Richest 1% to own more than the rest

[Phelly2]

If you're worth more than $3,800, you're better than the average person in the bottom 80%.

Not exactly a high bar to get over.

Also, the average worth of the "elite" 1%'er is 2.7 million.

I'm middle class with no college education, but with a little saving and some smart spending, I'm probably considered a 1%'er. I don't have quite 2.7 million, but I won't be surprised if I do before I retire.

It seems, at least from the numbers, that there are a few individual outliers on the top end who skew everything, and then there's millions (billions?) of people who have basically nothing to their name, like maybe those people in the poorest areas of Africa or the middle east.

If you live in any western country, please, you're doing fine. You're living on the wealth stolen from generations that haven't been born yet.

 

[oldshadow]

If they earned it legally then it

 

[Happiness]

If they earned it legally then it

 

[ultramanhyata]

You want to live in a society where strict equality is enforced by totalitarian government?

First, contrary to the historical revisionism, such a thing has never occurred. What we have seen, instead, is a totalitarian government consolidating wealth to itself and then determining who among the populace will be rich and who will be poor.

Second, your initial statement said nothing about a totalitarian government enforcing equality. You do know that small societies and communities have incorporated essentially egalitarian economies from the beginning of time - and continue to do so today - on a completely willing and voluntary basis, right?

So, yes, it is insane to suggest that a world in which a minority thrive and a majority starve is morally superior to a world in which all survive, enjoying the same living standard.

 

[oldshadow]

If you are talking about the ultra rich, the vast majority inherited massive amounts of capital.

If they as in family earned it legally then it is theirs to do with as they please.

Go out and do it so your family will have it down the line.

Granted it

 

[Pupi]

Ahhh, dat trickle-down should be hitting us poor serfs any minute now...:icon_neut

Lmao. It is IMMINENT!

 

[SolidIce]

If they earned it legally then it

 

[MeatheadMike]

It already has. I suppose a very high historic standard of living doesn't mean anything because someone else has more.

 

[panamaican]

I think the point is that the system is rigged to protect the wealth of these people vs the standard of living of society.

Why aren't investments taxed like any other income? Who benefits from that? That's just one example of many. Also the fact that rich can buy influence and pervert the political process.

It's not rigged and the wealth eventually dissipates. One day, a billionaire will die and his fortune will go to someone (or someone's). The cycle repeats and over time, the wealth gets spread along future generations at ever decreasing amounts. That part is inevitable, the only question is how long are people willing to wait for this to occur.

And investments aren't taxed like other income to encourage people to invest. We all benefit from it. Plenty of companies that improved our lives were only funded because investors saw value in doing so. The lower tax rates makes investing more attractive and that means more companies get funding.

 

[MeatheadMike]

It's not rigged and the wealth eventually dissipates. One day, a billionaire will die and his fortune will go to someone (or someone's). The cycle repeats and over time, the wealth gets spread along future generations at ever decreasing amounts. That part is inevitable, the only question is how long are people willing to wait for this to occur.

I think the issue here is that once you have a certain critical mass of money, it becomes self sustaining. A billionaire can easily make several millions of dollars per year (far more than he can spend the entire year) utilizing even the lowest risk investment vehicles. The excess money is reinvested, the wealth snowballs, and by the time he dies and the wealth gets split to his heirs... they will likely have as good (or better) of a starting point than he did even after the split (without ever working for it).

The point is the more money you have the easier it is to make even more.

And investments aren't taxed like other income to encourage people to invest. We all benefit from it. Plenty of companies that improved our lives were only funded because investors saw value in doing so. The lower tax rates makes investing more attractive and that means more companies get funding.

I agree, investment income should be taxed less for most people but there has to be some kind of cut off imo. If you are not working and making millions off of investment income, I see no reason why you should be taxed at the same rate as someone working and making an income of $36.9K.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

It really sucks that the world has a finite amount of wealth that we have to share....

 

[Higus]

If you want to break history down into a very simplistic cycle:

Inequality rises -> social unrest -> open conflict -> new class of wealthy elites -> back to step 1

I think we're deep in step 2 at the moment. I get nervous trying to imagine what step 3 is going to look like in this day an age.

 

[panamaican]

I think the issue here is that once you have a certain critical mass of money, it becomes self sustaining. A billionaire can easily make several millions of dollars per year (far more than he can spend the entire year) utilizing even the lowest risk investment vehicles. The excess money is reinvested, the wealth snowballs, and by the time he dies and the wealth gets split to his heirs... they will likely have as good (or better) of a starting point than he did even after the split (without ever working for it).

The point is the more money you have the easier it is to make even more.

Sure but making millions in investment income is still not enough to leave each multiple heirs with the same wealth as the deceased had at passing. I don't agree with the critical mass position. I've never read anything that implies that money in a society ever reaches critical mass.

I agree, investment income should be taxed less for most people but there has to be some kind of cut off imo. If you are not working and making millions off of investment income, I see no reason why you should be taxed at the same rate as someone working and making an income of $36.9K.

I see no reason why you shouldn't be. The working individual is guaranteed his pay and can sue to recover if his employer doesn't pay him. The investing individual accepts that if he loses all of his money investing, no one will give it back to him. He has a downside risk that the worker doesn't.

 

[Cherdawg]

Like the saying goes " the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
I'd love to see that change but i doubt it's going to happen anytime soon.

 

[kpt018]

This is bullshit. So just because you're more successful in life means you have to pay extra for it so it's fair to those who aren't as successful? What a fucking joke.

Uh, no.

Paying more means that you benefit more from the system (which is only possible through taxation).

For example, who do you think benefits more from infrastructure spending? The major shareholders of Fedex or you or me? Sure, you and I certainly benefit from having roads, but not to the extent Fedex profits from them.

Who benefits more from the education system? A programmer or the owner(s) of the company who rake it in based on the work of the team of programmers?

There are an infinite number of examples here. Your response indicates that you believe successful folks do it all without any help, without a system in place. That or you just didn't think your comment through.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Sure but making millions in investment income is still not enough to leave each multiple heirs with the same wealth as the deceased had at passing. I don't agree with the critical mass position. I've never read anything that implies that money in a society ever reaches critical mass.

Of course there are lots of factors but it is a very simple concept if we break it down...

Lets say someone has inherited $100M at age 25, and makes roughly 3.1% a year from investments on that $100M (which would be modest). That would be an income of around $3.1M/year. Even if that person lived very lavishly spending $100K per year, he would have roughly $3M to reinvest per year.

Now if we assume this person lives to age 75, and we compound 3% per year for 50 years... his fortune would have grown to around $438M (more than quadrupled) by the time of his death (without working a day in his life). Even if we adjust for inflation and taxes over the years, this person would still have made enough to give 2-3 heirs the same starting position that he had or better.

Also I think it would be safe to say someone with $100M can afford a team of investment advisers/analysts which would easily outperform the 3.1% per year in this example.

I see no reason why you shouldn't be. The working individual is guaranteed his pay and can sue to recover if his employer doesn't pay him. The investing individual accepts that if he loses all of his money investing, no one will give it back to him. He has a downside risk that the worker doesn't.

There's always some degree of risk when it comes to investments, but even in the example I used with a modest risk/return rate you can see how easy it still is for money to snowball, assuming you have a large amount of capital to start with.

Furthermore, investors enjoy tax advantages when they report their realized losses which does mitigate the risk to a certain degree.

 

[killakoy]

This is bullshit. So just because you're more successful in life means you have to pay extra for it so it's fair to those who aren't as successful? What a fucking joke.

In other words they want others to have less money just like them. This is a very unhealthy type of thinking but they learn it from somewhere. Often Universities and he public schools.

But the question is how much should a financially successful person be rewarded? This video puts the disparity into perspective.

If you want to break history down into a very simplistic cycle:

Inequality rises -> social unrest -> open conflict -> new class of wealthy elites -> back to step 1

Sad but true. I'm actually hopeful that the truly wealthy will start realizing the growing discontent and actually address it in attempts to quell the masses before open revolt. Historically, it'd be in their best interest.

 

[IDL]

Sad but true. I'm actually hopeful that the truly wealthy will start realizing the growing discontent and actually address it in attempts to quell the masses before open revolt. Historically, it'd be in their best interest.

I suspect they know these dynamics better than most, and it is no coincidence that we see an increased police state forming.

If conflict arises I expect that to provide an excuse for clamp down and a more soviet style system to emerge to control the population. There will be plans in place, that is for sure.

 

[panamaican]

Of course there are lots of factors but it is a very simple concept if we break it down...

Lets say someone has inherited $100M at age 25, and makes roughly 3.1% a year from investments on that $100M (which would be modest). That would be an income of around $3.1M/year. Even if that person lived very lavishly spending $100K per year, he would have roughly $3M to reinvest per year.

Now if we assume this person lives to age 75, and we compound 3% per year for 50 years... his fortune would have grown to around $438M (more than quadrupled) by the time of his death (without working a day in his life). Even if we adjust for inflation and taxes over the years, this person would still have made enough to give 2-3 heirs the same starting position that he had or better.

Also I think it would be safe to say someone with $100M can afford a team of investment advisers/analysts which would easily outperform the 3.1% per year in this example.

Right but he's not leaving them $438M each. and they won't be leaving their kids (assuming 2 or more) $438M each. Meanwhile the rest of the world will continue to innovate and develop and other people will outperform that $438M. And some people with $438M will make bad decisions and lose a lot it.

Time solves that problem. And again, I've never seen anything suggesting that the money reaches a critical mass. Fortunes are made and lost every generation.

There's always some degree of risk when it comes to investments, but even in the example I used with a modest risk/return rate you can see how easy it still is for money to snowball, assuming you have a large amount of capital to start with.

Furthermore, investors enjoy tax advantages when they report their realized losses which does mitigate the risk to a certain degree.

The tax advantages don't come close to mitigating the risk in a meaningful way. The tax breaks do not offset the loss of the capital, they simply reduce the tax hit on money you no longer have. And, ask anyone with 2 nickels to rub together, they'd rather have their money back instead of some negligible reduction in their tax bill.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

I think the point is that the system is rigged to protect the wealth of these people vs the standard of living of society.

Why aren't investments taxed like any other income? Who benefits from that? That's just one example of many. Also the fact that rich can buy influence and pervert the political process.

If it is ownership in a corporation or stock it is double taxed.

First the business is taxed and then the owner is taxed.