include.

 

Given my post, how and why are you asking me this?

 

Ah so expecting employers to act like humane decent people is futile then.

 

Next, we will turn to the simple, elegant, crystal clear reasons why wealth disparity in a world-historical tech boom is not just a good thing, but a GREAT thing.

1. Concentration of wealth in mass innovators' hands signals that people value the things they have VOLUNTARILY traded money for. For one example among hundreds, I'd FAR rather have fast internet in my home than the $68 a month I pay for it. Extrapolate that to HUNDREDS of innovations in the world-historical electricity-based tech boom and lying, propagandizing members of the Complex Shill Army have to make a choice. Do you want tech moguls, most of whom I deeply dislike, to have their wealth? Or do you want to GIVE BACK your phone, Email, internet, youtube, this forum, your car, word processing, cheap climate control, logistically sophisticated distribution of goods and services (food, clothes, entertainment), because guess what? The things YOU like the most, SOMEONE ELSE got rich from.

2. Concentration of wealth in mass innovators' hands signals that MIDDLE CLASS purchasers can afford scads of the innovations. Individuals are wealthy enough to pay EASILY for lifestyles that Louis IV couldn't remotely fathom, would almost certainly trade Versailles for a small number of modern cell phones. Today, we of the middle class and UNDER have things that Emperors of the not too distant past in historical time could never fathom. Not only so innovators get righfully rich, YOU have the money to BUY miracles voluntarily. Common people have NEVER had this power in most of history.

3. Turning away from innovative goods and services and towards entertainment and intangibles. Ever notice how the LIARS of the Complex Shill Army never mention entertainers, entertainment companies, their politicians as "too rich?" Why? because they are perpetual liars first, but also because it's not a good look when one's favorite actress screeching about LW causes is perceived as "too rich. So they FABRICATE "Wall Street Fat Cats" mostly out of thin air instead. Is it a -good- thing that the people who write YOUR favorite books, create YOUR favorite shows and movies, play YOUR favorite sports are rich? Want to give THAT back and keep your money instead? On a related note. Want to give back the "fat cat big pharma" drug that kept your parents/family ALIVE for a couple more years? Or keep the money? Hmm?

4. Rich tech moguls are overwhelmingly LW because it benefits them in a couple KEY ways, redistribution benefits them FAR more than they pay in taxes. But the Complex SHILL ARMY would have us believe that they are just "doing the right thing"... LOL... it's about MONEY and what the very MIXED government-corporate large CRONIES can BUY from a more corrupt government. Anyway, these rich innovators give BILLIONS to charity, in fact they give most of what they get away hand over fist. The Complex Shill Army ALWAYS leaves this out. Why does the SHILL ARMY leave this out? Because lots of those $$ don't flow through the corrupt Complex tax sieves, that's why. Personally, I'd rather people who can CREATE excess wealth KEEP MANAGING IT in hopes they might REPEAT the innovation process.

What will the parasitic, dependent, unintelligent, corrupt incompetents of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex do with the money? FLUSH IT DOWN THE NEAREST GRAFT HOLE, THAT'S WHAT!