Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Dupe]

The goal is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

I very much agree. Are you arguing that there are currently equal opportunities for everyone in America?

[TreeA10]

I don't think it is that complex. Human nature is simple. Where is Mr. Mazlo when we need him? Humans are lazy and will seek the path of least resistance most of the time. Others have the ability and drive to take a more difficult path if it leads to recognition/reward. If not working results in a more comfortable or adequate lifestyle than working, our solution to the problem should not be to spend more money to make working more like not working. The solution should be to make not working less comfortable and adequate than working.

[guineapigfury]

Currently there is none in certain instances. If a single mother with two kids under school age is on TANF and food stamps and stays at home to care for her kids she has no incentive to go out and start at the bottom of the ladder because she'll be worse off after paying for daycare. If, however, there was a procedure in place that would allow her to work while receiving those benefits, with that benefit reducing as she moved up the pay scale- then they'll have an incentive to work: more $$. Now that assumes, of course, employers are offering a system that will allow for advancement up a pay scale... and a lot of menial labor jobs don't have that system. It's a complex situation, and how we work our way out of it is even more complex.

Yes, if only this country had some sort of Earned Income Tax Credit. Having the other benefits scale would make sense too. Also, finding the father(s) of those two kids and making him/them contribute financially wouldn't hurt. So perhaps a subsidy for Maury Povich would net some income to Uncle Sam.

[HU&W]

If, however, there was a procedure in place that would allow her to work while receiving those benefits, with that benefit reducing as she moved up the pay scale- then they'll have an incentive to work: more $$.

Yep, cause poor people aren't smart enough to understand effective marginal tax increases.

[Vertigo]

Yes, if only this country had some sort of Earned Income Tax Credit. Having the other benefits scale would make sense too. Also, finding the father(s) of those two kids and making him/them contribute financially wouldn't hurt. So perhaps a subsidy for Maury Povich would net some income to Uncle Sam.

Cause no dads ever die.

Also EITC does not pay out bi weekly or however often TANF does.

[Learjetter]

I very much agree. Are you arguing that there are currently equal opportunities for everyone in America?

Yep. Some paths easier, some more difficult, but every able-bodied and -minded person has a choice and a chance to work for their own version of success. Every one. Allow myself to quote myself: show me "disadvantaged" and I'll show you "opportunity."

[Dupe]

Yep. Some paths easier, some more difficult, but every able-bodied and -minded person has a choice and a chance to work for their own version of success. Every one. Allow myself to quote myself: show me "disadvantaged" and I'll show you "opportunity."

I like your vision. I worry that it's not at all close to American reality.

The problem becomes when a path paved by hard work makes success impossible. To me, the problems of the "disadvantaged" are real and important, but the squeezing of the middle class is much more concerning. I feel we've gotten to a point in America where hard work doesn't easily translate into success. When hard-working Americans are bankrupted by cancer, or when costs of higher education for children are increasing faster than wage increases for the parents...those are signs that we have real problems.

Go survey some folks who have "worked hard to achieve their own version of success." Most doctors I've met wouldn't recommend medical practice to their children as they feel the efforts and sacrifices they made in med school and residency aren't worth the long hours and insurance pain they have now. Have you talked to a major airline pilot? Ask him how he feels about being furloughed, having his pension stripped away and making less in real dollars than he did in 1990.

I feel like middle-class America is swimming really hard only to be drifting backwards, which is why I don't understand defending those with absolutely staggering wealth.

[Fuzz]

When hard-working Americans are bankrupted by cancer, or when costs of higher education for children are increasing faster than wage increases for the parents...those are signs that we have real problems.

Stop subsidizing both and let the market drive the cost. Accounting for inflation costs for education at colleges have nearly doubled since the early 1980s, the government gives out more money the colleges raise their prices. Medical is the same way, charge the maximum amount of money the insurance will pay. Its no different than our lodging caps on TDY, are you going to stay in a $60 Motel 6 when the nightly cap is a $150?

I feel like middle-class America is swimming really hard only to be drifting backwards, which is why I don't understand defending those with absolutely staggering wealth.

Its the principle of the matter, once you open the door to the idea that the government can confiscate a super-wealthy persons money because they have "too much", where the hell do you draw the line?

[Learjetter]

Stop feeling. College is not required for "success". Having an employer is not required for "success". Having large amounts of disposable $$ is not required for "success".

Having choices & options is required for any definition of success. Start thinking.

[HeloDude]

I feel like middle-class America is swimming really hard only to be drifting backwards, which is why I don't understand defending those with absolutely staggering wealth.

What do you suggest? Taking wealth from those who have earned it in order to give those who have not? Oh wait, we already do that with the estate tax...though I guess the dead aren't able to defend themselves from that form of theft.

Dude, I am doing better than my parents, who did better than their parents, and who did better than their parents. Like others have said, it's not like there is a limited amount of wealth--liberals (and those who are uneducated and buy into their liberal point of view because it's easier to play the victim) like to believe that the wealthy are only wealthy because they took that money from somebody else. Now ever since Lincoln, government has been taking from people to give to wealthy in the form of corporate welfare...but people constantly support government taking and redistributing, whether it is to the lazy or to corporations--both of which in the end reduces competition and efficiency.

I will most likely never be as wealthy as those in the '1%', and that is more than fine with me. As long as I have Liberty to live my life the way I chose and can take chances to increase my personal wealth, I am more than happy. Trust me, if someone in the bottom 50% had a remarkable idea/product that people viewed as desirable and of good value, that person would build wealth. But if people live just to keep their heads above water than that is the best they will ever do...and if they stumble along the way (drugs/alcohol abuse, out of wedlock births, gambling addictions, and overall bad decisions, etc), then as you correctly point out, they will probably go backwards.

[Dupe]

Stop subsidizing both and let the market drive the cost.

The problem with the free markets is that some prospective consumers are priced out of the market. Are you seriously saying that we should price some people out of medical care or post-secondary education? Dude...that's scary.

Its the principle of the matter, once you open the door to the idea that the government can confiscate a super-wealthy persons money because they have "too much", where the hell do you draw the line?

Brother...that door was opened with the 16th Ammendment. What makes the super-wealthy so special? The majority of Americans get taxed. Hell, they even get taxed at a higher effective tax rate than the super wealthy. We've had a progressive tax system since the start of income taxation. The national argument is over how progressive the system should be...not that it should be progressive. Thankfully, we tax income and not wealth in this nation....it seems that idea is often mis-represented.

Having choices & options is required for any definition of success.

I fear that choices and options are disappearing for many in the middle class...that's the fundamental problem.

But if people live just to keep their heads above water than that is the best they will ever do...and if they stumble along the way (drugs/alcohol abuse, out of wedlock births, gambling addictions, and overall bad decisions, etc), then as you correctly point out, they will probably go backwards.

What happens if the road-block isn't the result of a bad decision? What if a dependent gets catastrophically ill? What about a work-place injury? Natural disaster? The sad thing is that increasing numbers of the middle class are financially pressed against the wall.

I'm not at all conviced that the Democrats have the best plan for America, but I squarely believe the GOP doesn't understand the problems of middle-class Americans. It's really hard to sell the message that social security, medicare, jobs programs, and education programs need to be cut while defending the ultra rich and maintaining our desire to have a defense establishment that spends more than the top ten other nations combined. Instead, they raise the image that most recieving some form of government aid are lazy, drug-addicted baby-makers. That's just not the case, and Americans are smarter than that...I think the GOP will get trounced in two years for extreme lack of vision.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Dupe

[Fuzz]

The problem with the free markets is that some prospective consumers are priced out of the market. Are you seriously saying that we should price some people out of medical care or post-secondary education? Dude...that's scary.

Brother...that door was opened with the 16th Ammendment. What makes the super-wealthy so special? The majority of Americans get taxed. Hell, they even get taxed at a higher effective tax rate than the super wealthy. We've had a progressive tax system since the start of income taxation. The national argument is over how progressive the system should be...not that it should be progressive. Thankfully, we tax income and not wealth in this nation....it seems that idea is often mis-represented.

Its amazing that people managed to pay for medical care and education for decades prior to Pell grants or medicare/big insurance. The care would be more affordable and therefore available to more people without a bankrupting government program. For that small group that maybe can't afford it, that's where free clinics and other charity programs come into play. Neither idea will cover 100% anyways but one provides affordable and quality care to most through competition and the other provides government bureaucratic care with no competition and costs that will run the government even more into the ground.

Income is wealth, and the Estate tax is a wealth tax, how the hell can you justify the government taking up to 55% of someones wealth because they die.

I'm not at all conviced that the Democrats have the best plan for America, but I squarely believe the GOP doesn't understand the problems of middle-class Americans. It's really hard to sell the message that social security, medicare, jobs programs, and education programs need to be cut while defending the ultra rich and maintaining our desire to have a defense establishment that spends more than the top ten other nations combined. Instead, they raise the image that most recieving some form of government aid are lazy, drug-addicted baby-makers. That's just not the case, and Americans are smarter than that...I think the GOP will get trounced in two years for extreme lack of vision.

Considering cradle-to-grave government structures have yet to be sustainable, I would say the Democrats squarely don't understand how countries operate long-term. Free market ideas and capitalist ideas brought this country from nothing to number #1 superpower in less than 250 years, yet socialist ideas have yet to produce a country that lasted a century. China even realized they couldn't keep going down the track they were started opening their economy to capitalist ideas. The GOP may not be perfect, but they don't punish success and they want to give you the best chance to choose for yourself without being constantly regulated to death by the government.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Scaredfuzz21

[Dupe]

Its amazing that people managed to pay for medical care and education for decades prior to Pell grants or medicare/big insurance.

I think the yesteryear's requirements for both medical insurance and education were less.

I'm not a huge fan of the ACA because it doesn't address cost-control at all and it fundamentally doesn't change the structure of American medical insurance as big employer-provided health maintenance program. The one thing it does do is remove the cycle of a catastrophic injury/illness causing unemployment, leading to loss of coverage, and eventually non-treatment for the injury illness. I don't think medical insurance should be provided by employers as it weighs down the smaller employers unneccessarily, there's minimal long term care as employers will constantly change, and it doesn't solve the problem of how to provide medical coverage for retirees. I'm open to more personal systems or a more national system. The system we have still isn't working for most Americans.

Once upon a time in America, you could drop out of high school, get a blue-collar job, work hard, and support your family. Technology has advanced so far now that even a high-school education isn't enough to enter or stay in the middle class. We definately need to make technical and college education available to those who want to work hard to take advantage of it. The question becomes "who pays for that?" There should be a more nuanced discussion of which forms of aid are "help up" vs "hand out" in this country. I'm in favor of less hand outs and more help-ups. By creating more opportunities, we can increase productivity and wealth.

Income is wealth, and the Estate tax is a wealth tax, how the hell can you justify the government taking up to 55% of someones wealth because they die.

Estate tax as a tax on estate transfer....which is really income to someone else. Besides, there's a $5.25M exemption which exludes the vast majority of American estates anyway. On top of that it's personal wealth. If the deceased had a corporation where future family members were established as co-owners of that corporation, then any assets the corporation had don't get caught in the estate tax. It's not like the Fords or the Disneys have taken substantial estate-tax hits on total family wealth each time a successor passed.

Considering cradle-to-grave government structures have yet to be sustainable, I would say the Democrats squarely don't understand how countries operate long-term. Free market ideas and capitalist ideas brought this country from nothing to number #1 superpower in less than 250 years, yet socialist ideas have yet to produce a country that lasted a century.

To me, Norway, Switzerland and Finland are very sustainable. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and New Zeland aren't far behind. Our ideas of free market and capitalism haven't lasted 100 years either. Remember, we tried unrestrained capitalism in this country between about the 1870s and the 1920s, and we didn't like how it tasted. I believe we shouldn't be a nation that squashes the middle class to propel the ultra rich to greater heights, but we've managed to accomplish that over the last 30 years. Russia and China have managed to accomplish the same feat since the end of the Cold War. Some company we're in. We can do better. We need and deserve a debate in this country that's more advanced than "Stop socialism!"

[nsplayr]

Dude, I am doing better than my parents, who did better than their parents, and who did better than their parents.

That's great for you, but it doesn't appear to be true on the whole. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you fit pretty nicely into the data set examined here. Lots to read there; male income is in decline generatinoally although family income is just barely above water because so many more women work today than in previous generations, productivity has continued to climb at historically consistent rates yet wages have not, etc.

The authors of the study (from Brookings, Heritage, Pew, AEI, Urban Institute, etc.) address your point directly in saying, "As a group, they [men in their 30s in 2004] have on average 12 percent less income than their fathers’ generation at the same age. This suggests the up-escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well."

Its amazing that people managed to pay for medical care and education for decades prior to Pell grants or medicare/big insurance.

Very many did not. They died from lack of medical care and did not go to college. The government through the years has decided it is in society's best interest to have a healthy and long-lived population, and guess what, deaths from preventable diseases are down and life expectancy is up. The government also decided it was in society's best interest to have an educated workforce, and guess what, college graduation rates and productivity went up.

All of those things, unfortunately, are moving in the opposite direction now...our medical system on the whole is costing an arm and a leg and producing below-average outcomes and our graduation rates are falling. If you ask me we, as a society through both private- and public-sector actions, should be doing more, in these areas, not less.

The [medical care] system we have still isn't working for most Americans.

There should be a more nuanced discussion of which forms of aid are "help up" vs "hand out" in this country. I'm in favor of less hand outs and more help-ups. By creating more opportunities, we can increase productivity and wealth.

Besides, there's a $5.25M exemption which exludes the vast majority of American estates anyway. On top of that it's personal wealth. If the deceased had a corporation where future family members were established as co-owners of that corporation, then any assets the corporation had don't get caught in the estate tax.

We need and deserve a debate in this country that's more advanced than "Stop socialism!"

Yes.

Edited March 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

I think the yesteryear's requirements for both medical insurance and education were less.

I'm not a huge fan of the ACA because it doesn't address cost-control at all and it fundamentally doesn't change the structure of American medical insurance as big employer-provided health maintenance program. The one thing it does do is remove the cycle of a catastrophic injury/illness causing unemployment, leading to loss of coverage, and eventually non-treatment for the injury illness. I don't think medical insurance should be provided by employers as it weighs down the smaller employers unneccessarily, there's minimal long term care as employers will constantly change, and it doesn't solve the problem of how to provide medical coverage for retirees. I'm open to more personal systems or a more national system. The system we have still isn't working for most Americans.

Once upon a time in America, you could drop out of high school, get a blue-collar job, work hard, and support your family. Technology has advanced so far now that even a high-school education isn't enough to enter or stay in the middle class. We definately need to make technical and college education available to those who want to work hard to take advantage of it. The question becomes "who pays for that?" There should be a more nuanced discussion of which forms of aid are "help up" vs "hand out" in this country. I'm in favor of less hand outs and more help-ups. By creating more opportunities, we can increase productivity and wealth.

Estate tax as a tax on estate transfer....which is really income to someone else. Besides, there's a $5.25M exemption which exludes the vast majority of American estates anyway. On top of that it's personal wealth. If the deceased had a corporation where future family members were established as co-owners of that corporation, then any assets the corporation had don't get caught in the estate tax. It's not like the Fords or the Disneys have taken substantial estate-tax hits on total family wealth each time a successor passed.

To me, Norway, Switzerland and Finland are very sustainable. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and New Zeland aren't far behind. Our ideas of free market and capitalism haven't lasted 100 years either. Remember, we tried unrestrained capitalism in this country between about the 1870s and the 1920s, and we didn't like how it tasted. I believe we shouldn't be a nation that squashes the middle class to propel the ultra rich to greater heights, but we've managed to accomplish that over the last 30 years. Russia and China have managed to accomplish the same feat since the end of the Cold War. Some company we're in. We can do better. We need and deserve a debate in this country that's more advanced than "Stop socialism!"

Bingo. Your homeowners, car, or life insurance are not commonly dependent on employment. Health insurance shouldn't be either. De-couple health insurance from major employers, and costs will likely fall because the average person isn't willing to pay as much as an employer forced to provide insurance by law.

I disagree about the estate taxes, though. Estate taxes are a large part of what let corporations take over what were traditionally family farms. Farms that didn't make a lot of income, but because they had large amounts of land they were valued so highly the heirs couldn't afford the estate taxes.

Edited March 9, 2013 by pawnman

[TreeA10]

Decouple medical insurance and college tuition from government funds and watch charges for both plummet. Those two programs will absorb as much money as we can throw at them and more.

Estate tax or estate transfer doesn't matter. Why in the hell is the government entitled to the money of a citizen who dies? The original money was taxed, the land/property/business was taxed, and investments were taxed. This isn't enough for some who think that now that the person is dead, we are owed up to half of their property.

[Vertigo]

Bingo. Your homeowners, car, or life insurance are not commonly dependent on employment. Health insurance shouldn't be either. De-couple health insurance from major employers, and costs will likely fall because the average person isn't willing to pay as much as an employer forced to provide insurance by law.

.

And those examples of insurances are there for catastrophic damages- which medical insurance should, in theory, only be used for.

Day to day visits to the family doctor, urgent care clinincs, or ER for non life threatening injuries should be out-of-pocket affordable for everyone. This is what the ACA SHOULD HAVE addressed- medical costs.

[Fuzz]

I think the yesteryear's requirements for both medical insurance and education were less.

I'm not a huge fan of the ACA because it doesn't address cost-control at all and it fundamentally doesn't change the structure of American medical insurance as big employer-provided health maintenance program. The one thing it does do is remove the cycle of a catastrophic injury/illness causing unemployment, leading to loss of coverage, and eventually non-treatment for the injury illness. I don't think medical insurance should be provided by employers as it weighs down the smaller employers unneccessarily, there's minimal long term care as employers will constantly change, and it doesn't solve the problem of how to provide medical coverage for retirees. I'm open to more personal systems or a more national system. The system we have still isn't working for most Americans.

Agreed this coupling of care to employers is asinine, because usually you get a different insurance company everytime you switch jobs. It doesn't make sense nor is it feasible for you to be diagnosed with a say cancer, than change jobs and another insurance company who you haven't paid a cent to, to now start picking up your tab.

Once upon a time in America, you could drop out of high school, get a blue-collar job, work hard, and support your family. Technology has advanced so far now that even a high-school education isn't enough to enter or stay in the middle class. We definately need to make technical and college education available to those who want to work hard to take advantage of it. The question becomes "who pays for that?" There should be a more nuanced discussion of which forms of aid are "help up" vs "hand out" in this country. I'm in favor of less hand outs and more help-ups. By creating more opportunities, we can increase productivity and wealth.

This is still the case, neither of my parents or a lot of my family friend have college educations and yet they still live a very comfortable "middle-class" life. Here's the thing I'm not strictly opposed to "help-ups" by we have gotten ourselves into a cycle with guaranteed government money going to colleges. The government says we'll pay X amount, the colleges raise their prices to get every last cent of that and more, then the government raises the money cap to cover the new costs. I'm sorry but the government shouldn't be taking our money and throwing billions of dollars at college education for every tom and nancy that wants to go to school. I recently was listening to Dave Ramsey's radio show and a caller called in for some financial advise, his wife had gotten a degree in journalism from some big private school and had gotten $160,000 in federal loans. Well after she graduated she decided she the market wasn't that great for journalists and didn't want to pursue it any further, so now she wanted to get another $20,000 loan to go to cosmetology school and cut hair! This is the problem with easy money, the government gives it to anybody and everybody and doesn't really care what degree you get or whether you'll ever be able to find a job. Maybe we would have more scientists and technical people in the world instead of getting yard-stomped by the Asians and Indians, instead of an army music, art, english and women's studies.

Estate tax as a tax on estate transfer....which is really income to someone else. Besides, there's a $5.25M exemption which exludes the vast majority of American estates anyway. On top of that it's personal wealth. If the deceased had a corporation where future family members were established as co-owners of that corporation, then any assets the corporation had don't get caught in the estate tax. It's not like the Fords or the Disneys have taken substantial estate-tax hits on total family wealth each time a successor passed.

What TreeA10 said.

To me, Norway, Switzerland and Finland are very sustainable. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and New Zeland aren't far behind. Our ideas of free market and capitalism haven't lasted 100 years either. Remember, we tried unrestrained capitalism in this country between about the 1870s and the 1920s, and we didn't like how it tasted. I believe we shouldn't be a nation that squashes the middle class to propel the ultra rich to greater heights, but we've managed to accomplish that over the last 30 years. Russia and China have managed to accomplish the same feat since the end of the Cold War. Some company we're in. We can do better. We need and deserve a debate in this country that's more advanced than "Stop socialism!"

I'm sorry if you don't like these ideas being called socialism but heavy government regulation or government ownership IS socialism. Russia is still in the tank, and China opened up economy. As for the Norway and Finland they have pretty small populations (10 million combines) which things like this can work. Canada and England's healthcare system is crap, and most of the other countries lagged behind countries like Greece/Italy/Portugal which spearheaded the progressive government idea, we can see how its working out now.

Also if I do believe the 1870s-1920s were a major economic gains for people of all levels of wealth, yeah because the markets crashed because of bad practices (kinda like a couple years ago) doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

[nsplayr]

Maybe we would have more scientists and technical people in the world instead of getting yard-stomped by the Asians and Indians...

I hear what you're saying WRT direct government payments to schools (i.e. military TA) regardless of the quality of the school or the degree being pursued. Although to play devil's advocate, isn't that policy giving the consumer more choice and putting more personal responsibility to use the money efficiently instead of having government mandates about what kind of degree people should be pursuing? Food for thought.

Quick clarification too, looking at the total amount of government-sponsored loans to students isn't a good measure of what the government is actually spending long-term. Student debt is extremely hard to get rid of, even if you declare bankruptcy and you're paying interest (even if a small amount) on that money, so in the long-run every dollar loaned that's paid back with interest is a dollar well-spent no matter what the person's degree is in.

Grants, on the other hand, are a different story and there's a lot more room for discussion as to what kinds of degrees the government should be directly paying for in that manner.

I'm sorry if you don't like these ideas being called socialism but heavy government regulation or government ownership IS socialism.

Government regulation is not socialism...inaccurately adding derragotory labels to things you don't like doesn't help move the debate forward. If someone is advocating for the direct government ownership of the means of production, call it socialism. If not, there are other terms that are much more accurate. That's of course if you're interested in moving the debate forward vice stirring up a partisan fight...

Canada and England's healthcare system is crap...

Anecdotally I'm sure there are horror stories, but on the whole their systems spend less per capita, produce better outcomes (i.e. people are healthier after being treated for the same diseases), and higher patient satisfaction than our system in the U.S. You may not like their system and even a majority of those people might not like their own system, but that doesn't mean it's still not better than ours in very objective ways.

[TreeA10]

IIRC, excessive government regulation of industry/services is not socialism, it is facism.

Nsplayr, do yourself a favor and Google British Healthcare vs US cancer survival rates. I'll stand by for your epic reply. Seems to be a lot of studies that disagree with your assessment of "better outcomes."

Edited March 9, 2013 by TreeA10

[nsplayr]

Nsplayr, do yourself a favor and Google British Healthcare vs US cancer survival rates. I'll stand by for your epic reply. Seems to be a lot of studies that disagree with your assessment of "better outcomes."

Like someone else brought up in another thread, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This is a great blog BTW if you're interested in healthcare policy and their take on this question about health outcomes is, in part, here. Obviously health outcomes involves a lot more than a nation's healthcare system i.e. why Japan is ranked highest in health outcomes although its healthcare system, while good, is not.

Props where props are due though...among all the things the U.S. healthcare system does poorly, we're not too shabby at cancer survival rates.

Edited March 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[JS]

When I watched the video, I was surprised to find how unfair life can seem.

Here's my problem with the whole debate, is life for Americans really unfair, just because others have more wealth? These poor Americans, who are the global richest 1%, would probably not garner a lot of sympathy tears from the average Nigerian or Indonesian. I just find it funny that the "poverty line" has to be redrawn every time there is a new technology or quality of life breakthrough in the states. We have all heard about how even the poor have a roof over their head, cable TV, cars, and most importantly, smartphones to text each other with and keep up with politics.

So, yes, I for the most part agree with the numbers in this video propaganda piece about the distribution of wealth, but why don't they mention the absolute values of all of that wealth - even the lowest 20% - compared to the global average??? All I have to say is that all those people on the bottom should thank God every day that this entire statistical distribution takes place in the States. I mean, those really poor guys on the bottom literally have more wealth and a higher standard of living than the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Caesars of Rome, and all the kings and queens of the Middle Ages.

So back to reality - this is why I am a fan of the "a rising tide lifts all ships" theory. Why the fuck should someone making $15K care that the wealthy have 10 millions time as much wealth? In our society, $15K is enough to get a decent roof over your head, heating/cooling, a used car, and enough food to make you morbidly obese by the time you are 10 years old. Oh, you can also afford a nice smartphone, complete with data plan, on that money too, if you budget wisely enough.

Every form of government and every society - monarchy, communism, capitalism - since time immemorial has had a pyramid distribution structure of talent, competitiveness, wealth, strength, or whatever. It's just that our current system affords everyone to have a decent standard of life. And every future government system will have a pyramid structure, and every system must have a pyramid structure. Why, because God made all of us with unequal skills and talents.

There are significant political consequences to extremely imbalanced wealth distributions within a population

I kind of agree with this, for the most part, but I really don't think it will be an issue in our society until people are getting thrown out of their homes/apartments (laws make that a pretty long and difficult process), or not having means to provide basic necessities of food and cellphones for their family. Food is actually crazy cheap here, and for those who mis-allocate their wealth on cable TV, drugs, playstations, they have access to food stamps, or debit cards, or whatever they are today. Bottom line, in my opinion, yes, wealth inequality can be dangerous in some more desperate societies, but probably not until peoples security, belongings, home, family, or food is in danger - things that I think we are very far from.

[nsplayr]

I mean, those really poor guys on the bottom literally have more wealth and a higher standard of living than the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Caesars of Rome, and all the kings and queens of the Middle Ages.

Are you being serious here or just a bit of hyperbole?

Every form of government and every society - monarchy, communism, capitalism - since time immemorial has had a pyramid distribution structure of talent, competitiveness, wealth, strength, or whatever. It's just that our current system affords everyone to have a decent standard of life. And every future government system will have a pyramid structure, and every system must have a pyramid structure. Why, because God made all of us with unequal skills and talents.

True...the argument is at the margins, not over the absolute concept of inequality. Some inequality, even a high degree, must exist to incentivize hard work, the question is how much and what the video points out is that our system is vastly more unequal than people say they want it to be. That in itself causes problems.

[JS]

If the money that is accrued by the top 1% was split amongst every single man and woman equally, the inflation it would create would make the increase of "wealth" insignificant. The wealth they accrued is only worth anything if it is held and not spent. If we were on a gold standard things would be different but all of the "wealth" the top 1% controls is little more than numbers in a computer database owned by a bank.

Even if the wealth was spread evenly in the form of gold, or real property, within months society would be back to a pyramid-type structure that I talk about above. Why, because some people are smarter and more competitive than others, and will just work with what they have to in order to better their situation.

Instead of taxing it away, why don't you go to Bill Gates house and ask for a few Bil, then head over to Warren's hut and get a few more Bil.

Anyone ever wonder why the Bill Gates Foundation (along with things like the Clinton Initiative) have most of their focus on global issues instead of domestic issues? See my above arguments about our relative wealth compared to the rest of the world.

[nsplayr]

Bottom line, in my opinion, yes, wealth inequality can be dangerous in some more desperate societies, but probably not until peoples security, belongings, home, family, or food is in danger - things that I think we are very far from.

I agree it's not like the sky is falling tomorrow, but even if it doesn't lead to actual violent unrest, there are serious political consequences when a huge chuck of the population starts believing a tiny sliver at the top controls everything and they have no means to move up the social ladder. Data points like the ones raised in the videos, along with ones suggesting that our social mobility is declining and that in many ways we are not better off than our parents on the whole, give credence to that argument.

I think Americans are actually quite immune to this type of trouble...there's something deep in our cultural DNA that says "You can achieve the American Dream" and it prevents some of this turmoil over inequality. That's a good thing and Americans always are #1 in terms of optimism and self-belief, but that being said, it doesn't mean that at some point that can be overcome by reality.