Are We the Greatest, Richest Country in the World?

[Mach]

Just listen to Trump, he'll tell you...just today:
70% marginal tax rate for the wealthy would bring Venezuela woes to the U.S.

"We’re looking at Venezuela, it’s a very sad situation," Trump told reporters. "That was the richest state in all of that area, that's a big beautiful area, and by far the richest -- and now it's one of the poorest places in the world. That's what socialism gets you, when they want to raise your taxes to 70 percent.

Where do Democratic party leaders support similar notions that taxing the wealthy more is a terrible thing?

Give it up, indeed.

 

[Casca XV]

What communities have been devastated more than the rural ones? They have no jobs, no hope, are addicted to drugs, and get laughed at by our cultural elites.

I agree with you that immigration is contributing to the problem, but you're not in reality if you think that most Americans are doing well. They aren't. The town where my grandfather grew up is dead. This isn't an exception in Middle America. This is the rule.

Part of what you say is true. But they were also screwed over by Leftist policies as much as the inner-city ghettos. That is why the Rustbelt and many other traditionally Blue areas voted Trump instead of Hillary, and now they are starting to prosper again.

 

[HumblePi]

They certainly wouldn't work. They just collect interest along the way and pay taxes on that. There's a lot of unearned income in our system, and it's nothing more than a wealth transfer from poor to rich.

This is hypothetical of course, but if they did nothing they would pay nothing. Their income is negated by their write-offs, like Wilbur Ross's $400 velvet slippers he wears every day, they're a business expense.

 

[phattonez]

You aren't keeping your eye on the ball. What legislation/platform do they support with that money?

I seem to remember Democrats and Republicans voting for bank bailouts. I remember Democrats voting for health reform which was nothing but a huge subsidy for insurance companies who are driving many Americans into poverty. I remember Republicans voting for tax cuts that were permanent for corporations but temporary for workers.

Who's helping me out, here?

Be brave Phattonez, admit that Republicans as their first, and only big legislative effort, have decreased taxes permanently on corporations, and lowered taxes on the ultra-wealthy. That's federal taxes, for the nation.
And where would Democrats push for taxes Phat? And if they did push for more progressivity in taxes, you must also admit that Republicans would oppose it.
Given that taxes are a key enabler of our wage disparity in the U.S., (and as a result, one of the best ways to deal with it), why are you acting like this isn't reality?

Let's check the Democratic platform, shall we?

We must make Wall Street work for the job-creating, productive economy—including by making loans more affordable for small- and medium-sized businesses.

We will protect and defend the Federal Reserve’s independence to carry out the dual mandate assigned to it by Congress

I see nothing about raising capital gains taxes or cutting the profits of medical insurance companies. Instead, their platform includes an explicit mention that they will protect the Federal Reserve. Is the Fed interested in helping our working Americans? Or their own shareholders?

They talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it they're going to make sure that we stay down.

Name your high level, large-scale fixes for wealth disparity, and let's see which party best aligns with it. If you can't talk politics, then don't bother talking, because politics is how things become reality in the United States Government.

1. Forgive student loan debt.
2. A new homestead act.
3. Large tax increases on unearned wealth and tax cuts for wages.
4. Government subsidized loans to young families 0 interest and principal forgiveness upon the birth of each additional child.
5. Closed borders until the working age male activity rate is at least 95%.
6. Enactment of tariffs to correct the trade deficit.
7. Enactment of large public works spending instead of indiscriminate welfare to able-bodied men.

Neither party would go for all of these.

 

[phattonez]

The fact that this data is from dead center of the Obama era does give it some creditability.

It's the same today.

 

[phattonez]

Just listen to Trump, he'll tell you...just today:
70% marginal tax rate for the wealthy would bring Venezuela woes to the U.S.



Where do Democratic party leaders support similar notions that taxing the wealthy more is a terrible thing?

Give it up, indeed.

People who are funded by big banks aren't going to actually implement significant tax hikes on the rich. Why do you think the banks fund both sides?

 

[Conaeolos]

A higher mean but lower median tells me that opportunity is lower in America. Most people aspire to (and have a decent possibility of getting to) a middle class lifestyle. Very few will ever reach the upper class. It tells me that there is lower opportunity to break into the middle class here, and that the wealthy are just very wealthy.

A higher mean but lower median means there is less equality and not much more until one explores the reasons and degree. I mean in every case your comparing countries with a fraction of the population and in many cases less diversity of circumstances. This is why it best with populations like China, India and the US to look at them by state/region. And group tiny countires who are not averaged up by less devloped regions. What happens for example if we put these countries in groups with simlar populations?

Canada verse US I am most familar with. AB/ON(sometimes BC) are the only regions in Canada who can even be competative in the the united states, the rest are very poor measured by wealth or income[get subsidized]. You think if those tiny sucessful regions were not proping up even more poor provinces Canada would preform so well[canada is 1/10th population of the US]?

I will rephrase however, a far greater oppurtunity to be wealthy. And this group is growing higher than population growth by factors.

And it is misleading to say we don't have oppurtunity for movement to the middle class. Census gives very clear demographic data on household incomes in the US. Do three things get you into the middle class: don't have a children out of wedlock, work full-time and finish high school.

I for example compared in another thread the 250,000+ households to the bottom 15th. Those top incomes are from 95% two income married homes with children and university education in more urban and economically successful regions. The bottom is mostly single person households, 50% in the segment i looked usually fixed income seniors, and 1/5 of those who have not completed high school with 2/3 working part-time or less.

There are problems in the states but there is a very high opportunity factor.

 

[phattonez]

I will rephrase however, a far greater oppurtunity to be wealthy. And this group is growing higher than population growth by factors.

And it is misleading to say we don't have oppurtunity for movement to the middle class. Census gives very clear demographic data on household incomes in the US. Do three things get you into the middle class: don't have a children out of wedlock, work full-time and finish high school.

I for example compared in another thread the 250,000+ households to the bottom 15th. Those top incomes are from 95% two income married homes with children and university education in more urban and economically successful regions. The bottom is mostly single person households, 50% in the segment i looked usually fixed income seniors, and 1/5 of those who have not completed high school with 2/3 working part-time or less.

There are problems in the states but there is a very high opportunity factor.

This seems to be the biggest contributor, but interestingly this is almost exclusively dependent on economic conditions. In other words, this often isn't a choice. And let's not forget, these poor economic conditions do contribute to things like out of wedlock pregnancy, not completing high school, and the like.

Or to put it another way, why is it so hard to admit that perhaps our economy isn't as great as it used to be?

 

[armycowboy]

We owe $20 trillion. How the hell are we rich?

 

[phattonez]

We owe $20 trillion. How the hell are we rich?

We owe $20 trillion, with interest. Exactly. We're owned by banks.

 

[armycowboy]

We owe $20 trillion, with interest. Exactly. We're owned by banks.

And China and Japan.

 

[Casca XV]

That's why you can back your claim with facts? Can you cite a real source and facts to back your claim?

I doubt everything you post, especially when you don't include any sourcing/evidence ot back your outrageous claims.

https://mic.com/articles/2636/compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world-americans-are-all-the-1

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2...pared-to-the-rest-of-the-world-are-you-the-1/




You doubt what I post because it destroy your Leftist BS

Almost impossible to do accurate comparisons like this. These type of comparisons are usually done by Leftists trying to diminish America. They use numbers provided by corrupt governments or apples to oranges comparisons.

When ever you hear that the US has the highest infant mortality rate keep in mind that we are almost the only country to count premature birth in those stats. We are also the only country that counts suicides into our firearm death stats. Also almost no other country counts accidents into their life expectancy stats.

I do know one thing:

I did an Ancestry DNA test a few years ago and found out I am mostly Scandinavian.

I got curious and did some research.

I'm in a very specific high skilled blue collar trade, with it I can afford a fairly large house, newer truck and a motorcycle and my wife has a newer car. This is about the typical economic level of any American in my profession.

My exact professional Scandinavian counterpart almost never has a car of his own and usually lives with his entire family in an apartment about the size of my master bedroom.

I did some further checking and I found that most the rest of Europe is even worse than any of the Scandinavian countries.

I have heard a lot of debates where someone like Bernie Sanders claims Scandinavian countries are Socialist utopias and then the other person comes back with "the average American of Scandinavian decent is much wealthier than those in Europe" and Bernie has no response.

According to Walter Williams: African Americans are 4% of the worlds Black populations. Not only do they have the highest standard of living of any other Blacks, their combined wealth is greater than the combined wealth of the remaining 96%

American Hispanics obviously are better off than any where in Latin America.

When comparisons are made in this way it's very clear America is easily on top.

 

[Casca XV]

What communities have been devastated more than the rural ones? They have no jobs, no hope, are addicted to drugs, and get laughed at by our cultural elites.

I agree with you that immigration is contributing to the problem, but you're not in reality if you think that most Americans are doing well. They aren't. The town where my grandfather grew up is dead. This isn't an exception in Middle America. This is the rule.

see #37

 

[Keridan]

Greatest: yes. I'm on this board exercising free speech and have a million other things I love about this country.

Richest: No. we don't have much accessible oil and we spend tons of money providing defense for the countries that spend their money on socialist programs. We are a consumer society and it works, but it could definitely be better. This will be a shocker coming from a libertarian, but read Adam Smith. It's all about balance.

 

[Casca XV]

It's the same today.

With the best overall US economy in 20 years and much of Europe sliding into recession because President Trump is no longer letting them screw us on trade forcing them to pay their fair share of military defense, it's not even close to the same.

And your graph wasn't even actually accurate 8 years ago.

 

[Lycanthrope]

No. X2

 

[Conaeolos]

This seems to be the biggest contributor, but interestingly this is almost exclusively dependent on economic conditions. In other words, this often isn't a choice. And let's not forget, these poor economic conditions do contribute to things like out of wedlock pregnancy, not completing high school, and the like.

To a degree, but considering the amount of single households and the large percentage of seniors I don't see it moving by much.

Poor economic conditions? You mean the poverty cycle? I am most familiar with ex-cons as I believe in promoting restorative justice programs. I would give you it's a real thing, but the changes need to happen at the community level - government and especially federal programs are going to misread the situations and needs of the community(even cheaper rent and housing). Injecting money or free opportunity without sense of it coming from oneselves time and time again proves to be a drug to an addict.

Or to put it another way, why is it so hard to admit that perhaps our economy isn't as great as it used to be?

I'll admit I might live in a bubble, but literally helped someone yesterday struggling to keep the bills paid, to make more money in less time simply by showing them how they could teach english online in china.

Yes, the economy is very different. Harder to enter, understand, with a tech literacy and a mental focus, but opportunities are greater than ever and that's what the hard numbers show as well. If anything the biggest problem is these opportunities which are not being seen by those who'd most benefit. I couldn't tell you how to fix that absent a school system that wasn't myopic. I also do think driverless cars and white collar automation pose some degree of future employment threat as it's they are harder to predict them in terms of impact(without historic equal).

What makes you say the economy is not as great? Lower growth? Banking/non tangiable asset focus?

 

[phattonez]

With the best overall US economy in 20 years and much of Europe sliding into recession because President Trump is no longer letting them screw us on trade forcing them to pay their fair share of military defense, it's not even close to the same.

And your graph wasn't even actually accurate 8 years ago.

It's the same today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

To a degree, but considering the amount of single households and the large percentage of seniors I don't see it moving by much.

Poor economic conditions? You mean the poverty cycle? I am most familiar with ex-cons as I believe in promoting restorative justice programs. I would give you it's a real thing, but the changes need to happen at the community level - government and especially federal programs are going to misread the situations and needs of the community(even cheaper rent and housing). Injecting money or free opportunity without sense of it coming from oneselves time and time again proves to be a drug to an addict.

I'm all for subsidiarity. I agree that throwing money at the issue without local input is foolhardy.

That said, objectively economic conditions have deteriorated. Marriages are less stable and less likely to occur in the first place when incomes are low. Instead of looking at these issues purely as causes, we should additionally look at them as symptoms. Why have these things occurred? It's because of decreasing wages. If we're serious about solving these issues, then we should get wages up to the point that one income can support a family, which was far more common for our grandfathers while being practically impossible for our generation.

The main way that we get back to that is by attacking unearned income (wealth transfers) which has become far more prevalent in society and is a net loss for wage earners.

I'll admit I might live in a bubble, but literally helped someone yesterday struggling to keep the bills paid, to make more money in less time simply by showing them how they could teach english online in china.

Great, you helped one person out of a country of 300 million. It's nice, but fixing things for the vast majority of Americans will take policy.

Yes, the economy is very different. Harder to enter, understand, with a tech literacy and a mental focus, but opportunities are greater than ever and that's what the hard numbers show as well. If anything the biggest problem is these opportunities which are not being seen by those who'd most benefit. I couldn't tell you how to fix that absent a school system that wasn't myopic. I also do think driverless cars and white collar automation pose some degree of future employment threat as it's they are harder to predict them in terms of impact(without historic equal).

What makes you say the economy is not as great? Lower growth? Banking/non tangiable asset focus?

1 simple graph proves it.

All of those opportunities require advanced education. Debt. Over the past 50 years families have resorted to having both spouses working, having fewer children, and debt just to maintain their standard of living. These aren't things that happen in a growing economy. These are signs of economic deterioration.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Casca XV]

It's the same today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

No, actually it very different and very clear that the countries that take little to no 3rd world immigration are toward top of average per person wealth. Thanks for proving my point.

By the way I am middle class and worth more than the average of #6.

Of course almost everyone of those countries above the US are the types to have approximate $15 a gallon gas and $30 per pound steak. That monetary wealth is needed there just to exist. A good comparison is: If a person in the US makes a $100k a year they live like a king anywhere in Fly Over Country but they would be almost homeless in NYC, L.A. or S.F.

Notice by regain North Americans #1 are worth over 3 times what Europeans #2 are

 

[marke]

I ran across this post recently:



And I wanted to look up some statistics to see how valid this claim was. What I found was shocking.



Frankly, I don't know if there is a response you can make to that last image. Typical American wealth is behind what you see in advanced European economies, advanced Asian economies, but also European basket cases! This is a big gap in many cases. While our median wealth is around $50k, France has a median wealth greater than $90k, so does Canada.


So taken as a whole our nation may be the richest, but for most Americans this certainly isn't the case. They're not experiencing the benefits of this economy.

Make of this what you will, but I hope that this dispels the notion that we are the greatest economy ever and everything is just grand! It's not, and I'm sick of "CAPITALISM FTW!!!" tier arguments.

America is losing its benefits once long enjoyed for its adherence to truth, justice and godly morals and values. America is turning away from truth and justice. America is turning away from prosperity. American is turning away from good sense. America is turning away from common decency and respect for others. Sad.

 

[PeteEU]

It comes down to definitions and attitude.

There is a saying in Europe, that Americans live to work, where as Europeans work to live.

So what is wealth and happiness. Sure the US on paper has a high GDP per capita but one could argue that the 1% are so insanely wealthy that they pull up the average considerably.

In the end the US has a lot of wealth among some of its population, where as places like France or Denmark have that wealth spread out over a larger portion of the population.

Oh and home ownership stats can be dangerous. Spain has one of the highest in the world but that is due generational inheritance rather than buying.



Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

It comes down to definitions and attitude.

There is a saying in Europe, that Americans live to work, where as Europeans work to live.

So what is wealth and happiness. Sure the US on paper has a high GDP per capita but one could argue that the 1% are so insanely wealthy that they pull up the average considerably.

In the end the US has a lot of wealth among some of its population, where as places like France or Denmark have that wealth spread out over a larger portion of the population.

Oh and home ownership stats can be dangerous. Spain has one of the highest in the world but that is due generational inheritance rather than buying.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Measures of wealth accumulation are relative and standards may be hard to equate across international boundaries, but it is universally true that wealth is temporal and passing. Sinners came into the world naked and penniless and they will go back out the same way.

 

[phattonez]

No, actually it very different and very clear that the countries that take little to no 3rd world immigration are toward top of average per person wealth. Thanks for proving my point.

By the way I am middle class and worth more than the average of #6.

Of course almost everyone of those countries above the US are the types to have approximate $15 a gallon gas and $30 per pound steak. That monetary wealth is needed there just to exist. A good comparison is: If a person in the US makes a $100k a year they live like a king anywhere in Fly Over Country but they would be almost homeless in NYC, L.A. or S.F.

Notice by regain North Americans #1 are worth over 3 times what Europeans #2 are

If what you say is true then those higher expenses would lead to lower wealth.

Why do you refuse to admit that a large portion of Americans aren't doing well? Are you more beholden to an economic theory than to reality?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Conaeolos]

1 simple graph proves it.

Unfortunately over simplified measures graphed can skew the perspective. A litmus test certainly, but one that needs to be looked at in detail and explained to be understood. Lots of things that effect it from aging population, earners, buying power, more single households…

So adjusted for inflation: 1960 middle class:
$28,500-$84,000 [68%] -> [41% Today]

Today it's
$41,500-122,000 [45%] [sounds bad, but controlled for population growth we've added not substracted people to the middle class since 1960]

With todays middle class range, 47% of those households are duel income. 36% being university educated[46% of total graduates]. Those below: 69% worked part-time and below and 48% were single person households. In the middle class range only 21% of households were single person and 35% worked part-time or below.

My point being. Economically the average family has still been improving even with those negative factors like increase in dual incomes. 80% of American married families are middle class and above, 93% above 1960 cut off. Those below the middle class are majority non-family households and a poor comparison without accounting for some of the factors of why they are there.

In other words:
50% of seniors are below middle class. 65% of single person households. 76% of no earners. 58% of those that didn't work. 40% of those who worked only worked part-time. I would also note 50% of these with these low-incomes are still home owners.

When you control the worst year in post-WWII American History it was early 1980s.

All of those opportunities require advanced education. Debt. Over the past 50 years families have resorted to having both spouses working, having fewer children, and debt just to maintain their standard of living. These aren't things that happen in a growing economy. These are signs of economic deterioration.

Most opportunities require tech literacy not an advanced education. Tech litercy is freely available via the internet.

That said, I also am also concerned at the trends for both spouses to working and children not getting proper parenting and community. The divorce rate, single partent homes, abortion, debt, drug use, environmental impact, obsiety, depression, non-violent crimnality, no entry level jobs for young adults....

We are far from an ideal or have not progressed without costs. Debt remains the hardest factor to compare and contrast and may including public and private well cancel out all the above stated gains. How do you suppose we account for it though? At this point the public debt falls 90% burden falls on predominately duel income families in the top incomes not equally. Majority of middle class rarely even pays current equal tax bill and carries the majority of the burden in terms of private debt.

The main way that we get back to that is by attacking unearned income (wealth transfers) which has become far more prevalent in society and is a net loss for wage earners.

'Usury' restrictions, laws and regulations may be a better bet. Wage earners are often doing little else to adapt to rapid economic changes. The fact one's labour was worth x in 1960 and y rather than x+ in 2020 is mostly a result of changing market forces not non-earner manipulation. Market forces benefits are universal by nature but certainly can leave some out. The opposite to market forces is always enforced monopolization(either by public or private actors). You will never stregthen market outcomes by restricting market forces only counterbalancing natural monopolization. If you replace private 'usery' with public taxation you are only shifting the doer not attacking usury within the system.

Taxing earners less may help in the shortterm only to hurt us in the longterm. *cough* pensions *cough*

The public system is the least in check, inflation corrected taxes dollars per citizen have risen every year meanwhile benefits paid out at a much lower rate. Those connected to the top level of the public purse beign the most benefited (hence the lobby industry). It is also entirely funded by wealth transfer. So how does making 'wealth transfer' more public verse private help the average earner? The only way would be if more earner worked for the public which is just more indirect as any benefit above market is just a de-facto subsidy.