Wealth Inequality in America

The middle class is getting hosed, I'll give you that. But, it's not because the rich are taking in all the money.

If you depend on salary alone, you will always fall behind. If you want to get ahead, Read post #138 .

 

Most of the upper end doesn't gain their wealth from income, but mostly from investments. I'm okay with raising the tax on capital gains, but its not going to have much affect on the wealth inequality. Why? Because the middle class is shooting itself in the foot by NOT doing what the rich does. The middle class has a bunch of disposable income that it spends poorly instead of saving/investing to grow their wealth - see my post above.
BTW, I'm part of the (lower) middle class...but I'm on my way to changing that. Instead of a car lease or car loan, eating out a lot, etc..I'm paying about $1,000 a month to pay of my wifes student loans. In another year, my net worth will go from a negative to well into the positives - hence my wealth will begin to increase dramatically while many people who make more than us will not go up at all, but rather down.

 

You're wrong, it is entirely because the rich are taking all the money. If middle class salaries weren't stagnant, everyone would get ahead, just like they did in the 50s and 60s.

 

Most likely it's due to the gradual inflation of asset values over tiime. But, disregarding that, parents, family wealth all help substantially.

Do you think you're more likely to become a 1st generation millionaire if your parents are 700,000 aires or 7000aires?

The intuitive answer, and the empirical evidence, shows that it's the former.

Why are you arguing otherwise?

 

You are making the assumption that the middle class has a lot of disposable income, but that simply isn't the case. Middle class incomes have fallen while inflation has risen, energy prices have gone dramatically higher, and all of the gains in the economy have gone to the top end of the income distribution. This is not because the middle class used to invest more, they didn't. It used to be that as the economy grew, so did their incomes, but that hasn't been the case over the last few decades BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE GAINS ARE GOING TO THE WEALTHY.

You're welcome to buy the Fox-fueled BS that those in the middle class aren't getting ahead because of their choices, but your choice to believe that garbage doesn't make it the truth.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. You could do all the things you say and gain a few more scraps of the mediocrity pie vis a vis your fellow low-rungers, and and it still doesnt' get to the root of the problem and the inherent danger of massive inequality - which is the astronomical, historically ridiculous concentration of weatlh and power in the upper microfractions.

Again, for the hundredth time, the problem isn't ****ers making 20,000 a year vs. making 30,000 a year or even 300,000 a year, if that's what you think income inequality is, you have failed to understand what we are talking about.

The problem is that society is now composed of a bunch of peole making 50000 or below and a tiny fraction making 3 million or more (who, unsurprisingly, exercise their ability to affect the rules of the game to ensure that they stay that way, and that you stay at your current zero net worth)

 

And you think it is okay to have to pay $1,000 dollars a month for education? Is she a doctor? Was it a public university?

 

Again, the upper class earns more simply because they invest more. Again, I'm cool with raising the tax on capital gains. However, the middle class does spend a LOT MORE on NON-NECCISITIES than it used to. Cable TV, Car Loans, Car Leases, More Clothes, More expensive clothes, eating out, several-hundred-dollar game systems, etc. Things people used to NOT spend money on. If that money were put into paying off debts and saving/investing, they would see their wealth grow too. Yes, some people have medical issues etc which cause them to have serious problems building their net worth, but they are the minority of the middle class.

BTW - I don't watch Fox news.

 

I understand that - I was referring to another persons post about Ling Lings stats.

The $50,000 earners ALSO exercise decisions that affect their mobility. To ignore this is to ignore half the problem. I do agree (and I've said this over and over and over) that we should tax capital gains more (thats where the rich get much of their money). I also think we need to overhall campaign finance would love to see a cap how much a corporation and individuals can give a candidate.

 

The minimum is actually only $250, but we pay anywhere from $700 to $1200 a month on them to pay them off quickly. Instead being stupid and paying $500 a month for a car note or eating out a lot, or buying expensive shoes, we're paying off her loan. Most people will spend $13,700 on a car lease in the next 3 years, or $18,000 on a car note for the next 3 years. We've decided its smarter to put that money to work for us instead of Blowing it on a nice car. Next year we'll put all that money into savings, then invest in two 529's and invest 10% into both our 403B's and another 5% into other investments. We'll have this money to invest ONLY because we didn't buy into the Materialistic consumerism that is destroying the middle class.

I grew up really poor - and I've decided that we're not going to live on Social Security and foregoing medicine in order to eat like my grandmother did.

By the way, I had a mechanic that lived across the street from me - He's what many people would call "white trash" - he paid CASH for his $120,000 house. Neither him nor his wife have a college degree or a high income, but they SAVED money and now own 2 houses and has a positive net worth. They've got IRA's, Bonds, money markets etc and they have a net worth more than most people that make more money than them...why? because they made smart money choices. His wife barely made more than minimum wage..but somehow they're worth more than a lot of people in this country.

 

Logically, yes.
Reality, no.

Otherwise, you would have under 50% 1st Gen millionaires.

Have you ever heard of the phrase that trust fund kids are f##$ups?

 

If someone makes $1 per book that they sell, and they sell 1Million books, are they really taking something from the middle class?

 

your conception of net worth, income inequality, and appears to be on a grade school level, Dr. Evil.

Economic mobility refers to the abiliity of people to move up the *relative* economic ladder both within and between generations. It does not refer to your own assets appreciating to the magical WAN MEELION mark, precisely because others assets are appreciating at a similar (and in many times, a much greater) rate, widening the gap and ensuring that they'll have the power to make it stay that way

Your statistic is pretty irrelevant to the actual reality of economic mobility, in which it is pretty much universally agreed to be decreasing in the US over the last 20 years or so.

 

So that doesn't really address what all that I posted in my response. But even by your statistics though, then it is obviously a factor for 20%. What's the percentage of people who are poor due only to their own laziness and the choices you mentioned?

 

First time I found Sam could be a likable guy

 

OK, I understand, you refuse to look at the actual point.

Why should someone whose sole contribution to the economy is going to the mailbox to collect a check pay a lower tax rate than someone who works every day for a living?

THAT is the point.

 

Good article directly related to this discussion. Compares the present state of inequality in the US to the same factors in England, Russia, France throughout both the medieval and early modern periods, and also to ancient Rome.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/living-together/peter-turchin-wealth-poverty/