The GOP usually flips out when wealth inequality is brought up...

The GOP usually flips out when wealth inequality is brought up. What is your personal view on fixing wealth inequality in USA? I personally am for moderate wealth inequality. I feel wealth inequality is too extreme in USA. A handful of people control all of the news, natural resources, technology, etc. The USA used to do trust busting to break up extreme concentrations of power. We don't enforce anti-trust laws anymore. The left wing solution is extremely high taxes and the right wing solution is trust busting. Do you support fixing wealth inequality and getting it to a more reasonable level?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JTj9AcwkaKM
inc.com/magazine/201705/zoe-henry/will-amazon-buy-you.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>the distribution of wealth should be determined by people's feelings rather than the markets

Tea Party/Occupy/Trump/Bernie Sanders all pretty much show the people of USA want a change. Feelings of the American people would suggest they hate the current status.

Capitalism increases inequality, but actually also makes the poor less poor (for example, the hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty in china from the adoption of capitalism)

Socialism just destroys the mechanism for making use of the natural human incentive structure and generally ends with mass poverty and sometimes famines (for example, every shitty 3rd world hell hole ever, like Venezuela)

If you are a shit human you will be at the bottom of the pile no matter what political system decides to use you as a tax/labor/welfare slave.

Stop bringing in immigrants by exagerrated quantities. When you let people in with little to no education, wealth, etc. expect there to be drastic differences between your developed population and immigrants.

People say they want change, but how many of them are actually willing to pour their savings into starting a business, get up at 5am every morning and work their asses off for it? I'd estimate it's a close correlation between that group and the red and orange groups in your chart.

I'm not in favor of socialism. I feel USA is no longer capitalist and is an oligarchy. I don't feel that people can get ahead in USA like they could in previous decades. For example: look at all of the right wing youtubers that are demonetized. They provide value and deserve to get ahead in life just as much as left wing youtubers. Another example: Hostile takeovers by big corporations so smaller corporations can't get ahead.

We need to end illegal immigration and limit legal immigration I agree. We take in a random 1 million people. I oppose the 1965 Immigration Act and support the RAISE Act.

An easy example is this. Let's take Rachel Maddow who makes $30k PER DAY at MSNBC. She's a corporate mouthpiece. Tons of Youtubers put in lots of hours, more than Maddow, and can't make $30k in a year. The vast majority of Americans are strapped for cash. They have no disposable income. If no one has disposable income, how can new businesses prosper?

There's nothing to "fix" you moronic leftist.
Wealth ineq is the result of freedom+people having different levels of ability. So no, get your socialist authoritarian "fixes" and shove them deep into you ass.
My god these people are worst than stupid.

Is this advocating for creating MORE poor people?

Not really. That's a straight up supply and demand problem. There's only one Rachel Maddow and people (well liberals, so not really people) want to hear what she has to say. There's countless YouTubers and not as much demand for the opinion of the average YouTuber. Therefore, Rachel Maddow should be paid more than the average YouTuber. On the other hand, if a YouTuber creates content that satisfies a significant demand, we can expect the to make more than Rachel Maddow given the large audience on the platform, and we see this in people like PewdiePie, the Paul brothers and others.

"Niggas say they want the money, but they don't wanna go and get it" - Meek Mill, philosopher.

You're making an underlying assumption that isn't supported: wealthy people didn't steal their money from others, they earned it on their own. It's their money, since it's the fruit of their labor/investments/wealth. You aren't owed shit, and rich people deserve whatever they can make, so long as they do not break any laws, steal from anyone, or collude with each other or the government.

Yup. If people here had half a clue how fucking hard my wife works on her small business, they would shit themselves. Small business owners have incredible work ethic. People think it's easy to be in the 1%. It's a lot of work, and most people aren't willing to do it.

>I'm not in favor of socialism. I feel USA is no longer capitalist and is an oligarchy

This. Major corporations can also use political power and influence to stifle competition and engage in rent-seeking. Removing companies from government and Aryanizing wealth would solve most of our problems.

>Therefore, Rachel Maddow should be paid

If we're talking about normatives, Rachel Maddow SHOULD be shot in the face.

bribing the government to enact laws that favor them is okay? mass immigration for cheap labor so the native population can't earn higher wages is alright?

if you take a snapshot of every adult and compare them by income, you lump together:
>people at different ages and stages of their life
>retirees and people who are electively unemployed
>housewives
>college students
>people who sell their homes or assets for that single year and receive a huge, temporary boost to their reported income

It would be much more useful to look at income inequality from the household perspective, or to look at lifetime earnings.

Furthermore, if you extrapolate solely THAT statistic (using population brackets for a single year), you end up completely ignoring the fact that the economy, quality of life, and technology are still growing quite quickly.

>pic
Source? I won't be surprised if this chart is being funded by Soros.

i just googled wealth inequality in america and took the first image

I reject your premise. Inequality is inherent to individuality. You can't 'fix' the nature of inequality.

>Have a problem with wealth inequality
>Not allowed to mention J*ws
>Here, put out this fire
>You can't use anything except gasoline

if the amount of money a person has is in any way a function of their drive and hard work... there can be no practical "ideal' income distribution.

>wealth inequality
literally a non issue
see pareto principle

so you feel most Americans have no drive/motivation?

Your first point is what we like to call Economic Rent. I agree it is bad. There are ways around it though, but those involve passing new laws that forbid the ways in which wealthy people acquire economic rent.

Your second point is also well taken. Big political question, with lots of ugliness and tension surrounding it. Tough thing.

"fixing wealth inequality" is code for socialism in modern vernacular English. The top 20% make the most money because they have all the relevant skills, connections and intelligence that society demands. Nobody gives a fuck about the 2,376th best footballer who makes a shit wage, but the 3rd best footballer is a household name and is making millions of dollars. The top 20% earning all the rewards happens in literally every single market, the trick is finding what market you are a top 20% performer in. If you are a top 20% electrician in your local market, you will partake in the lions share of available local profits along with the rest of your top performing competitors.

Or just be a lazy faggot and try and use the government to steal other peoples labor.

>pareto principle
ok i just looked at it. what if USA had instead of 80/20, say it was 10%/90%. would that be worth fixing? You are saying 80/20 is ideal... so what if we aren't at that?

What are Sam Walton's great grandchildren the top 20% of performers in?

There is a very wide spectrum of drive and motivation. I'll give you an example. I'm a pretty smart guy. I didn't have too much trouble in school, but when I got to university, working towards a math degree, I managed to squeak by. Didn't have the best GPA, but still smart enough to pass.

I'm gainfully employed, making a solid paycheck, and I should be set up well for a while. I was lucky in that I was born pretty smart, but in all honestly my work ethic is not great.

My wife, on the other hand, has the most insane work ethic I've ever seen in a person. She works probably 18 hours a day on her small business, which is growing leaps and bounds every year. She has already passed me in income, and I genuinely expect her to be a self-made millionaire by 2020. She is not as smart as I am, as much as I love her. But her drive and motivation make mine look nonexistant.

It's a real thing.

In a world of finite resources, in order for you to have more, someone else must have less. How hard is that to understand?

No. He didn't imply that. It's just that on average people want to be well off (and put in the required work) less than they want to sit around and browse facebook. I mean sure they'll say 'I want to have money' but they just happen to want things that bring them immediate gratification and comfort more on a moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day time scale. People in >muh 1% tend to be people who have made the opposite choice. People who have sacrificed those hours and days of short term pleasure for long term gain.

why are you trying to derail things with hypotheticals?
we're already at 80/20.

Wealth isn't finite. Trying to cut up the pre-existing pie in different way is economic rent. Trying to make the pie larger by inventing new products, new services, and doing a better job than the competition creates wealth, it doesn't take it from anybody. If I make a widget that cost $200 and you want to buy it, we both win.

The source is youtube.com/watch?v=JTj9AcwkaKM
Their FB page is full of Trump bashing and endless praises to Obama. I am quite sure that they are full of shit.

Anyway, the simple solution is stop welfare and start enforce anti-trust laws. Also, start with banning lobbying or relabel lobbying as bribes, which is already illegal. There are many factors for wealth inequality. Too many foreign workers in the USA, too many illegals, outsourcing jobs to super-cheap jobs in China and other nations, reckless government spending, too much foreign aid, high taxes on middle classes and small business, etc.

No, it's the amount of currency in that group of people. So they want more money in the poorfag category.

I never said wealth was finite, I said resources are. You seem to be arguing with yourself.

i'm in favor of everything you proposed as a solution. i guess the "right wing" is just offended by the words "wealth inequality" but my solutions to it are what you mentioned... i actually offend left and right wing people with my words... its weird.

1- Providing for your progeny is part of the human biological incentive structure, taking away the inherent right to give to your children is literally anti-human.

2- Wealth overwhelmingly dissipates over generations. All of the founding fathers were wealthy as fuck, yet you dont here people bitching about the Washington and Jefferson families. The few families that manage multi-generational wealth are either internationally famous for it because it is so rare, or secretive as fuck about it and just live normal lives to not draw attention.

"money" is infinite, its a product created by the federal reserve that people are supposed to believe has worth. there is a lot of anti jew stuff on this board ... my issues are with money. people have insane wealth - dynastic wealth - so people can't get ahead. there are lots of rich trust fund babies that never work. they are basically just black people but with money.

How about the Rockefellers who can just print new money for themselves?

>they are basically just black people but with money.
so you'd take their money and give it to black people?
That doesn't seem logical at all.

I'm in the green bar. Bow down blue and teal peasants

Money begets money. More money means a better education for your children, more chances to invest, more payback from those investments, etc. Most kids that grow up like that aren't so retarded that they would blow millions of dollars and make their family poor again. Some rich families simply die out without a worthy heir, their estate is taxed heavily when they die, or it's split up between multiple families that stake a claim to it, who in turn blow it because they aren't from that family. I'm not saying there should be no inheritance ever, but to imply that all people that are rich have earned it 100% with top quality hard work that makes them the top 20% humanity has to offer in every single case is disingenuous.

Since you are on the topic of families and therefore bloodlines, I wonder what role genetics plays in what you are describing?

Not going to worry about it: I found my market I'm a top performer in and bank all of my earnings in income producing property and gold.

Peddling socialism is the only way central banker cunts can steal your labor in the first place.

>nice hand made furniture you crafted there goy
>we are going to need 40% of your profit, there are poor people down the street that need help!
>Oy Vey! So many whites have cash in the bank, this wealth inequality is staggering!
>lets just print a little money to fund the budget deficit so we can help the non-whites catch up
>dont go exchanging your fiat currency for gold or crypto, that would devalue the dollar, and only we are allowed to do that! Why not take out a loan for a nice vacation instead?

kill yourself faggot, I can't believe you came back to shill this board after you got BTFO so much last thread

Genetics plays no role whatsoever in the trend depicted in this graph.

No but genetics do play a role in intelligence and behavior.

It doesn’t need to be fixed.

Actually impulse control is directly related to IQ, which is about 80% a heritable trait as an adult. Keeping your interest compounding and not spending your principal on retarded shit like $2000 air jordans is extremely difficult for people with no impulse control.

>poor people think they deserve more money

Boo fucking hoo. It's pretty much an inherent quality of any economy that the the consolidation of wealth rises exponentially. Furthermore, why should you care? I couldn't care less that there are trust fund babies out there blowing their daddy's money on private helicopters, Ferraris, and supermodels. I don't care because it doesn't affect me in the slightest. The second you start trying to grab people's money is the second they will start finding more and more effective ways of hiding it.

I agree with market interference to the extent of trust busting and things along those lines. But private wealth distribution is no concern of the government, or of you for that matter. I don't really care if every oil company in the world is owned by the same person and he makes a bajillion dollars a year, as long as he isn't price fixing there is no crime being committed and no harm done.

>fixing wealth inequality
>fixing
What's there to fix?

Wealth inequality is how the world works. If you gave people $1000, a large majority of people would have spent it all by the next morning. A fraction of people would spend some and save some. A smaller fraction would save all of it/invest it.

There are plenty of people who will never posses wealth no matter how much money you give them. It is literally impossible for that person to hold on to wealth because they will spend every single dollar they ever have as soon as they get it. Don't believe me? Look at the vast majority of lottery winners. They get handed tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and within a few years they're worse off than before they won the lottery. Given that these people are a black hole that cannot be satiated by any amount of money, the only way to prevent wealth inequality would be to prevent wealthy people from having wealth. In order for everybody to be equal, everybody has to be poor.

i never made a thread on this topic here. wasn't that obvious by the fact i admitted i just googled a random wealth inequality pic? you should feel stupid.

Intelligence and behavior don't matter when you inherit a multimillion dollar fortune.

I don't know how much you know about family offices & trusts, but usually the family is only disbursed 2-4% per annum, while the trust grows at a rate of 6-12%. These trusts are usually managed in such a way that it is literally impossible for them to lose money.

I recently went to a wedding where the bride was a member of the Pitcairn family, still extraordinarily wealthy today because an ancestor founded a glass company in the late 1800s. If I had to guess I'd say she will inherit about $200 million. The trust will probably disburse to her about 1% per year: 2 million dollars. Meanwhile the trust will grow at about 9% per year, 5% adjusted for inflation. She will necessarily pass on more to her offspring, regardless of her "intelligence and behavior."

...

You would sure as hell start to care if there was actually a free market, since then one man would most likely rise to the top as an emperor, making you and everyone you know into slaves.

Why did you cherrypick that example? It's a one off, not typical of the inheritance system as a whole. Sounds like you are jelly of the Mrs., if you want to know the truth.

No no no no no no
>not realizing that women in the workforce have halved wages
>not realizing that mergers and trusts are killing competition

Amazon has online purchases on lock. They have video game streaming on lock (Twitch). They have a subsidiary for the food industry (Whole Foods).

inc.com/magazine/201705/zoe-henry/will-amazon-buy-you.html

It's the mergers and allowing huge companies to buy each other out that kills competition and leads to the downfall of capitalism.

So because some people make bad decisions that proves that 80% of all people can never stay wealthy? Wow, such logic.

probably more like 90% if we want to be real

yea this is what im trying to fucking say in this thread and i get called a leftist shill. fucking hate the people here sometimes.

The original justification for high marginal tax rates was to check and balance the natural tendency to concentration of wealth and the resultant decay of democracy to plutocracy which is what we have now. Once plutocracy takes hold it takes a revolution to eradicate it.

...

My first example was Sam Walton's grandkids. It doesn't matter who you use as an example. Pick any of the top 1% of the wealth distribution. 1 in 100 families are worth $8.4 million or more. That's 160K per year at an extremely conservative 2% withdrawal rate. For doing literally nothing. Why do you think this is okay?

Sure if you >muh bootstraps >muh hard work >muh intelligence >muh saving, you might make it to a white collar job like Lawyer or Doctor that can earn these mid 6-figure incomes. If you do, you'll be taxed at 37.5% (income tax rate) while these heirs are taxed at only 20% (long term capital gains rate). Why should a doctor pay double in marginal tax what an heir pays?

"A handful of people control all of the news, natural resources, technology, etc." and who are these people?

The more wealth inequality we have the more people become liberal. For the last 3 decades you conservatives have stagnated while liberals increase in number. The only reason you're currently #1 is we're devouring the moderates.

So, good for me I guess. Let's drive this bus faster into the wall, it'll just bring about the revolution sooner. Great.

Why stop at the 1% though? What happens if that isnt' enough? Do we extended it to the top 3%?

If rich as fuck people and corporations didn't hide a bunch of money in offshore banks to avoid taxes my caring would drop to 0 but otherwise I'm indifferent since I work hard

Yeah and repugs want to cut her taxes so she will create more jobs hahaha

'liberals' (they're not liberals, they're Democrats) are only growing in number because you keep importing them from Mexico, and because niggers can't figure out how to only have as many children as they can provide for.

>my made up facts prove you wrong
The GOP folks.

The current members of the board of directors of Berkshire Hathaway are Warren Buffett (CEO), Charlie Munger, Walter Scott, Jr., Thomas S. Murphy, Howard Graham Buffett (Warren's son), Ronald Olson, Charlotte Guyman, David Gottesman, Bill Gates, Steve Burke, Susan Decker, and Meryl Witmer.

Steve Burke
Born Stephen B. Burke
August 14, 1958 (age 59)
Residence Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Alma mater Colgate University
Harvard University
Occupation

Executive Vice President of Comcast Corporation
CEO of NBCUniversal

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, I'm sure you know what they control.

These handful of people have HUGE influence in USA. If Bill Gates/Warren Buffet want MSNBC/NBC to televise something, it happens.

Encouraging more individual enterprise and personal wealth creation/retention. Cut out entrenching lobbied regulations would help, probably address the deeper problems of our monetary and banking systems.

>Why do you think this is okay?
The money was taxed by the people when it was earned. You don't get to go back and tax it again because you disagree with how they are spending it.

what we do is tax large inheritances and stop these fuckers from hiding their money in panamanian shell companies.

earning your money as a doctor shouldn't be taxed more than inheriting it from your ancestor who did something in the 1800s.

Why stop at 1%? because inheriting 100 million dollars is disgusting but inheriting 1 million dollars is not. you should be able to pass something on to your kids. you shouldn't be able to ensure that no one in your entire lineage ever has to work a day in their lives, not just in the next generation but in all generations. That is the level of wealth we're talking about with family offices in the $100M+ range

but the people who earned it aren't spending it.

you must not understand that there is a difference between wealth and income. They are two very difference things, which is why someone who is is income poor can be wealth rich. Understand that wealth in the US is roughly 90 trillion, vs yearly income roughly 19 trillion (eg GDP). The graphs purposely confuse these for political purposes.

>you shouldn't be able to ensure that no one in your entire lineage ever has to work a day in their lives

Why not?

Look up burden of proof. You're the one claiming the wealth gap directly increases the number of liberals (read: Deomocrats), yet you didn't provide anything remotely close to evidence. Just a graph that shows an increase, but not even any form of correlation, which intelligent people know isn't causation anyways.

Also, daily reminder that Trump one the election despite wealthy Hillary and her wealthy backers' $1 billion campaign and your party is a complete and utter failure to the people who were naive enough to place their trust in it.

can we see charts that compare our wealth inequality to Russia, China, or India?

I dont believe anyone should be given my earned wealth. Get a fucking job

wealth inequality is good.

it means there is wealth. Would you rather there is no wealth and everyone is equally poor?

Similar to the US. However we have less excuses because of the GDP gains. Look at European (white) wealth distributions.

>inb4 socialism

Who are they to decide where the money goes? Honestly, I figured that the top 20% would have even more considering half of the poor and middle class people I know don’t know how to save money.

>What are Sam Walton's great grandchildren the top 20% of performers in?

Does someone have more right to Sam Walton's money than his own family at his behest?

No shit, poorfags don't own real estate, which is the number one asset for most people. They are too dumb irresponsible anyway.

Naw, you're the bootlicker. You're advocating the government taking people's earned wealth.

>muh gubmint is a fairer arbiter of how wealth should be allocated than the free market

How does that leather taste, boy?

Feelings > Facts

because they don't contribute to society - they are not providing new value - they are leeches.

in 2016 people got to pick between 2 rich liberal NYC candidates. let's be real, USA was fucked either way. trump is simply pretending to be the common man from the south/midwest.

why is that your first thing to jump to? what if you would get higher income from the proposal?

I guess blacks have high IQs then.... kys

You want wealth to be more equal, but someone who makes 50k year could be much more wealthy than someone who makes 200K. Why? Decisions on what they do with that money. You are proposing to laws that dictate human behavior and decisions. You want tyranny.

You're right, but it's bigger than real estate, it's capital at all. Most wageslaves use their income to buy depreciating assets with leverage, leaving nothing for their kin except for their home in what has eventually become the ghetto.

The historical normal has been for the wealthiest 1% to own 95% of capital anyway. WW2 and the Great Depression hit the reset button on capital distribution. What we've seen since 1950 has been the elite slowly re-accumulating capital.

It has to be this way if returns on capital outpace wage growth, which is what's always happened.

It's irrelevant. Americans aren't poor materiallybut spiritually. If you really cared about wealth inequality for all people you'd be asking every American to take a lower standard of living. Since the average American is in the top 1% of world income.

USA does not have a free market. its been stated multiple times in this thread that corporate lobbyists have destroyed the free market. Look at the posts about how Amazon is buying up everything, or economic rent...

USA HAD a free market a long time ago, but not now.

Thank you user. Lookup the Pareto Distribution. No matter the system (yes even "true communism") there will be winners and losers. Life is unfair.

The US has never had a free market. Don't fool yourself. Ben Franklin got into politics so he could lobby his legislature to give him printing contracts.

...

You will never be able to fix the bottom 10% of wealth, they're retards who gamble everything they have away, drink themselves to death, and get large predatory loans on new cars or houses to keep appearances that they're successful and worth your time.
Once people come to terms that some people physically are unable to accumulate wealth the better.

Okay, rather than claiming it's "similar" why don't you actually show some facts to back up the claim?

I think wealth inequality is fine as long as people can get ahead, which isn't so much the case in this country anymore.

>because they don't contribute to society - they are not providing new value - they are leeches
but i earned that for them. why are my last wishes being ignored?