A question for those who defend the 1%

[finder]

I understand and appreciate that position. But, that wasn't my question.

How much inequality do you find acceptable?

It seems to me that what you're implying is that to you it is acceptable if a few wealthy families, say a dozen, control 95% of America's wealth such that it is impossible for anyone else to rise above the level of abject poverty. Am I misstating your views?

Yes you are. I know there are those who are rich that would manipulate the law and we do have laws against them doing that. It's not perfect that's true. But believe me I know from experience that government stands in the way of people achieving above average success much more the monopolies do. And generally albeit not always, redistribution burdens the common folk who work an average job more then any ultra rich
person or entity.

[barts]

Yes you are. I know there are those who are rich that would manipulate the law and we do have laws against them doing that. It's not perfect that's true. ...

Is my question so unanswerable? To those who defend the interests and fortunes of the 1%, and who champion their desire to secure ever greater portions of the nation's wealth, I ask what level of inequality is acceptable?

Is there some reason why those who defend the 1%'s interest cannot address this very simple question?

The "1%" control 43% of the nation's wealth. Clearly, for most of the contributors to this thread that is acceptable. Is 53% acceptable, or 63%, 73%, 83%, 93%?

If as Apeman81 claims 95% is absurd, is 83% absurd or 73%?

I submit that if you're going to champion gross inequality then either you believe any degree of inequality is acceptable or there's some level that's not. So, which is it? And, if the latter what level of inequality is unacceptable?

I've now repeated that reasonable question three times and have yet to get an answer except from Dieval. Kudos to him for his candor as someone who holds that the most extreme levels of inequality regardless of the consequences (because that's entailed by his position) are completely acceptable.

This is not an academic question. Inequality is increasing in America, and there's no indication that it will not continue to increase. All of the tax and social policies favor the wealthiest, such that there is no impediment to them increasing their portion of the nation's wealth.

So, I ask again, is there some level of inequality that is unacceptable or is there not? Pretending or hoping that inequality is not increasing, or appeals to some mythical American dream do not represent an answer, in my view.

[Jack]

Five Reasons Why The Very Rich Have NOT Earned Their Money

1. They’ve Taken All the Middle Class Wage Increases

In 1980 the richest 1% of America took one of every fifteen post-tax income dollars. Now, according to IRS figures, they take THREE of every fifteen post-tax income dollars. They’ve tripled their cut of America’s income pie. That’s a trillion extra dollars a year.
For every dollar the richest 1% earned in 1980, they’ve added three more dollars. The poorest 90% have added ONE CENT.
Yet the average American factory worker, according to Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti, produces $180,000 worth of goods a year, more than three times what he or she produced in 1978, in inflation-adjusted dollars.
So workers have TRIPLED their productivity over 30 years while the richest 1% have TRIPLED their share of income. Worker pay remained flat as the top 10% took almost all the productivity gains since 1980.

2. They’ve Mismanaged Key American Industries

We have the most expensive health care system in the world. Failing banks have survived because of taxpayer bailouts. Management-approved shortcuts have led to workplace deaths and chemical leak disasters. Companies lobby for cap and trade laws so their profits can pay for their pollution.
Over twenty percent of Americans are unemployed or underemployed as big companies hoard $2 trillion in cash. 93% of post-recession income is going to the 1% “job-creators” with no appreciable increase in jobs.
Private tuition is skyrocketing, with student loans reaching the $1 trillion mark. Bonuses continue for executives at Ford and Bank of America and Sirius and other companies who have underperformed and/or laid off workers.
No, the captains of industry have not earned their money because of their top-notch management skills.

3. They’ve Benefited from 50 Years of Public Research

The very rich have made their fortunes in good part because of taxpayer-funded research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (the Internet), the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, and numerous other government agencies.
Consider just a simple communications device. Computer chips and audio/video/voice technologies grew out of decades of funding at the Department of Defense, the Air Force, NASA, and public universities. The pieces of the device were put together by a procession of chemists, physicists, chip designers, programmers, engineers, production-line workers, market analysts, testers, troubleshooters, etc., etc. They, in turn, couldn’t have succeeded without another layer of people providing sustenance and medical support and security and administrative assistance and transportation and office maintenance for the technologists. ALL of them contributed to the final product.
But over the years private businesses have received government contracts to produce and market the results, and “entrepreneurs” have rearranged the pieces into products that seem to appear out of the magical world of a single individual.

4. They’ve Increased Their Incomes By Not Paying Taxes

The richest 10% own 80% of the stock market, providing billions in “unearned income” that is taxed at less than half the rate of income earned through real work.
Hedge fund managers call their income “carried interest” instead of “income” to keep their tax rate at 15%. Even this small amount may not be paid. Hedge fund managers with incomes in the billions can pay ZERO income tax by deferring their profits through their companies indefinitely.
Real tax rates for the richest Americans have gone way down over the last 30 years, from 34% in 1980 to 23% in 2006. Yet the 1% claim they pay most of the taxes. They don’t, if all taxes are considered. Based on recent data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the total of all state and local taxes, social security taxes, and excise taxes (gasoline, alcohol, tobacco) consumes 22% of the annual incomes of the poorest quintile. For the top 1% of Americans, the same taxes consume less than 10% of their incomes.
In addition, most inherited wealth goes untaxed, with estates valued up to $5 million exempt from federal taxes. The average tax rate on inheritance is less than 3 percent.
It’s no different for corporations. U.S. Office of Management (OMB) figures show a gradual drop over the years in Corporate Income Tax as a Share of GDP, from 4% in the 1960s to 1.3% in 2010. That’s ONE-THIRD of their previous share. From 2008 to 2010, the top 100 U.S. corporations paid only 12.2% of their income in taxes, and thirty of them paid nothing at all.
The lack of SEC regulation has also allowed corporate America to seek tax dodges beyond our borders. Citizens for Tax Justice reports that the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations sheltered half their profits from taxes – up to $337 billion a year – between 2008 and 2010.
Most shocking is the long-term shift in the tax burden from corporations to middle-class workers. For every dollar of workers’ payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it’s 16 cents.

5. They’ve Contributed Little to Society

The richest individuals and corporations have shown little regard for the majority of Americans who depend on sound financial management for their economic security. According to sources such as the New York Times and ProPublica, Wall Street firms including JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs have been repeatedly charged with fraud only to avoid punishment by paying a fraction of their profits in fines.
Financial insiders have figured out how to cheat other investors by timing the purchase of a stock option to precede good corporate news, timing the sale of a stock option to precede bad corporate news, and changing the purchase date on a stock option to a time when the price was lower.
One hedge fund manager, John Paulson, made $4 billion by working with Goldman Sachs to create a financial product that would allow him to bet on the collapse of the housing market. Other financial masterminds packaged toxic derivatives for sale to unknowing pension funds, as ratings agencies were paid to ensure the worthless packages received AAA ratings.
Meanwhile, the banks were roughing up the homeowners. Bank of America foreclosed on tens of thousands of Americans by using unverified evidence called “robo-signing.”
Disdain for average citizens goes way beyond fraud, and well outside our borders, into the areas of environmental and human rights abuses. Computer and phone makers like Apple save money by obtaining their coltan from the Congo, where children dig it out of the mines. The “blood coltan” goes to China, where teenagers stand for 12 hours a day performing repetitive tasks for a few dollars. Monsanto’s herbicides and pesticides cause biological damage, promote the growth of ‘superbugs’ and ‘superweeds,’ and generally don’t outperform organic methods of farming. Exxon is not only the biggest profitmaker and polluter, but the company has conducted a lengthy campaign to deceive the public about global warming. Corporate Accountability International named Monsanto, Exxon, Koch Industries, Chevron, Blackwater, and Halliburton to its Corporate Hall of Shame.
And finally, how well is society served when valuable resources are spent on a yacht complete with golf course, submarine, beach, and helicopter, and which qualified for a second-home mortgage deduction? Or on a $250,000 playhouse for the kids?
Studies show that increased wealth is correlated with a lesser degree of empathy for others. Despite their dependency on society for everything else, the super-rich have apparently earned the right to live in their own privileged world.

Cagle Post » Five Reasons Why The Very Rich Have NOT Earned Their Money

Read the original article for links to other sources.

[BlackJack]

There is a strong, even moral, view among many people that those who become rich or are born rich ought to remain unfettered and be able to enjoy their wealth without fear of it being taxed and redistributed. They ought to be able to become wealthier and wealthier, in fact, without impediment, they believe.

Whether a majority view or not, this view, in fact, prevails and determines tax and social policies. The consequences on the people who are not well off are detrimental. About this, the evidence is unequivocal.

The question I have of those who champion wealthy people having not only an unassailable right to their wealth, but also a right to be able to increase their wealth without restraint is:

How much inequality should be permitted?

Currently in the US, according to some accounts, the top 1% control about 43% of the nation's wealth.




Is there any point where those who approve of this level inequality would find a higher level unacceptable. If America's top 1% controlled 90% of the nation's wealth, would that be acceptable? If not, why not?

How much inequality, then, is too much? Or is there no such thing as too much inequality? Put another way, is inequality good?

I find it ridiculous how the 99% are hating on rich folks because they refuse to better themselves. The top one percent is paying 40%. Rich people do not control the economy no matter how many conspiracy theorists would like to think so. The problem is with the government and those fat asses on Capitol Hill and in the White House, not with entrepreneurs who worked hard for their personal assets.

[barts]

I find it ridiculous how the 99% are hating on rich folks because they refuse to better themselves. The top one percent is paying 40%. Rich people do not control the economy no matter how many conspiracy theorists would like to think so. The problem is with the government and those fat asses on Capitol Hill and in the White House, not with entrepreneurs who worked hard for their personal assets.

Even if all you say is true, and it may be, it does not answer the question asked three times above about what level of inequality, if any, is unacceptable.

Dieval, for example, believes even the most extreme level of inequality is acceptable. There are no limits in his view.

BlackJack are you able to answer the question, because railing away at the 99% is not an answer to the question posed in the OP?

[BlackJack]

Even if all you say is true, and it may be, it does not answer the question asked three times above about what level of inequality, if any, is unacceptable.

Dieval, for example, believes even the most extreme level of inequality is acceptable. There are no limits in his view.

BlackJack are you able to answer the question, because railing away at the 99% is not an answer to the question posed in the OP?

The question has already been answered for you. You're just unwilling to accept it, as your unwilling to accept the fact that rich people who are paid more than you does not mean it is automatically your money to take. Your whole OP has been simply railing away at rich folks, who pay MORE than their fair share.

Please explain to me how the top 1% are controlling the economy?

[hensatri]

I think all of this refusal to answer the question says a lot. The question should be easy to answer, and the fact that none of you seem willing to do so is because it creates unsettling implications for your perspective.

Now granted Barts example of 10 rich families and an impoverished nation is extreme, but extreme hypotheticals in a debate serve the purpose of stretching a view to its limits to see how it holds up under high pressure. This is a totally valid question to ask.

He seems to be saying that in his mind, the current level of wealth inequality has reached unacceptable ratios, many of you disagree and he understands this, so the follow up question is, "If the current level is acceptable to you, then how bad would it have to get before it was no longer acceptable?"

And you wont answer, you wont answer because obviously we all agree that there is a point at which the wealth distribution could be so out of whack that we'd support radical redistribution. If all of the nation was starving and 10 families were rich, we wouldn't care if the rich amassed their wealth through legitimate means or not. There wouldn't be any talk about all of the poor being lazy, and their own bad choices getting them where they are. All of that kind of talk is pointless in the face of Bart's hypothetical, only a sociopath would let tens of thousands of people starve and live in poverty just to lecture about work ethic. In the hypothetical we’d storm the 10 homes and redistribute the wealth. It’s happened before. It doesn’t matter that the hypothetical is crazy and extreme, that is important is that we would reach a point at which we’d acknowledge a problem.

And here’s the kicker, you’d all support it. We all know you would.

Now here is why you don’t want to answer the question. Because we all know that you would support radical wealth redistribution under extreme circumstances. But you don’t support it under the current environment. So then approximately where, along the line from the current ratios, to 10 rich families and a starving nation, would you draw the line and say “No! Conservative ideology be damned, this is just wrong!”

Or would you die like a frog in a boiling pot? Perfectly content to sit in warm water as it gets slowly hotter and hotter by tiny unperceivable increments, all the while saying, “it’s not that hot really, not any hotter than it was a minute ago.” until you burn?

I apologize if that seems unneccesarily personal, but I see a lot of side stepping and tap dancing and no answering or discussing. Something I am occasioanly guilty of myself, but that I try to correct once I realize I am doing it. I encourage others to do the same.

[finder]

How much inequality do you find acceptable?

What I'm saying is that is a loaded question. No one is "for" inequality. We are for achieving all that one can, legitimately. "Equality" is an illusion of the left. I pay 3 times as much to live in a nice apartment because I make too much for housing assistance. Or I can live in a dump. However if I quit my job and work part time at minimum wage then I can still live in an upscale apartment by getting assistance. So where is the equality in redistribution? I actually experienced being rejected at an apartment complex because it was government housing that was nicer then mine and because I made 60% more then what you can make and live there. And people drove nicer cars then I. Where is the equality? There is none but when you try to take what's not yours things get much worse.

[finder]

I suppose what I was trying to say is that the results of pursuits can never be equal but the opportunity to persue can be. So Barts, in answer to your question yes, it's acceptable to any degree you choose. I don't care how rich someone else gets, more power to them. As long as we all are free to persue with as little government interference as possible. You see, a poor person never gave me a job.

[minorwork]

All of that kind of talk is pointless in the face of Bart's hypothetical, only a sociopath would let tens of thousands of people starve and live in poverty just to lecture about work ethic. In the hypothetical we’d storm the 10 homes and redistribute the wealth. It’s happened before. It doesn’t matter that the hypothetical is crazy and extreme, that is important is that we would reach a point at which we’d acknowledge a problem.

And then, hopefully, you might come to your senses and realize the problem was within yourself, and your yielding to the Dark Side's seductiveness.

And here’s the kicker, you’d all support it. We all know you would.

Speak for yourself. You don't know jack. The rest of your text evidences that fact.

My position is that I can't stand for another, ANY other, to have one cent more than I have. I will do all that I can to encourage him to give me that cent. Additionally, I cannot stand equality either. Therefore I would lean hard and heavy on plans to legitimately persuade others that it was to their advantage to give me all that they have so that they could have all that they wanted of what I provided, by mutual agreement.

I'll not steal, in spite of your insultingly perverse delusion that I KNOW that I will share the shallowness of your moral certitude. I'll not storm homes, but know that YOU will as you've just said, oh yeah, hypothetically that you'd justify theft by force when you so feel your standard has been met.

I'll have all that you have, Barts, and you hensatri, even the wealth of all the kingdoms on earth, and, yes, even those ten houses you'd storm. And I'd leave those owners in the gutters satisfied by the exchange. I'd do it from providing them a service or product they wanted more than they wanted their fortunes. If I could persuade you, you'd all give me the totality of what you are rightful owners of in a freely made fair exchange by mutual agreement. No torches and pitchforks storming those homes, no gleeful shouts of derision at those who've homes you've hypothetically robbed, none of that from me.

The cowardly thief has character in such small amounts that to openly sate his all controlling appetites for another's property he must do so under the cover of darkness, the lie, or gain strength with numbers and join with others of his kind, forcing the theft from any unwilling to exchange by mutual agreement.

Shouldn't something of such value, inspiring the giving up of such wealth be given freely with no thought of payment? There would be no limits to the travesty and devastation from the enormity of such theft. The existence of honest men of character would disappear with that theft.

[Apeman81]

Is my question so unanswerable? To those who defend the interests and fortunes of the 1%, and who champion their desire to secure ever greater portions of the nation's wealth, I ask what level of inequality is acceptable?

Is there some reason why those who defend the 1%'s interest cannot address this very simple question?

The "1%" control 43% of the nation's wealth. Clearly, for most of the contributors to this thread that is acceptable. Is 53% acceptable, or 63%, 73%, 83%, 93%?

If as Apeman81 claims 95% is absurd, is 83% absurd or 73%?

I submit that if you're going to champion gross inequality then either you believe any degree of inequality is acceptable or there's some level that's not. So, which is it? And, if the latter what level of inequality is unacceptable?

I've now repeated that reasonable question three times and have yet to get an answer except from Dieval. Kudos to him for his candor as someone who holds that the most extreme levels of inequality regardless of the consequences (because that's entailed by his position) are completely acceptable.

This is not an academic question. Inequality is increasing in America, and there's no indication that it will not continue to increase. All of the tax and social policies favor the wealthiest, such that there is no impediment to them increasing their portion of the nation's wealth.

So, I ask again, is there some level of inequality that is unacceptable or is there not? Pretending or hoping that inequality is not increasing, or appeals to some mythical American dream do not represent an answer, in my view.

I answered your question. You ignore the answer.

The only way for the mythical 12 families to obtain 95% of all wealth would be that the existing form of government in the mythical land of sefville disallowed all other families from acquiring wealth. I stated I would no support such a place.

I also asked you to explain how in the United States the percentage of all wealth could near a level of 95%.

Failing that explanation, I continue to state that the question is of no value.

As long as the people are free to exert the level of effort they are willing to commit in order to obtain the level of wealth they desire, it does not matter if others have more or less.

[Apeman81]

I think all of this refusal to answer the question says a lot.

I think all this refusal to recognize that the question has been answered says a lot.

Post #8

The only way to reach the end you describe would be through government control of the people, as it is in locations that approximate your extreme conditions.

Thus the problem there would not be wealth inequality, but government enforced wealth denial.

No. i don't support government enforced wealth denial

In case you missed it, that is an answer