Wealth inequality - at what time does it start to get unsustainable ?

[NeoVsMatrix]

Here is the beauty of the current system in which we live. You and all those that embrace wealth distribution are ABSOLUTELY FREE to create a business, build it to viability, expand, grow, become successful, and then pay your employees what you deem a 'fair' salary. All you have to do is actually DO IT. But...there seems to be a problem. There are a whole lot of people big on the unfair labor, wealth redistribution side of the fence that are long on rhetoric, but short on action. IF what you espouse as 'the way' were doable, it stands to reason that with approx half of the population being liberal and democrat, that we should see more than a few of these utopian business success stories in place.Yet..for some reason...we dont. Now...please dont think thats because conservative republicans have all the wealth...we know that is simply not the case. SO...why hasnt it already happened, and when can we expect to see you putting your words into action?

First of all, hostility and aggravation does not support your argument in an educated conversation... you get your message across way better in a factual and polite manner.

Now to your question why "I" am not one of those individuals who run a business in the suggested way:

1. I am not a CEO of an existing company where i can put actions behind my words on that larger scale. And my selected career choice and path will most likely not get me there either. Within the area of my responsibility, i can assure you though, that all the employees that i am responsible for do get proper income increases and make a good to above average living.

2. To start a business, you need capital, which i do not have to the extent needed for an impactful business startup. Now, i know that there are a lot of people that do create successful businesses out of barely anything, with a great idea, with the entrepreneurial driver of their own, and i highly respect and commend them for it. I myself, do not have the creativity to come up with the next iPhone as the ultimate idea, neither am i a risk-taker to put all my hard earned money into a business idea, which may or may not succeed.

In conclusion, not everyone is "made" for creating and running a business - and that's ultimately good, since we do need people who work in those businesses, and provide their share to make them successful.. i am one of those. That does not take away my right or ability to have thoughts about the health of a society / system / trend. And at no time did i say that i am right... it's my opinion, it's my idea as to what could be beneficial, and it's out here in the open for others to counter it, or to support it.

 

[NeoVsMatrix]

Good catch.

The exemption is the level to which AMT does not apply. That's why they exist. Above the exemption level is where, dependent upon multiple and potentially confusing factors, is where AMT does in fact kick in.

Well, AMT did not kick in for me in all the past years except last year. And i was above those exemption levels at all times.
And once i was exposed to it, my overall income was reduced by those "exemption levels", flat, and i get pretty much fully taxed on the rest, with no further exemptions.

Your link, although mentioning 200K to 500K specifically, also gave the same info I did in its charts:

Yes, it does. But it also supports my point that until 2011, barely anyone below 200 K was affected by the AMT, and that this changed dramatically only in 2012. Now 2012 is the first year i was exposed to it, and i assigned that to my increase in income...not realizing that it also was the year where the AMT policies changed. Now, that doesn't make the extra payemnt any less painful... but knowing that i probably would have had to pay that extra amount the one way or the other in 2012... it is somewhat of a relief

Just another of many reason why we need immediate and dramatic tax code reform.

Oooh yes. Especially seeing that the higher the income gets, the less someone is exposed to the AMT again. And that IS unfair.

 

[VanceMack]

First of all, hostility and aggravation does not support your argument in an educated conversation... you get your message across way better in a factual and polite manner.

Now to your question why "I" am not one of those individuals who run a business in the suggested way:

1. I am not a CEO of an existing company where i can put actions behind my words on that larger scale. And my selected career choice and path will most likely not get me there either. Within the area of my responsibility, i can assure you though, that all the employees that i am responsible for do get proper income increases and make a good to above average living.

2. To start a business, you need capital, which i do not have to the extent needed for an impactful business startup. Now, i know that there are a lot of people that do create successful businesses out of barely anything, with a great idea, with the entrepreneurial driver of their own, and i highly respect and commend them for it. I myself, do not have the creativity to come up with the next iPhone as the ultimate idea, neither am i a risk-taker to put all my hard earned money into a business idea, which may or may not succeed.

In conclusion, not everyone is "made" for creating and running a business - and that's ultimately good, since we do need people who work in those businesses, and provide their share to make them successful.. i am one of those. That does not take away my right or ability to have thoughts about the health of a society / system / trend. And at no time did i say that i am right... it's my opinion, it's my idea as to what could be beneficial, and it's out here in the open for others to counter it, or to support it.

You arent the first person to have those ideals and to make excuses as to why you cant do it. The fact remains...it isnt happening, even with a good number of very successful liberals and democrats sitting on the top of the money pile. Those businesses dont exist and there is a reason for that. Dreamers dream. Doers do.
You bemoan the lack of capital. Do you realize that 36% of all new businesses in this country are started by immigrants...people that came here with nothing and worked their ass off to put themselves into a position to own their own homes, businesses, and provide for their family? And you dont have to be the CEO of an already existing business (their business is not YOUR business). All you have to do is create your OWN business and do all those wonderful things you think should be done.

MY accumulation of income and wealth came through hard work. I hire people to manage properties and perform valuable professional services. My work and investment of time and money does not in ANY WAY hinder THEIR ability to do the same thing...in fact it encourages it. I have worked hard for my whole life to change circumstance. No rich person ever prevented me from succeeding. Their wealth has had absolutely zero bearing on mine or my families.

 

[Beaudreaux]

...
Oooh yes. Especially seeing that the higher the income gets, the less someone is exposed to the AMT again. And that IS unfair.

And this is where we ALL need to come together. Eliminate the majority of the tax loopholes. The only deductions that need to be kept are the ones that actually ADD to revenues in the long run; like the ones that are for creating real jobs, etc.

 

[vvx]

Wealth inequality can be sustained pretty well. Look at historical societies with caste systems.

 

[NeoVsMatrix]

Wealth inequality can be sustained pretty well. Look at historical societies with caste systems.

and... how many of those have survived in modern days ?

 

[NeoVsMatrix]

You arent the first person to have those ideals and to make excuses as to why you cant do it. The fact remains...it isnt happening, even with a good number of very successful liberals and democrats sitting on the top of the money pile. Those businesses dont exist and there is a reason for that. Dreamers dream. Doers do.

Well, as pointed out further above in the thread, those companies actually DO exist... and they are DONE, maybe even by "dreamers".

You bemoan the lack of capital. Do you realize that 36% of all new businesses in this country are started by immigrants...people that came here with nothing and worked their ass off to put themselves into a position to own their own homes, businesses, and provide for their family? And you dont have to be the CEO of an already existing business (their business is not YOUR business). All you have to do is create your OWN business and do all those wonderful things you think should be done.

I have no idea what this section is about, accusing me of "not knowing that 36 % ..." or whatever... if you would have read my statement you replied to, you'd seen that i am aware of all that, plus commending all those - including you - for their achievements, and pointing out that - even providing some of the reasons as to why - i have chosen a different career path.

MY accumulation of income and wealth came through hard work. I hire people to manage properties and perform valuable professional services. My work and investment of time and money does not in ANY WAY hinder THEIR ability to do the same thing...in fact it encourages it. I have worked hard for my whole life to change circumstance. No rich person ever prevented me from succeeding. Their wealth has had absolutely zero bearing on mine or my families.

I assume that you pay your employees a reasonable income, above minimum wage, allowing them to perform in their job and making a living, plus enabling them even to set money aside and strive to higher goals on their own, following your example. Which is exactly what we all want to see, we all agree on that.
Because if you would not, and your wealth accumulated by hard work would benefit also from paying your employees less than what's needed for them to even get by, have them being dependent on food stamps next to a full time job, then your wealth 'would" have a bearing on them and their families. And there are millions of hard working individuals out there, who experience that sad situation every single day.

 

[VanceMack]

Well, as pointed out further above in the thread, those companies actually DO exist... and they are DONE, maybe even by "dreamers".



I have no idea what this section is about, accusing me of "not knowing that 36 % ..." or whatever... if you would have read my statement you replied to, you'd seen that i am aware of all that, plus commending all those - including you - for their achievements, and pointing out that - even providing some of the reasons as to why - i have chosen a different career path.



I assume that you pay your employees a reasonable income, above minimum wage, allowing them to perform in their job and making a living, plus enabling them even to set money aside and strive to higher goals on their own, following your example. Which is exactly what we all want to see, we all agree on that.
Because if you would not, and your wealth accumulated by hard work would benefit also from paying your employees less than what's needed for them to even get by, have them being dependent on food stamps next to a full time job, then your wealth 'would" have a bearing on them and their families. And there are millions of hard working individuals out there, who experience that sad situation every single day.

My employees are licensed providers. I pay my employees better than market value, but along market guidelines. They didnt invest, take the financial risk, or do anything else to create the business. They are employees. If you get that others work to create those businesses then you will understand the difference between owners and employees and you will also understand why there is a significant divide between line employees and CEOs. If by some happy set of circumstance my small business should blow up and become huge and franchised...Im still paying those employees better than market value, but along market guidelines.

 

[iliveonramen]

Well throwing out the idea of fair or politics it gets unsustainable when not enough purchasing is going on to sustain growth. As fewer and fewer individuals make up a higher and higher percentage of the income you just run out consumption in order to validate more jobs and growth. A skewed income distribution ends up wrecking economies.

 

[EdwinWillers]

< snip >

< Snip >
.

Why is he parading his larger-than-life pants behind his uglier than life photo?

 

[ReformCollege]

9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

After watching the video at above's link, i'd appreciate a discussion on what you think is a fair distribution of wealth in a society... or better, in "our" society.

Every opinion is welcome, would be great if we could keep it pollite and respectful, despite whatever differences in opinion might come up.

Its unsustainable when it stops sustaining itself.

////// thread.

 

[humbolt]

Why is he parading his larger-than-life pants behind his uglier than life photo?

Doesn't matter. They have universal health care. They're sooooo much more advanced than we are. True, there's no electricity, but hey, who needs that when you have universal health care?

 

[EdwinWillers]

and... how many of those have survived in modern days ?

India (not that there's anything wrong with Indians...) seems to have survived awhile, even to the modern day.

.... just sayin....

 

[EdwinWillers]

Doesn't matter. They have universal health care. They're sooooo much more advanced than we are. True, there's no electricity, but hey, who needs that when you have universal health care?

:doh Silly me. :mrgreen:

 

[polgara]

Doesn't matter. They have universal health care. They're sooooo much more advanced than we are. True, there's no electricity, but hey, who needs that when you have universal health care?

"That's very true," she intoned, standing in the dark! "I get to see a doctor in March...I thought I'd have a long wait!" :mrgreen:

Good afternoon, humbolt. :2wave:

 

[EdwinWillers]

9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

After watching the video at above's link, i'd appreciate a discussion on what you think is a fair distribution of wealth in a society... or better, in "our" society.

Every opinion is welcome, would be great if we could keep it pollite and respectful, despite whatever differences in opinion might come up.

I generally don't do infomercials; and as a rule I avoid in particular the ones that advertise themselves as containing "mind blowing facts" (preferring to keep intact what little is left of mine), so I confess, I spared my mind and didn't watch it. But to your question about what I think is a "fair distribution of wealth in society," I would simply say that whoever earned whatever wealth they did "fairly" (legally, morally, ethically) is what's "fair."

The question is loaded though, being skewed by a premise that suggests a few among us have the ability, and attendant right, to determine what constitutes a "fair distribution."

One, I don't think any central planner, be they the smartest individual on the face of the earth, or any central planning committee with similar qualifications has the remotest ability regardless to do that.
Two, there's a good chance the smartest individual on the face of the earth is very likely going to be the wealthiest one too.
Three, there's a good chance the smartest collection of individuals of the face of the earth is likely to be the wealthiest too. So in either case, you're leaving the "fair" distribution of wealth to those who are the wealthiest, which I would suggest probably isn't the "fairest" or the smartest thing to allow (but then, we're not the smartest people in this case anyway...).

So that leaves the "fair" distribution of wealth to the less-than-uber smart, to those with less smarts than those whom we've already shown can't (or won't) do it. In other words, we end up putting the responsibility for an already impossible task (not to mention the cumulative total wealth of a nation) in the hands of "lesser qualifieds" of inferior smarts.

Finally, there's the question of the right to do that (redistribute wealth) in the first place. To redistribute wealth, one must have the right and the attendant power to take from those that have before they can give it to those who don't. First, there's the question of how to distribute it "fairly." An impossible task itself. Then, assuming those who have wealth might not want to have their wealth taken from them, particularly by those lesser qualified than they to even have wealth, it demands an arrogance on the part of those who presume the right of possession for that which they neither earned for themselves nor even have the capability of earning for themselves.

Such arrogance in the hands of people of inferior smarts, who merely presume the right of possession, and that for the wealth of a nation, who haven't the ability to even do the task properly ought to be a truly terrifying thought.

 

[Deuce]

It's funny how many of the right-wingers jump from someone talking about "fair" to outright communism.

Is the world really so black and white to you guys? Last guy mentioned a "central planner." Who the **** said anything about that?

 

[specklebang]

The natural historical order of life is royalty and peasantry. We can't all be Kings and peasants can't rule themselves.

Am I thrilled that Mitt Romney has 350 times as much money as I do? No. Do I care? No. We both have an equal opportunity to have a good day if that's what we have.

 

[LowDown]

If we are going to keep up with the "work for pay" and "forty hours per week" paradigms, then yes that is the primary way that wealthy people contribute to the economy.

Money sitting in a capital investment account will only benefit society & the economy if it is used to buy direct services, goods or equipment.

This is a highly flawed view of how the economy works. Take Apple Computer. They have a lot of well paid workers who go out and buy homes, buy stuff for their homes, buy food, clothing, and other stuff, eat out in restaurants, and generally spread money around. And they would not be there doing that if not for Apple investors pouring capital into the company. Wealthy people don't have to spend money buying stuff for themselves to contribute to the economy. They can create jobs and grow their companies.

I'm sorry, but the "proles" will not awaken from their false consciousness because it's not false.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Let's go out on a limb and look at it another way. Let's assume one benign rich guy owned 99.9999% of all the money and the rest of us had to live on 0.0001%.

This thread is about wealth, not money. There is a difference which is either subtle or not-so-subtle depending on the circumstances.

We wouldn't have less, he would simply have more zeros in his bank account. We'd still have our houses, cars etc. Grocers would still sell groceries, gas stations gas, etc, because they still needed to eat, just like the rest of us. The rich-guys zeros don't hurt us in any way.

If this were the situation, you'd be right, because money wouldn't--couldn't--have very much to do with wealth in such a case. But the situation you describe isn't very much like the present reality. In the real case, money still tracks wealth fairly well, and the amount of wealth concentrated at the top of the economic ladder is absurd...though not the worst its ever been.

If the situation you describe were about wealth, it absolutely would result in significant harm to everyone who wasn't the one guy at the very top.

What hurts us is changes in our level of freedom.

This doesn't seem obviously true. Perhaps you could explain why you think this.

I'll concede there do appear to be a number of folks who intend the vast majority of us harm through enslavement. First among them are liberals who seek to enslave us through their socialistic plans.

In what way is socialism identical with, or closely associated with, slavery?

 

[vvx]

and... how many of those have survived in modern days ?

Well obviously if you look at societies in the history of the world most don't exist today. But that's true even of societies where there was no wealth inequality. In 500 years they might say the same about all our silly societies that we have today.

 

[specklebang]

This is a highly flawed view of how the economy works. Take Apple Computer. They have a lot of well paid workers who go out and buy homes, buy stuff for their homes, buy food, clothing, and other stuff, eat out in restaurants, and generally spread money around. And they would not be there doing that if not for Apple investors pouring capital into the company. Wealthy people don't have to spend money buying stuff for themselves to contribute to the economy. They can create jobs and grow their companies.

I'm sorry, but the "proles" will not awaken from their false consciousness because it's not false.

Apple has $150 billion dollars in cash. You really think they are desperately seeking investors? Quite the opposite as they are buying back some of their stock.

 

[Starbuck]

This is a highly flawed view of how the economy works. Take Apple Computer. . .And they would not be there doing that if not for Apple investors pouring capital into the company.

First Weekend iPhone Sales Top Nine Million, Sets New Record

Actually, the employees of Apple wouldn't be there without the people buying things like 9 million iPhones. Sure investors helped get the company off the ground, but why would the invest in a company unless they thought they would be selling lots of products?

Wealthy people don't have to spend money buying stuff for themselves to contribute to the economy. They can create jobs and grow their companies.

​

Sure wealthy people don't have to spend money, a consumer based economy isn't that discriminating. People need to spend money, be they wealthy, middle class or poor. That's what fills those containers on the ship in the image above.

Without consumer spending, all of the "investment in growing companies" doesn't mean anything.

I'm sorry, but the "proles" will not awaken from their false consciousness because it's not false.

Their false consciousness is indeed false, but so long as they keep their bread and circuses I'm sure we'll be alright.

I just don't see the show as perpetual and hopefully I'm not around when the curtain drops.

 

[Hard Truth]

What I learned from conservative and libertarian deep thinkers:

1. There is no inequality of wealth.
2. Wealth inequality is not a problem and never will be.
3. The rich are richer because they are superior people who work harder.
4. Just because they go to the best schools, inherit money and have lots of great connections, the rich don't have an advantage.
5. Wealth inequality has no impact on political and social equality.
6. Poor people are poor because they make bad choices and are lazy.
7. Low paying jobs are only for teenagers and losers.
8. The marketplace is all wise, if it wants inequality then that is how it should be.
9. Communist totalitarianism is the only way to address wealth inequality.
10. Just because a small number of people own most of the resources, there is still plenty for everyone else.
11. Anyone who mentions wealth inequality is a loser who is envious of the rich.
12. We need rich people because they give to charity.

 

[Starbuck]

Apple has $150 billion dollars in cash. You really think they are desperately seeking investors? Quite the opposite as they are buying back some of their stock.

I'm pretty sure the only thing they are desperately seeking is the next gadget to sell 9 million units in one weekend.