The 9.9% - The New American Aristocracy - Atlantic Article

[Sunset]

...
Regarding taxes, I am concerned about the increasing budget deficit. If there were a way to bring the annual deficit to zero, such as higher taxes, I would support and participate in that. I'm concerned our federal government will take higher taxes and instead see them as a way to further increase spending. Democracy is a relatively new form of government, and we may be seeing its weakness. As others have said, Democracy fails when voters can be bribed with their own money.

This is what our State IL has done recently, and now is increasing the income tax (attempting) which will end up (IMHO) allowing more spending instead of debt reduction. As evidenced by the new taxes they created, and before even collecting it, increased their spending.

 

[beowulf]

This article is not directed at any one person. It only describes the way society in the U.S. is currently running. The author is merely saying that if you defend the way things are currently operating and cannot see that the deck is stacked, you may be part of the problem. And if you fail to see that there is a problem, you are definitely part of the problem.

Whether or not we see the problem, which I believe most of us do, the article clearly blames white people for causing it. Not any specific group, but all of them, even if they just emigrated from a foreign country. The brush stroke is so broad that it includes every white person in America that day. And, as Amethyst says, he offers no solutions. Writing a long winded article stating the obvious fact that there is a problem and then claiming that all white people are responsible is just dumb. When he donates all his money �� to the United Negro College Fund (yes, that really is their name), then his opinions might have some weight. Without that, he is just someone who blames everyone in a group for causing all the problems in another group. Matthew Stewart, the author of the article, doesn’t really appear to have any qualifications or knowledge to back up his beliefs. While we know that there are some groups that have more opportunities than others, I don’t see what good it does to blame all of them for whatever is wrong just because of their race. If it were the other way around, all hell would break loose with accusations like these.

 

[marko]

IMO, the rich have had the deck stacked in their favor since time immemorial. Is it fair? Of course not, but welcome to planet earth. It is just a matter of degrees over various periods of time.

In a way it is even true in the animal kingdom where the biggest, strongest (wealthiest) male gets his pick of females over the other less fortunate males.

The other ugly little reality is that the rich have more options, more work-arounds and more mobility than the poor. Taxing them, punishing them, berating them doesn't have much positive effect for those who are without but only sends them to where their money is more welcome.

So, we can wring our hands about the unfairness or the inequality of it all but I'm not sure there is much of a way around it. The bible said: "the poor you will always have with you"...unsaid but implied is "and the rich as well".

 

[Chuckanut]

This article is not directed at any one person. It only describes the way society in the U.S. is currently running. The author is merely saying that if you defend the way things are currently operating and cannot see that the deck is stacked, you may be part of the problem. And if you fail to see that there is a problem, you are definitely part of the problem.

I can see the way the deck is stacked. It's stacked in favor of the top 1% or so. The tactic of those who benefit from this stacking is to keep the people on the lower rungs of the ladder fighting with each other rather than focusing on the source of the problem.

 

[kimcdougc]

Nice theory, but the facts are simple. It matters less if you go to an elite university if you major in something difficult, like chemistry or physics, for example, and then do something productive with that degree. I grew up in Newark, NJ, son of a policeman and a housewife, went to two lower-tier universities, got my BS, MS and PhD degrees (graduate degrees while working full-time) and worked hard to be a damn good chemist for 38 years and counting.

My reward? A net worth of $5MM and current earnings of 4-500K per year. Despite a divorce, alimony and 20 years of child support payments I'm FI and choose to still work. My parents didn't pull me up the ladder, I did.

No matter what this guy babbles about, I'm not apologizing for my achievements, nor am I feeling bad about them. You don't need mommy and daddy's influence, you don't need the Ivy League, you don't need to be born and raised in Brentwood, you don't need the government. You need drive and the desire to do something others think is too hard to try. That is what the meritocracy is all about, and if you're part of it, be proud. YOU built that!

+1. Excellent post.

 

[Chuckanut]

You need drive and the desire to do something others think is too hard to try. That is what the meritocracy is all about, and if you're part of it, be proud. YOU built that!

Bill Gates is said to have visited McDonald's as a high school student and paid for his order with a $1000 bill, just to see the look on the faces of the workers behind the counter.

Jeff Bezos worked at McDonalds during part of his high school life.

Both are fabulously successful compared to their peers, and have created a lot of descent and good paying jobs for others.

 

[Cut-Throat]

IMO, the rich have had the deck stacked in their favor since time immemorial. Is it fair? Of course not, but welcome to planet earth. It is just a matter of degrees over various periods of time.

In a way it is even true in the animal kingdom where the biggest, strongest (wealthiest) male gets his pick of females over the other less fortunate males.

The other ugly little reality is that the rich have more options, more work-arounds and more mobility than the poor. Taxing them, punishing them, berating them doesn't have much positive effect for those who are without but only sends them to where their money is more welcome.

So, we can wring our hands about the unfairness or the inequality of it all but I'm not sure there is much of a way around it. The bible said: "the poor you will always have with you"...unsaid but implied is "and the rich as well".

Yes, this is the way it is. And we had a similar thing going in the late 1920s, which brought us the Great Depression and then the 'The New Deal'. So, the author was pointing out that the inequalities are getting bigger. And that things probably won't change until they start getting 'uncomfortable' for the Upper Middle Class. And then there will be a Politician with a Solution. You do believe in Democracy, don't you?

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Most of the plans being floated to reduce severe inequality in the U.S. aren't at the threshold that would impact most posters here, unless you have over $50M of net worth or make $10M a year. Most here would benefit by taxing the .1% and using the money for programs that benefit all like universal care, improving infrastructure or reducing college costs.

 

[NW-Bound]

Most of the plans being floated to reduce severe inequality in the U.S. aren't at the threshold that would impact most posters here, unless you have over $50M of net worth or make $10M a year...

That is not the 9.9% that the article talks about. The author is talking about us, the people here in this forum.

 

[JoeWras]

I like an economic system that rewards innovation, hard work, and risk taking because it brings me useful new tech, creature comforts, travel options, foods, medical advances, entertainment, and many other items and experiences. Risk-takers don't get rich, instead some, not all, are made rich by others who give them money for desirable goods and services. As that monetary reward is reduced, so is innovation.

Yes, but in 2008-9 some of the risk was distributed in odd ways. For instance, stock and bondholders got screwed in some of the bailouts, while others in the corporate umbrella were saved. This was for the common good, we were told so that jobs didn't go away. Perhaps.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

That is not the 9.9% that the article talks about. The author is talking about us, the people here in this forum.

From the article: "It is in fact the top 0.1 percent who have been the big winners in the growing concentration of wealth over the past half century. According to the UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the 160,000 or so households in that group held 22 percent of America’s wealth in 2012, up from 10 percent in 1963. If you’re looking for the kind of money that can buy elections, you’ll find it inside the top 0.1 percent alone."

 

[GrayHare]

One solution is to stop giving money to the top richest. For example, that means stop buying via Amazon, stop giving information to Google (for example, drop your gmail account), stop using Facebook, stop buying Microsoft products, stop buying tickets to big-sport events and big-name concerts, stop watching Netflix, stop buying gasoline, ditch your Apple products, etc. When people continue to do all those things, that makes the 0.1% even richer. I don't see that stopping because people like those products and services so much they are willing to spend money on them.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

One solution is to stop giving money to the top richest. For example, that means stop buying via Amazon, stop giving information to Google (for example, drop your gmail account), stop using Facebook, stop buying Microsoft products, stop buying tickets to big-sport events and big-name concerts, stop watching Netflix, stop buying gasoline, ditch your Apple products, etc. When people continue to do all those things, that makes the 0.1% even richer. I don't see that stopping because people like those products and services so much they are willing to spend money on them.

Another solution is to keep all those goods and just return to prior tax rates and anti-monopoly enforcement back to the days when there was less wealth inequality in America.

 

[GrayHare]

Another solution is to keep all those goods and just return to prior tax rates and anti-monopoly enforcement back to the days when there was less wealth inequality in America.

Perhaps, but that addresses the symptom, not the cause.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Perhaps, but that addresses the symptom, not the cause.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Can you explain a bit more?

 

[Cut-Throat]

Another solution is to keep all those goods and just return to prior tax rates and anti-monopoly enforcement back to the days when there was less wealth inequality in America.

And this is probably what will happen eventually. But as the author pointed out. There will probably be no change until the 9.9% is not comfortable anymore. --- And your proposal will not be that popular here today. But all you have to do is look at the Policies of the 1930s and 1940s

 

[Chuckanut]

One solution is to stop giving money to the top richest. For example, that means stop buying via Amazon, stop giving information to Google (for example, drop your gmail account), stop using Facebook, stop buying Microsoft products, stop buying tickets to big-sport events and big-name concerts, stop watching Netflix, stop buying gasoline, ditch your Apple products, etc. When people continue to do all those things, that makes the 0.1% even richer. I don't see that stopping because people like those products and services so much they are willing to spend money on them.

Stop giving $7000 tax credits to people who buy brand new EVs.

 

[samclem]

Another solution is to keep all those goods and just return to prior tax rates and anti-monopoly enforcement back to the days when there was less wealth inequality in America.

Those 91% top rates of the 1950s were accompanied by huge loopholes and exclusions on income--virtually nobody, even the wealthiest Americans, paid taxes at that rate. Folks citing those rates and comparing them to today's more moderate top rates are not offering a fair comparison.

Here's a glimpse of how the actual effective tax rates on those with incomes at the top 1% have changed over the decades. It has gone up and down. Today's effective average rates are far from the lowest by historical standards:

 

[Mdlerth]

Musings for a rainy Sunday

For those that do not think wealth inequality is an issue, is there any point where it would be too much? What if one person owned 99% of the assets in the U.S and rest had to live on the 1% leftover?

Imagine a spaceship lands on Earth, discharging a human who has spent the last 20 years traveling the galaxy and amassing a fortune worth quadrillions of $$. He alone has more wealth than the combined value of all the nations in the world. This one data point skews the distribution by orders of magnitude more than it is today.

Then ask yourself, "Am I worse off because wealth inequality just increased?"

After this discussion, I'm thinking about starting a thread on the trend (or "fad") of people blaming other generations of people for their current troubles. I find the topic timely and provocative. I'm just worried it will end up shut down after two posts. Disclosure, I'm primarily interested in how the late 1970's came to be perceived as a time of economic halcyon, when I recall that decade as a complete economic train wreck. It seems like history is being rewritten on social media.

I remember those days as well. Stagflation and malaise and the "misery index". Perhaps, as an analog to General Relativity, there doesn't exist an era that can be defined as "normal", from which an objective comparison can be drawn.

Reporters and media don’t solve problems, they [-]draw attention to[/-] create them.

FIFY

I didn't know if a link would get into the political territory, and this has been a thoughtful and respectful thread for the most part so I didn't want to get too political. But since you put the link up I'll add this one - people in the U.S. are happiest in states that spend money on public amenities that all can appreciate, like nice parks and good roads - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190107075713.htm

And many of the happiest countries tend to to be those that are highly taxed.

Chicken or egg? Perhaps happiness is greatest in places wealthy enough to afford both high taxes and satisfactory standard of living.

 

[GrayHare]

I don't understand what you mean by that. Can you explain a bit more?

What caused the 0.1% to arrive in the 0.1% is other people willingly giving them money. The most direct way to solve that (by those who deem it a problem) is to stop giving the 0.1% money. We've been talking individuals, while monopolies are generally corporations. I agree a government should address an abuse of monopoly power by a corporation.

 

[aja8888]

Another solution is to keep all those goods and just return to prior tax rates and anti-monopoly enforcement back to the days when there was less wealth inequality in America.

And when was that? 150 years ago?

 

[JoeWras]

One solution is to stop giving money to the top richest. For example, that means stop buying via Amazon, stop giving information to Google (for example, drop your gmail account), stop using Facebook, stop buying Microsoft products, stop buying tickets to big-sport events and big-name concerts, stop watching Netflix, stop buying gasoline, ditch your Apple products, etc. When people continue to do all those things, that makes the 0.1% even richer. I don't see that stopping because people like those products and services so much they are willing to spend money on them.

I'd like to see more products like this invented and produced by higher tax countries.

I will say, however, that I'm pretty addicted to Lidl grocery stores, a product of Germany, who is disrupting Walmart in our area. They actually built it right in Walmart's front yard in Raleigh.

 

[NW-Bound]

One solution is to stop giving money to the top richest. For example, that means stop buying via Amazon, stop giving information to Google (for example, drop your gmail account), stop using Facebook, stop buying Microsoft products, stop buying tickets to big-sport events and big-name concerts, stop watching Netflix, stop buying gasoline, ditch your Apple products, etc. When people continue to do all those things, that makes the 0.1% even richer. I don't see that stopping because people like those products and services so much they are willing to spend money on them.

I am trying my best here. No entertainers or sport players ever get big money from me, at least not directly. I am sure I still pay indirectly in the products I consume via higher advertisement costs, product placements, etc...

I also try to support the 2nd guy in business, such as buying AMD instead of Intel, or buying directly from a manufacturer's Web site instead of through Amazon.

 

[NW-Bound]

Imagine a spaceship lands on Earth, discharging a human who has spent the last 20 years traveling the galaxy and amassing a fortune worth quadrillions of $$. He alone has more wealth than the combined value of all the nations in the world. This one data point skews the distribution by orders of magnitude more than it is today.

Then ask yourself, "Am I worse off because wealth inequality just increased?"

Wealth is something more fuzzy than we realize. The wealth of Buffett is in the value of his shares of his company. It employs people, and generates products and services.

His wealth is measured in billions, but his income and spending are nowhere near that high. How do we redistribute his "wealth"?

If we confiscate his shares and divide it out among ourselves, in order to generate cash to spend we would sell the shares to someone, perhaps the Chinese as we are all sellers now. Will we be all working for them then, as they are the new owners of these companies?

Or do we keep the shares to be the new owners of Buffett's company, and run it ourselves? Will we do better than him at operating his business?

 

[unclemick]

Hmm - It's a great day here in Kansas City.

I'm surprised no one on this long thread has mentioned 'Budda'. The 1% guy who walked out of the place and the rest they say is history.

heh heh heh - no idea where 'that' brain phart came from but I had to add some more to this very long thread.