Here's a quick video explaining how wealth is distributed in the USA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM Take a look at it and decide whether the situation as it exists is acceptable to you or not.
It is remarkable how most people are completely unaware of the inequities in both wealth and income distribution. Many have laid it out in a stark manner but as long as people go about their daily business with nary a thought about the reality of the situation, all is well. The numbers are stark and the future is, quite frankly, dangerous once people realize how they've been taken to the bank, so to speak. It will be a lot more testy than an older Tea Partier screaming keep your filthy government hands off my Medicare. We are slowly heading back to pre WW 1 style inequities - a place where no reasonable thinking person in the 21st century would like to go. European countries "got it" post WW II, the 3rd of the big shocks of the 20th century, the US got it as well, to a point. The golden age of the middle class was post WW II to into the 70's - then everything changed. Many know why, it's just not a popular position to debate as ignorance and dogma are very difficult to overcome.
It's actually a well thought out video supported by verified factual evidence. It may not change you mind on the subject but if you are actually interested in the topic (or just want to learn why some people believe it's an issue, insight is never a bad thing) it should make you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Yeah that's made the rounds a few times, I've seen it before, it's still communist drivel. And, so what, what do you propose to do about it? It's still not a reason for Marxism. Keep in mind this is coming from a poor guy, not too long ago I was living in my car. Doesn't mean I want to end what little economic freedom we still have just to get a hand out. More to the point it means you need to ask the question why, what makes the super rich so rich and the very poor so poor. The best I can come up with is corrupt government, government is the cause of this, specially a socialist overbearing police state. One with a war on drugs, oppressive regulation that keeps small entrepreneurs down, and a federal reserve that basically gives money to anyone with a connected bank. The answer is not more government, it's less. A government where I can start a business without having to hire an army of tax accountants and lawyers. One where I'm free operate it out of my home and hire who whomever I wish for whatever I wish. One where I don't have to have permission from the government just to accept a customer.
question is... Is this situation acceptable to you? If it is, then it isn't a problem. If it isn't, then let's see what can be done about it. Here's the link in better format:
No its not acceptable but I'm not sure what can be done. Taxation isn't really an effective way to reduce inequality. I believe a recent economic paper discussed that. Even though Taxation isn't a super effective way to deal with inequality, I still think it plays an important role. Making the estate tax stronger could help. Making the tax code more progressive could also help. I think the most important thing might be unions though
I agree it's not acceptable. Now, let's make sure we're on the same page: Wealth = property. Wealth is not income, but it can generate income, and it takes income to acquire wealth. If a person has a house with equity in it, that's wealth. If he's paying rent, that's not wealth. If a person owns stocks and bonds, that's wealth, and, of course it can generate income. If a person has enough wealth generating income, then work is unnecessary. Now, here's another question: Is wealth finite? In other words, is it necessary to take wealth away from one person in order for another to have it?
Yes I agree with you. No wealth is not finite. The US economy grows around 2.7% a year (I think that's right). So the economy expanding is evidence of new wealth creation. The problem is usually most of that growth goes towards the rich. I think unionization is the best solution to combat inequality. But I do think from a liberty standpoint no one should have to join a union. So I'm skeptical that unions will be revitalized in America.
Unionization could help increase wages, which would make it possible for more people to acquire a little wealth. Of course most of the growth goes to people who already have wealth. Wealth begets more wealth. So, the question becomes, how best to make it possible for and encourage those who have no wealth to acquire some? I really don't have an answer to that one, but I think that's the question that needs to be addressed rather than how best to take wealth away from the rich and give it to the poor.
I guess you like all other liberals/progressives/socialist are going to ignore the fact that government plays a huge roll in this wealth disparity. It has set this all up with safety nets and Ponzi-schemes. What motivation and disposable income do Americans have to buy into the assets of American production?
So, your solution is to end safety nets? By "Ponzi schemes" I'm assuming you mean social security. So, end that too, and the poor will be able to acquire more wealth? I
Yes, privatization. Instead of funding government waste we should be buying into the means of production. Americans are ignorant as to how much wealth they are being robbed of when the government confiscates 12.4% of their incomes for 40-50 years, that could have built personal wealth. Added, it would not have us 18 trillion in debt and with trillions in unfunded liabilities. Socialism is a disease, it makes people dumber than serfs. The S&P over its history since1928 has averaged 10%.
You may be on to something here, but there are some details to be worked out yet. If the money deducted for SS were to instead go to purchase of wealth, say in the form of stock portfolios as an example, then the current generation would be acquiring at least some wealth. But, what about the older generations who have been paying into SS for years? How would the pensions be paid to them without adding even more to the debt?
As with any reconciliation we have to determine what the loss is. Then, we would attempt to spread the loss among all current generations. This would likely be a phase out over a time period. An example would be my age group(53). I would stop paying in but recieve no or minimal benefits. Those collecting May recieve no cola adjustments. The young would pay a lower % into the current system and the rest into the private system. It would take some sacrifice from all generations. I would like to see all Americans voluntarily forego some of their benefits and in a worse case scenario have some means testing. I personally, would be very happy to ignore my 35 years of contributions for this cause. I have been preparing for not having it for years. Privatization in the beginning would be a tough pill to swallow, but would eventually enrich the country long term and protect liberty and prosperity for future Americans.
I think you're being overly pessimistic preparing to not have SS when you turn 67. Maybe add another percent to the SS tax, and invest that in an individual savings account. As more and more people retire with individual accounts, gradually reduce the amount going to the so called "trust fund" and increase the amount going to individual retirement accounts. Eventually, everyone would have at least a small part of American wealth, maybe enough to inspire them to try to acquire more. One needs to think long term, but the government only thinks ahead to the next election.
