Rich person finds nothing wrong with inequality. News at 11.
Economic Inequality
201–210 of 580 posts
Re: Economic Inequality
#202> The problem is not economic inequality
Yes, actually it is. There are other problems that are negative consequences of inequality, such as the US having turned into a plutocracy etc., but inequality just by itself is a problem.
To quote: "The average well-being of our societies is not dependent any longer on national income and economic growth. That's very important in poorer countries, but not in the rich developed world. But the differences between us and where we are in relation to each other now matter very much."[1]
Let me repeat this: in our fairly rich developed world, inequality is the problem, it is more important than overall wealth of the society. So the "rising tide raises all boats" meme is a nice metaphor but empirically just pure nonsense.
Furthermore, even the very rich in the more unequal societies are, in many aspects that matter, worse off than average people in more equal societies, even though they are much weather individually. This surprised me. A lot.
Re: Economic Inequality
#203If you were looking for a high water mark of this bubble, I think we may have a winner. Though I will wait to see what the next 3 months also bring in.
Re: Economic Inequality
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
On paper, the tax rates were higher in the 50s. What isn't mentioned is that was the age of the tax shelter, the 3 martini lunch, etc. It is doubtful anyone actually paid those rates. Reagan's deal to lower the tax rates included repealing all those deductions and tax shelters.
You are welcome to try to eat and drink through tens of millions of dollars, but I doubt you can do it. Even if you can, there will be a lot of happy waiters and cooks serving you ;)
And you don't think the mechanics, aviators, etc who keep the billionaires flying are happy to have jobs now?
Re: Economic Inequality
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
The philanthropy point is not to be missed. The perception of Silicon Valley super rich people by the rest of the USA is that they are more stingy with their wealth than respected entrepreneurs in other industries. SV super rich are perceived to punt forever: "If I invest my $100M rather than donate it, then I can grow it to $500M and donate half of that, $250M! See, everybody wins." But then they never do end up act…
Like bill gates you mean?
I was being precise with "Silicon Valley". Just as SV is the undisputed world leader in VC, it also has earned a unique reputation for lack of "tithing".
Re: Economic Inequality
#206The article is reasonable in the scope it addresses. It's ok for some to be richer than others. We get it. Where it's not fair is that the system is rigged (as other commenters have said). I'm very surprised it's missing from the article. Maybe, the author should talk about inequality of taxation and the good old Dutch Sandwich. No, the top 1% don't play fair or even remotely pay fair taxes. Pick the top 100 on NASDA…
And even if some super rich guy has a tax rate lower than 10% measured in absolute dollars he probably still pays much more than you or I. I have yet to see any kind of justification that percentage based taxation without getting more in return when you pay more (in absolute dollars) is fair in the first place - even though somehow everybody seems to believe that.
Re: Economic Inequality
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
"That shit" could be interpreted this way: Having "obscene" wealth accumulate with one or a few persons means the decision-making about using that wealth becomes idiosyncratic and volatile at worst, generally misdirected at best. In market-fundamentalist terminology, huge actors cannot result in optimal results. Markets work best with broadly-held wealth and millions or billions of small bets, lowering the criticalit…
So you are arguing in favor of exactly the "straw man" that PG is arguing against? Thats totally fine. There are a lot of reasonable arguments for that (as you have just demonstrated!). But my point is that PG is not arguing against an imaginary viewpoint. You believe it right here.
I'm only saying there are consequences for concentration of relative wealth that even market fundamentalists (such as libertarians) argue against. I am not one of those.
My position is complicated. I find the best explanations of market failure come from a greater financialization of the economy as a whole. Which is to say, in this increasingly programmable world we live in, there are greater and greater opportunities for gaming the system. Even startups inevitably head in this direction. Financialization is an economic gravity-well.
Re: Economic Inequality
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
These sorts of discussions always go downhill because they very quickly turn into defending (and attacking) people as if their identity is inextricably linked to their wealth, which means that policy discussions are read (and sometimes written) as personal attacks. Can we do better than that, please? I don't see a claim that any of these folks are bad people for their money. Gates, for instance, is doing extraordinar…
Empirically, how well do you feel the US government spends its budget currently? There's often an assumption in these discussions that if a billionaire isn't spending their money in a socially optimal way, the government will spend it better. But if you look at how governments actually spend their money, you'll find very little evidence to support that assumption.
We know at least an instance of how billionaires spend their money.
Just 158 families dominate U.S. presidential campaign contributions: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/158-families-do...
Inequality is not only about money, it's also about influence.
Re: Economic Inequality
#209People still got rich when the top tax percentage was 90%. I personally don't care what people make, but I care when they use their massive wealth to influence policies which affect me. If you have more access to my representative than I do and you don't even live in my congressional district, then I want that to stop, one way or another.
Nobody actually paid the 90% marginal rate back then. Going back to those rates would mean opening up a huge number of tax concessions as well. Take a look at a historical chart of which incomes levels paid what percent of total taxes. If anything, the total burden on the highest brackets has gone up not down over time.
That seems inconsistent with what I have read on the subject. Can you provide a link to the data you are citing?
Re: Economic Inequality
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a disingenuous rebuttal. The difference in wealth between someone worth $45B, and two people each worth $1 million and -$1million respectively, is identical. The millionaire is worth less than 0.01% of the first. If this were a card game, the millionaire could go piss himself. If it were possible to put $45B into a typical savings account earning 1% interest per year, that $45B person will make more money doi…
Hoarding? Do you think rich people just stuff their money in a mattress? Even if they deposited it all in checking accounts, the banks would reinvest it all over the economy.
Yes I do, that mattress is called stock.