How Unequal Are We? Redistribution of Wealth to the Rich

Humanity will never move forward with such unequal distribution of wealth period. The United States has become a third world country with the middel class being single handedly decimated and destroyed. If my fellow Americans see nothing wrong with 400 families in the US owning more than 50% of our wealth..........they are blind and ignorant.

Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by MysterE

 

Over 50% of income goes to the military -- to welfare for the rich!

And the poor alike, your point is null and viod

-E-

reply to post by Wildbob77


Oh please.......when you're making $2-3 million dollars a year and paying 65% of that in taxes you're still left with $1.35 million dollars to live on. When you're making $25K a year and you have to pay 65% in taxes you're even more dirt poor. I don't feel too sorry for those poor rich.

Bottom line is there needs to be a cap on personal wealth. $10 million dollars for example is plenty of money for one person to acquire. There is no need for one human being to have more than this. There is no reason why one human being needs to own millions of acres of this earth ala Ted Turner. If Americans fail to understand these issues our country will implode. The USA is turning into a third world country........plenty of poor, an elite niche of rich........and tiny middle class if any.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


All of us, each and every single one of us, are capable of greatness. Whether we ever achieve that greatness, is entirely up to us.

If you believe that you have been thoroughly and completely brainwashed by TPTB.
You now believe that a persons failure, or poverty is their own fault. Basically if you fail it is because you are a SINNER, or LAZY.

You are pwned by the TPTB. You have Stockholm syndrome.

All the studies show people succeed based on inherited IQ and talent. In the same family the children with the high IQs end up with the better jobs.

In the general population it is the same. IQ and income go together.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

Oh please.......when you're making $2-3 million dollars a year and paying 65% of that in taxes you're still left with $1.35 million dollars to live on. When you're making $25K a year and you have to pay 65% in taxes you're even more dirt poor. I don't feel too sorry for those poor rich.

Bottom line is there needs to be a cap on personal wealth. $10 million dollars for example is plenty of money for one person to acquire. There is no need for one human being to have more than this. There is no reason why one human being needs to own millions of acres of this earth ala Ted Turner. If Americans fail to understand these issues our country will implode. The USA is turning into a third world country........plenty of poor, an elite niche of rich........and tiny middle class if any.

You are absolutely right and everyone else is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





[edit on 22-4-2010 by RRokkyy]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by RRokkyy]

reply to post by MysterE


Hello? The military means the money is cycled back to the rich -- the military is the most inefficient means of employment -- of job creation. But hey -- you want fat cat military contracts?

50% of income tax goes to fat cat military contracts!!

Not to the poor! Nope the poor then use that fat cat military technology to go get themselves killed so the fat cat military elite get primitive accumulation -- free resources from pillage and plunder.

reply to post by drew hempel


Very few people grasp the concept of a ponzi scheme... Or a racket.

reply to post by Americanist


Yeah actually Drew's Law based on the original Wall Street scams is simple -- get rid of all overhead costs and gross turns into net.

But then if you're eating from the pork barrel trough -- you can have $2000 toilet sets, etc.

The public is the overhead cost.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by drew hempel

 

But maybe if some people were smart they would read a few books about long term investing and then have generational wealth for a few lifetimes to come. Don't even have to start rich. Just don't be an idiot.

Sounds like good advice.

The average loss for pension plans and retirement plans was 35% over the last couple of years due to deregulation in the investment sector. Before the crash in 2008 Suzi Orman speculated on Larry King that in order to generate the type of generational wealth you are discussing you would have to be worth $125,000,000.

(The height of the devaluation came in March of 2009, as much as 50%, which doesn't get as much discussion.)

While income and investment earnings have decreased for the average worker & investor the cost of living continues to increase.

Of course many high end investors came out well during the downturn through credit default swaps & short selling. It was the average investors that took the biggest beating.

reply to post by David9176


S&F. Something to keep in mind for the upcoming regulation overhaul.

reply to post by elfie


The "average joe" is a part of this problem on the investment side of the equation as well and that includes folks like teachers and union folks.

During the run-up of the market based on speculative practices, CDOs and the like, investors were pushing their pension fund committees for higher and higher return vehicles. The pension funds which are large institutional investors pushed the asset management firms for more return on their investment. That was one of the reasons that these banks continued to push the envelope of risk within their portfolios. In an asset management, fee based environment the loss of a large public employee pension account like Nevada's teachers or CALPERS means $billions of lost assets and millions of lost revenue and these firms were doing what they could to keep their clients.

Did all of these shops do that? No and they lost significant asset base and many were either bought or went out of business.

You never hear about the retired Teamster who shows up at his union pension committee annual meeting and pounds the table about inadequate returns on his pension account. "Why did we get an 8% increase on our fund when the XZYZ Janus fund was up 90% year over year?" If you don't think that has an impact on the risk that portfolio managers take, you are wrong.

Keep in mind that the folks running these public pensions are highly paid and have a significant stake in happy account holders. Some of these gents hire outside firms to manage the cash and some have staffs that manage the staff, but either way they stood to lose their jobs because the account holder, e.g. teacher or plumber was demanding more money out of them.

The greed in this deal was not just at the top, but at the bottom as well.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


That graphic is awesome!

Excellent -- put it visually -- and the Laffler Curve vanishes in a poof!

reply to post by dolphinfan


Fair enough, good point. I don't doubt what you're saying is true. The market was doing quite well before the real estate cascade. It wasn't at the core of the crash like the mortgage derivatives were, though I can see how that would add to the domino effect for pensions due to the increase in risk.

reply to post by elfie


Oh you mean the dot.com crash? Or the 1973 decoupling of currency so that some 90% of investment is now speculative?

Ah the good old days - pillage and plunder as a passive investor!

Even Plato made a killing as a mercantilist leveraging price differentials in oil -- for food.

reply to post by drew hempel


The most recent, but yes, sad there have been a few since '33 as you point out.

Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

That graphic is awesome!

Excellent -- put it visually -- and the Laffler Curve vanishes in a poof!

Not to mention that the rate is closer to 16%-0% for the most wealthy due to depreciation on real estate investments...

reply to post by elfie


Depreciation or assassination?

More people are killed from work accidents than as warfare fodder:

video.google.com...#

www.libertytreefdr.org...

[edit on 22-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by David9176



In the 1970s:

everyone didn't have to have a new HD tv in every room.
three brand new vehicles
a large house
fios/cable
cell phones
laptops
computers
gps
gucci purse
Armani shoes
little wine fridgerators


Some of the redistribution was done willingly, when people decided things were more important then living.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Still the 70s did have its expenses:

bell-bottoms

feathered hair

those big plastic combs

roller skates

laser discs and Olivia Newton-John

Hover-crafts and Flipper

The Oil Crisis

One-piece jump suits

These things were expensive but in retrospect they're priceless.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


If you're only making $25,000 per year you're not paying 65% in taxes.

Remember, the bottom 47% don't pay taxes.

My previous reply suggested a flat tax. We all pay the same percentage.

Right now, it's the middle class and up that pay all the taxes. The poor don't pay any.