401–410 of 606 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The peasant had to pay 20% tax and had free housing and food and worked half the amount of hours / year that we work. And they got revolutions. What does it tell about us?
> worked half the amount of hours / year that we work Source? I have some doubts about this claim. Are you sure this doesn't simply measure one form of labor while ignoring another?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average net worth for people 65-75 is almost 10 times the average net worth of someone under 35[1]. Is that because they're older? Or is it because when 70 yo's were young they could go through college on part time work, buy a house with an average wage, and then have that house skyrocket in value because housing was turned into an investment vehicle? Dig into those statistics, and look at how much of the €400k…
> Is that because they're older? Honest question, but do you know much about investing? The investment curve isn't linear. Someone making steady contributions should have around 10 times the amount of wealth at age 67 than they do at age 30 [1]. Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3]. If you have…
What part of that justifies or explains away record inequality?
> Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3].
Hm - might that be because they live with their parents and can't afford kids? Or because they're sharing an apartment with 5 other people, and having a lot less fun in their life (aka, quality of life).
And are we ignoring the difference between average and median when cherry-picking statistics?
> If you have evidence for why we should dismiss age cohorts, feel free to share it.
My argument isn't that we should ignore age. I never said that. No one said that.
It's that even accounting for age, however you want to do that, there's an extremely problematic level of inequality.
America has 10 million hungry children. Half a million people claim medical bankruptcy every year. There's no excuse for that - and now a cabal of billionaires is gutting Medicaid to help pay for a $4tn tax break mostly for the top 1%.
As of 2023, the top 1% of U.S. households held 30% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% possessed just 2.6%.
This is all deeply psychotic. It's perverse and abnormal in the extreme; and no, it's not explained away by age demographics. It's very intentional bipartisan policy, inflicted against the will of a large majority of Americans.
I was very surprised by the holiday budget. Less than 2500$ for 80% of the population? Does that mean that no one from these 80% stays in a Hotel or AirBnB for longer than a week with their family? No one travels overseas, or if so, only every 5 years or so? 2000$ is what you can easily spend on plane tickets for a family of 4.
As a person born in the middle class, I am quite sad to see it's extinction in realtime. Not sure what is the solution to this.
Higher top marginal income tax rate (was much higher in the 50s, 60s, 70s). Higher capital gains tax. And then use the income from that to distribute wealth through things like single payer health care, affordable housing etc. So the basic needed expenses don't take up such a large portion of the budget for middle income households. Also: stronger unions.
Who do you think makes the decision regarding the way the government will collect its money? Ans: The people with 100 million dollars or more. They pay to elect their Senator and Congressional Rep who will create the laws they are instructed to create.
So, when the wealthy told the politicians who should pay the money to operate the government, what did they decide? Ans: People who worked for a living. People who had incomes. A tax on "income".
The very thing the truly wealthy did not have unless they choose to have an income.
And, the usual way wealthy have to pay tax is when they sell an asset, such as stock. Now there are two things to know about that:
1. Why would an ultra wealthy person sell stock? Ans: To take advantage of an opportunity for that money to make an even greater annual return than it is currently making.
2. That is still not taxed as income. It is taxed as a long term capital gain. With a maximmum tax rate of 20%.
So, their money is moved from one asset to an even better asset, and they are only taxed at a flat tax of 20% on the profit when the asset is sold before it is invested into the better investment. And of course, they only do this if the proposed new investment is so much better than the way the money is currently invested, that it is going to make overwhelming financial profit after the 20% tax is paid (in other words, this is all by choice - unlike the income tax paid by the workers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm European too, and I also usually don't spend more than 2000€ on holidays per year, but when I compare myself to friends and colleagues, I always had the impression that how we go on holidays (camping, traveling by bicycle/train) was relatively uncommon. Therefore I didn't think that 80% of the population went on holidays like that.
It's the unusual vacations that get time in the coffee break.
Basically, 2-3 classmates of mine shaped 90% of my view on what a normal family vacation is supposed to look like. Whereas actually, half my class didn't leave the country in any given year, especially if they had renovations or car repairs going on. I later learnt some of the parents were financing even the bus and cinema ticket for one of the girls on a one-afternoon class trip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Think about young people trying to buy their 1st home now, its becoming impossible. At least in Finland today it's much easier for young people to buy their 1st home now compared to 15 years ago. Interest rates are roughly where they were 15 years ago, but house prices in real terms have gone way down. There's also huge market asymmetry with large amount of vacant properties that nobody wants to buy, and relatively…
How did you manage that!?! It was my impression that increasing housing prices is a problem all over, and that it partially stems from the mega trend of people moving to cities. Most countries have a lot of room to build houses, just not where people want to live! So why is it different in Finland? Is there a lot of free space around then cities? Or doesn't everyone want to live in Helsinki?
The mega trend of people concentrating to largest cities also occurs in Finland. The housing market in Helsinki (where I'm unable to sell my place!) is much better than the housing market in more rural areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s different this time around. The sheer complexity of society makes it hard to ascertain exactly the true nature of the situation. People who voted for trump aren’t even aware he’s part of the problem of wealth inequality. They aren’t even aware wealth inequality is the problem. At worst we will get an angry mob stampeding the White House with no real direction or objective. Are rich people the problem or is it th…
Not only complexity per se, I'm firmly on the camp of Byung-Chul Han's take on the lack of unifying narratives in the contemporary age. Living through the information age I do subscribe to his views of information being only additive, incapable and incomplete to form overarching narratives for us to hinge on. Recommend the read of "Psychopolitics", "The Crisis of Narration", and "In the Swarm", those books eloquently…
- People who are cruel are not fit to make important decisions in human society
- The most important quality in a human's life is dignity
- There needs to be a return to spirituality and philosophy, away from religion and tribalism
These ideas if contemplated and thought through on an individual and collective levels would undo much of what makes modern living unpleasant and bring about some wonderful new perks :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you manage that!?! It was my impression that increasing housing prices is a problem all over, and that it partially stems from the mega trend of people moving to cities. Most countries have a lot of room to build houses, just not where people want to live! So why is it different in Finland? Is there a lot of free space around then cities? Or doesn't everyone want to live in Helsinki?
The home crisis can be solved if we insist that people can buy property only for living and not as an investment. Chinese are buying homes in Canada which is the reason for housing crisis there.