Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact
Upworthy ^ | Adam Mordecai

Posted on 12/28/2013 9:14:07 AM PST by Baynative

This pretty much speaks for itself. At 1:05, I get a rude awakening. At 1:41, he starts talking about you. At 2:24, he says a "bad" word. At 3:50, he kind of breaks my brain. At 4:50, he lets you know how broke you really are. At 5:20, he rubs it in. And at 5:50, he points out that reality isn't close to what we think it is.

(Excerpt) Read more at upworthy.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: distribution; money; wealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
I think this is a good topic for a weekend discussion. The graphics show a different picture of how wealth is distributed than I would have guessed. But, what can we do? Or, better yet, "Is there anything we should do?"

We've all heard "it takes money to make money" and "work smarter, not harder". But is there anything that will ever change this condition?

Government's solution is to tax it away from the rich. But, I oppose that.

I'd like to hear what others think about this.

1 posted on 12/28/2013 9:14:07 AM PST by Baynative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE; The Grim Freeper; TheForceOfOne; the-gooroo; ThePythonicCow; ThreePuttinDude; ...
I once worked for a man who said;"If you take all the money away from everyone and distribute it evenly, the same rich folks will have it all back in no time at all."

His position was that those who acquire wealth have different tools, educations and desires than most other folks.

Looking at the trillions we have spent in the war on poverty with no apparent return or improvement for the very poor, I'd say that's correct.

2 posted on 12/28/2013 9:18:38 AM PST by Baynative (Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
This guy has no clue that "wealth" is income that you don't spend.

People who spend every cent they can get their hands on will never have "wealth," no matter how much "redistributing" you do.

And "wealth" is not the same thing as disposable income for entertainment and toys. "Wealth" is investment.

The perfect example is NBA players who have all kinds of disposable income for hoes and bling while they are playing, and nothing five years after they retire.

You can't fix stupid, no matter how much of the non-stupids' money you steal and redistribute.

3 posted on 12/28/2013 9:21:47 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the greediest, most corrupt, incompetent and murderous force on earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

The unasked question is, “How much wealth is distributed by the top 2% through dividends, salaries, purchases and so forth?”
A corrolary question is, “How many of the wealthy have become rich in the last 20 years?”
Wealth is not static. It does not rest. It is a commodity and as such is constantly changing hands. The graph is a snapshot, nothing more.


4 posted on 12/28/2013 9:23:28 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

There’s lots of poor who’ve changed their lives for the better by hard work. The government can’t do it for them.


5 posted on 12/28/2013 9:23:55 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Just an ad for socialism lite.


6 posted on 12/28/2013 9:25:06 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (From time to time the.tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
I watched this a while ago and my reaction was "so what"? This is the way it's always been to one degree or another. Every time man attempts to change it by political posturing or cultural restraints it always ends up worse than it was.

The choice is still either to whine about what others have, be content with what we have, or do something to acquire more.

7 posted on 12/28/2013 9:28:42 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

More not widely known info:

“General Facts About The New Elite
For every 100 new elite members in the United States:

The average age is 47 years old
90 to 95 made the money themselves; only 5 to 10 inherited it
90 are college graduates; 10 are not
For those who are college graduates, 3 out of 4 did not attend an Ivy League school
8 are Asian (defined including those from Indian subcontinent); nearly 3x the rate found in the population
96 do not own a yacht; 4 do
50 haven’t furnished their homes in any way that would reflect their economic status

Stealth Wealth
The most shocking statistic about the new elite in the United States? For every 100:

80 practice “stealth wealth” so friends, family, and neighbors don’t know they are members of the new elite.
20 are known to be rich by family and friends”

By ‘the new elite’, he means the sample of well-off guys with an average financial net worth of $5 million that he studied. The results might be different if you studied guys with an average of $100 million.

http://www.joshuakennon.com/the-new-elite-a-look-in-the-top-1-percent-of-wealth-in-the-united-states/


8 posted on 12/28/2013 9:30:05 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
This guy has no clue that "wealth" is income that you don't spend.

People who spend every cent they can get their hands on will never have "wealth," no matter how much "redistributing" you do.

And "wealth" is not the same thing as disposable income for entertainment and toys. "Wealth" is investment.

This was the point I was going to make.

If you take the so-called logic of some on the left that advocate and profess that "Profit" is somehow wrong or evil, and ask them if "Individuals" should be "allowed to SAVE" money, their position changes.

Corporate profits are the same as individual savings.

9 posted on 12/28/2013 9:30:32 AM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Interesting. Before I go further I would like the political/philosophical breakdown of that top 1%, about 3,150,000 people, and maybe there are ultra rich among the ultra rich, a top 0.1% maybe, 315,000 people who would be even more interesting to look at.


10 posted on 12/28/2013 9:32:58 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
First, wealth is defined as total net worth. How much do social welfare benefits add to those at the bottom of the economic ladder? This is a very misleading presentation. Its agenda is clear--redistribution of wealth.

How is poverty really defined? How many "poor" people have cars, dishwashers, cell phones, cable, etc.? We spend over $1 trillion a year redistributing wealth in this country.

And how does it help the wealth gap to bring in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of whom are poor and uneducated? They help depress wages and increase the wealth gap.

11 posted on 12/28/2013 9:36:29 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I have no problem with “reality” as depicted in the video. Yea, I know - I’m supposed to be outraged at the “inequity” but inequity IS reality. Radical Egalitarianism is the quest of the left and IT is what stands in stark contrast to reality.

Any (and every) proposal I’ve ever seen that tries to address income inequity involves redistribution of wealth - the state taking from one in order to enrich others. It doesn’t matter to me that I represent one of the little blips in that video narrative - in principle I am opposed to stealing from another regardless of the so-called nobility of motive.

If you’ve ever argued with a leftist you’ve no doubt noticed that they always point out the exception in order to disprove the rule. If I say that the best way to address income disparity is to create a climate conducive to poor folks making more money they will reply that there are some who can’t mare more money no matter what. If I say “the world needs ditch-diggers” they respond with, “What if they’re in a wheelchair?” The only viable choice for them is to use the power of the state to seize wealth from some in order to give to others. Anything else is “too hard” (said in my best Bart Simpson voice).


12 posted on 12/28/2013 9:37:16 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Some years ago in Wisconsin there was a story in the news about an athlete who was on trial for some crime. I think it was one of the G.B. Packers. At any rate, it got out that the athlete charged with the crime and who was making about one half million dollars a year had not given any of his money to his mother who was still on welfare or scrubbing floors for a living.

The attorney for the athlete then let on that his client had spent every last cent he had made for the two or three years he had been playing. The atty. also explained that's the case for many pro athletes who come into big money at an early age. They spend every last cent in a very short time and save little or nothing. No thought for the future at all.

13 posted on 12/28/2013 9:37:58 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I agree. I watched some of the report and thought I’d be sick so I shut it down.

Why is ANYONE concerned over what someone else has? If the money was earned or even inherited and no laws were broken, I say good for the rich.

Whiners who covet the wealth of others and believe it is the cause of their own lack of money are sad, pathetic and imo contemptable people.


14 posted on 12/28/2013 9:39:03 AM PST by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user



15 posted on 12/28/2013 9:40:09 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
How does one person's wealthy negatively affect total strangers?

Wealth can be a hoard of cash in the basement. How does that hurt anyone? Even if it's an enormous amount of money withdrawn from circulation it will just be replaced by the FED.

Maybe it is in real estate where the rich guy gave his cash to someone else.

Maybe he owns Microsoft, providing millions of jobs worldwide.

Maybe he trades his cash for shares in businesses providing the necessary financing for research, factories, or advertising to allow companies to grow and hire people.

Generally, the only way you will ever know a person is wealthy is if he trades his cash with others in ways that are visible. And it would appear that to anti capitalists, this display of wealth is anathema

16 posted on 12/28/2013 9:40:23 AM PST by BillM (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Baynative

Was far as politicians are concerned, IMHO, there is a huge opportunity for the Tea Party to use this to gain more ground.

First, Democrats have absolutely no interest in “Helping the Poor or expanding the Middle Class”.

They get their money from the guilty rich and their votes from struggling poor and lower middle class by exploiting this divergence of wealth.

They tell the poor that they are going to fix it and help them, but if they did in fact “fix it” they would lose voters.


17 posted on 12/28/2013 9:41:57 AM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I read years ago that there are more mutual funds on the stock exchanges than actual companies on the exchanges. So too many investors are chasing too few investments.

It’s always bothered me that corporations use surplus cash to keep buying more companies, making themselves bigger & bigger, rather than simply returning the earnings to stock holders. The only reason I’ve heard for that is the tax laws incentivize that behavior.

If gov’t wanted to ‘equalize’ incomes, they might consider tax laws that discourage mega-corporations & even mega-hedge funds. No more ‘too big to fail’ companies. But human beings being human, they’d probably screw that up, too.


18 posted on 12/28/2013 9:47:16 AM PST by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
Corporate profits are the same as individual savings.

Nope. Profits are just the amount of income left after expenses. Thus it equates more closely to an individual's income after fixed expenses than to his savings.

As with an individual, a corporation can choose to spend its profit in a way that equates to saving or investment, or it can choose to spend it in ways that equate to consumption, sometimes conspicuous consumption.

This is drastically distorted by tax laws, which encourages spending on non-essentials such as lavish expense accounts and entertainment, because the expense is classified as such and therefore not taxed.

19 posted on 12/28/2013 9:51:02 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

As a friend puts it: it’s not what you make, it’s what you spend.


20 posted on 12/28/2013 9:55:03 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
The only reason I’ve heard for that is the tax laws incentivize that behavior.

A key factor.

However, stock prices go up much more for companies that grow rapidly, whether by reinvesting or acquisition, then for companies that simply distribute profits among shareholders.

This of course encourages investors to invest in companies that follow this course, and incentivizes executives, who are often compensated largely by increase in stock price.

Tax laws distort rational business practice, but so do other factors, such as investors expecting spectacular ROI. A company just doing business and distributing its profits will never produce spectacular ROI.

21 posted on 12/28/2013 9:56:42 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

The fact is some will work for money and others will not.

If we split all of the money evenly of course many of the rich would return to being rich in a short time. Other who inherited their riches like Paris Hilton would merely become whores who charge instead of giving it away.

But the fact is that hard work and good moves is what makes the rich wealthy .


22 posted on 12/28/2013 10:02:41 AM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Would I prefer a society in which wealth differentials were less than they in fact are? Yes. But that doesn't get us very far.

The poor are not poor because Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have too much money. The poor are poor because, mostly, they aren't working (or are not working much), or because they lack the skills to move up the ladder, or because they live in an area where opportunity is limited, and haven't mustered the gumption to move, or sometimes because of illness or disability. All of these things are serious problems.

That said, America today spends vast sums to provide basic income support. The poor in America, excepting the substance abuse and mental illness cohort, live relatively well by any historical or international standard. That means that we are deep into moral hazard territory. Increased income distribution simply lessens the incentive to work, or upgrade skills, or move. It makes people more comfortable in dependency, and tends to perpetuate and exacerbate the problem.

So how can we reduce the wealth differential? One of the simplest methods would be to shift Social Security to a fully funded basis to generate wealth creation among the currently non-saving demographic. Another would be to effect real school choice to allow the children of the poor an escape hatch out of too-often dysfunctional public school systems. Another would be to reduce taxes and regulation to encourage small business formation. Another would be to condition receipt of benefits on work effort. Yet another would be to encourage and support family formation, as opposed to normalizing illegitimacy and single parenthood. The list goes on.

The left, of course, generally opposes the constructive methods and prefers the counterproductive methods. If I were a cynic, I would suspect that their objectives have less to do with reducing inequalities of wealth and more to do with tearing down a resented business class while consolidating government control in an effectively one-party system.

23 posted on 12/28/2013 10:03:49 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

That’s increased income REdistribution, but you already knew that.


24 posted on 12/28/2013 10:05:15 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I think there’s a correlation between the increase in government and the relative wealth of the top 1% in the video. If I recall correctly, they took in only 9% of income in 1976 but now earn 25% of all income.


25 posted on 12/28/2013 10:08:44 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Democrats. The only constitutional rights they believe in are sodomy and abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

We must have worked for the same guy. I think similarly.


26 posted on 12/28/2013 10:08:47 AM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
I've been thinking a lot about this myself the last few days. Democrats and Obama get their voters going telling them they are victims being robbed by the rich who had everything given to them.
They keep talking redistribution and economic/social justice which is communism IMO.

Actions bring about reactions.

IMO the Democrats and those that vote for them have created a ton of the International companies they hate.
It would be in the best interest of any company doing well IMO to go off shore to avoid some if not all of the piles of laws that are in truth anti-business here.
You also have to grease a lot of politicians hands with bribes/donations to be somewhat left alone, kind of like dealing with the mafia.

The whole purpose of the tax law is to mold the behavior of people in the economy and IMO it is at a point that those that can flee elsewhere to try and keep more of what they earn do so.

We are IMO the most overtaxed place on earth. Property taxes.
Car registration taxes.
Wage taxes.
Taxes on your interest income or all other income.
Fuel tax in each gallon.
Sales taxes in the states.
Taxes through distribution and everything else as your products or food reaches you.
If you want to start a business taxes before in many cases you earn a dollar, regulations that restrict success.

IMO eventually we turn this around or we will end up with the government also banning paper money to end the gray market.
Instead we will perhaps have a simple sign-of-the-beast chip or tattoo on your person to scan your life. Don't worry, hardly anyone would cut the chip or tattoo off your body, who would think of such things?

I was never one of those that believed conspiracies or Orwellian things or that we are in end times, but Democrats and establishment Republicans can get you thinking about these things.

People are more dependent these days (learned from public school)
Many have hands out feeling they are owed something and that it is because someone stole something from them that they have less or nothing. Many vote the class-ism that the Democrats put between people.

Our people have replaced the old American sense of pride in themselves with a total LOSS of ANY sense of shame in their behavior. That is our national cancer at this time IMO.
27 posted on 12/28/2013 10:09:54 AM PST by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Thus it equates more closely to an individual's income after fixed expenses than to his savings.

Fairness would dictate than an individual's income is only the money left after expenses, the same as with a business.

28 posted on 12/28/2013 10:13:54 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I think the tax laws are all backwards. We should encourage wealth creation by dropping the tax rates as your income increases. That would encourage people to earn more so that their effective tax rate would drop.


29 posted on 12/28/2013 10:16:32 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I would like to see this done on a country with a more “equitable” system. North Korea, Cuba, Russia. The difference here is you can move to different positions thru your work and ideas.


30 posted on 12/28/2013 10:16:38 AM PST by Lurkina.n.Learnin (This is not just stupid, we're talking Democrat stupid here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

That man was exactly right. I’ve been telling libs the same thing for years.


31 posted on 12/28/2013 10:20:04 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
So...what this clearly states is, the "WAR ON POVERTY" has not worked. The money they have taken from us and redistributed has been wasted.

Socialism fails EVERY time it is tried.

32 posted on 12/28/2013 10:20:27 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

“wealth” in a single nation-economy context is NOT as relevant or important as “what do you have and what are you able to do” COMPARED an average person in some other nation-economy;

can every afford to buy a private jet? no. is it important? should everyone be able to buy a private jet? no. then why should we be uber concerned that only a tiny fraction of the population are so humongously wealthy that they can be a private jet? we shouldn’t.

as for the “poor”; with all the safety features we have in this country most of the “poor” live better and have more than the average person in most countries in the world.

“income equality” crusades are all about promoting the sin of envy; they promote the negative feeling that everyone else has more than you do and it is all undeservedly not your fault and you and people like you “deserve” to have more and the richest “deserve to have less”, and when its not promoting envy its promoting senseless guilt, that you have too much and that’s UNFAIR


33 posted on 12/28/2013 10:21:35 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Seriously ?

Nope. Profits are just the amount of income left after expenses. Thus it equates more closely to an individual's income after fixed expenses than to his savings.

An individuals "income" or dollars after expenses is PROFIT. !!!

34 posted on 12/28/2013 10:23:59 AM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

“wealth” in a single nation-economy context is NOT as relevant or important as “what do you have and what are you able to do” COMPARED an average person in some other nation-economy;

can every afford to buy a private jet? no. is it important? should everyone be able to buy a private jet? no. then why should we be uber concerned that only a tiny fraction of the population are so humongously wealthy that they can be a private jet? we shouldn’t.

as for the “poor”; with all the safety features we have in this country most of the “poor” live better and have more than the average person in most countries in the world.

“income equality” crusades are all about promoting the sin of envy; they promote the negative feeling that everyone else has more than you do and it is all undeservedly not your fault and you and people like you “deserve” to have more and the richest “deserve to have less”, and when its not promoting envy its promoting senseless guilt, that you have too much and that’s UNFAIR

notice that the entire conversation refflects economic ignorance; ignorance that imagines that wealth simply exists and wham bam it can be “distributed more equitably”; which we know is not so because wealth does not simply exist it is created and the various means of “redistributing” it on “humanitarian” grounds, by government fiat or any form of coercion ALTER the mechanisms of wealth creation and wind up shrinking the economic pie, while NOT STRENGTHENING it for most. Those at the bottom wind up still being at the bottom of a smaller economic pie.


35 posted on 12/28/2013 10:27:23 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

I know a lot of people that never came into big money but did have decent jobs that did (does) the same thing; never save a dime, spend every penny they make every pay check, and borrow money to buy everything they want.


36 posted on 12/28/2013 10:29:16 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

The very richest have hundreds or thousands of times more wealth than the poorest. But what are they doing with it? Is it sitting as piles of cash, doing nothing and earning nothing? No.

Many even in the middle class, let alone the poorest, do not understand this.


37 posted on 12/28/2013 10:30:33 AM PST by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

most of them are congress critters. bet all are in the 1%, /but they call the hard working man that aquires wealth via hard work and saving the greedy rich....the only ones greedy are those that make laws to steal from the citizens. Those greedy sons of bitches spend day in and day out how to tax everyone into a hole and steal their wealth...arrogant SOB, think they can tax rain water on your property and excuse themselfs from all the laws they make. Now those are the greedy rich.


38 posted on 12/28/2013 10:31:18 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Government's solution is to tax it away from the rich. But, I oppose that.
I'd like to hear what others think about this.

The solution is, I think, not even related (except tangentially) to economics; the real issue is Justice.
No, I don't mean "social justice" — because the theft of property from some and redistribution to others is not Justice at all, but merely social.
What I mean is that the very rich and the very poor should be, in the eyes of the law,bearers of the same inherent rights: if the poor steals from the rich, the poor is a thief, likewise if the rich steals from the poor he is a thief. Expanding on this: the agents of government should be bound by the law by at least as much as the average citizen — in fact, there can be argument that they should be more bound by the law because they are more familiar and more tied to the law.

Much of that inequitable distribution is due to corruption between government and industries, if the government [collectively/corporately and individually] were bound by the law (in particular federal, but also state, county, and municipal) then it would be prevented from engaging in much of this corruption.

As an example: look at the War on Drugs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government the power to prohibit the trade of various substance. (Indeed, even by precedent *spit*, it took a Constitutional Amendment to do so with respect to alcohol.) Yet, even so, the powers being used have been further corrupted so that the government may seize your money and property and force you to prove your innocence.

39 posted on 12/28/2013 10:49:27 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

This video is interesting in that it requires an evaluative philosophy, that is, a belief that the economic situation of people is either right or wrong. The author has a belief that the economic situation as it exists is wrong and toward the end of his argument discusses the relationship between income and “hard work” in the form of time put in to receive income.

However, an economic system doesn’t pay individuals based on hard work—the system pays individuals in terms of “value delivered”. You can work yourself ragged all day long but if it isn’t valued by someone, it won’t produce you income.

Neither does an economic system care about the fairness of the distribution of incomes. The economic system, because it is a complex dynamic system, tends to produce outcomes that don’t seem fair. But, such systems aren’t subject to the fairness opinions of anyone. Such systems produce outcomes you can’t change in a simple, predictable manner by gov’t policy, although you can certainly mess up a lot of lives trying.

Another error in assumptions by the author is the ommission of choice and preparation. Some people make choices and prepare at no pay for a long time to then receive higher income. It is a rational choice. Other people choose to pursue low income work (e.g., art) while others choose to pursue higher income work (e.g., orthopedic surgery). If they both are working very very hard on a given day far in the future, it is not a “wrong” that one earns more money on that day.

Another suspect issue in the author’s work is his mention of the concept of government. Government is routinely and unconsciously thought to be a corrective mechanism for a perceived wrong in society. As conservatives know, government often worsens the wrong. Government employees are just as greedy as anyone else and if you put power in their hands, watch the money flow their way. Did the author of this piece not note that we have had a quasi-socialist society for many decades, worsening in recent years, yet income “inequality” has gotten even more extreme? I wonder why that is (rhetorical question)? I am going out on a limb a bit here when I write that socialism is a SOURCE, not only of poverty, but of INEQUALITY.

Yes, free market capitalism is a source of inequality and so is socialism and every other system of government. However, free market capitalism leaves a bit of choice of inequality distributed among the peasants. Socialism puts the choice in the hands of a few.


40 posted on 12/28/2013 10:51:19 AM PST by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Upworthy didn’t label the last slide showing the actual (horrific) income distribution.

This is what happens when you impose socialism and socialist economic practices on a capitalist economy. The capitalist economy collapses.

Everyone suffers except the elites.

The middle class collapses. Unemployment is high. The cost of living is high. Government takes over the economy. Including healthcare. Things get progressively worse.

This is socialism. It looks exactly like Europe.

Obama and the Democrats have succeeded in creating the worst economic crisis in American history. And they had a lot of help from RINOs.

The Alinsky-style plan is to force this model until the American economy collapses entirely. And then come in with Socialism to the rescue to take over completely. And then it will all be over.

Obama has succeeded beyond his party’s wildest dreams. And he had a lot of help. Including from half of the American electorate.


41 posted on 12/28/2013 10:55:35 AM PST by JT Hatter (Who is Barack Obama? And What is He Really Up To?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

The video is well done, the presenter is articulate, the data are true.

But the group behind the video is looking at only 2 dimensions of a 4 dimension phenomenon. What I mean by that is they have the right data, they have the wrong conclusion.

What is the conclusion stated at the very end of the video?

“All we need to do is wake up and realize the reality in this country is not at all what we think it is.”

No, that’s not all we need to do.

We need to understand the reality and we need to not be focused on the wealthy.

And there is a difference between being wealthy and being rich in money or assets.

One can think that being monetarily rich means ***one can live off the interest*** on savings and investment. But the rich are not independent because their lives are at the mercy of the value of the currency, the value of assets and taxation. The rich are retired sport stars, retired surgeons, retired successful small and mid-level business owners.

To be wealthy is to at least be doubly rich in the sense that ***one can live off the interest of the interest***. This shields the wealthy person from volatility in interest rates, inflation, asset values and so on. The wealthy may experience some exposure but they usually own the bank or have on their hidden payroll key persons in government, so they weather all storms.

So keep in mind this difference between financially ‘wealthy’ and financially ‘rich’.

But who cares? The only group that really cares are socialists who try to whip crowds into doing stupid things like raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour or raising the top bracket of income tax to 78% which it was just before Ronald Reagan was elected President. So they ‘care’; such caring people they are yeah? BS.

What the video producers left out was how the inequality occurred. They think all that is wrong can be traced to problems in taxation, mostly INCOME taxation.

The income tax is a tool for wealth distribution.

REMARK: As an aside note that the income tax is not even any longer the main player in the game of money and who has it. It is bank and private trading platforms in league with central bankers that call the shots, that hold the keys to the private clubs of the truly wealthy. And the members of this private club all know each other. They may or may not like each other but they are known to each other because the world at the top is small. Example: Warren Buffett and George Soros; Vladimir Lisin and Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal, etc.

We can’t say that all these wealthy are ‘producers’ and have earned their money legitimately. Many are given keys to the club of the wealthy by investment bankers, for example Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg is not a billionaire because he earned it or his company earned it, it was given him by the concentrators of funny paper on Wall St. and you can bet there was a quid pro quo such as allowing free access to monitoring operatives for snooping on the public. Zuckerberg is a tool and he was allowed to join the club.

But again who cares? So what?

The point is that we should not allow ourselves to be programmed by either socialists or by misinformed ‘free market capitalists’. I say the latter because at the top there is no free market. It’s all controlled just like a Roman General having absolute 100% control of his legions.

It’s all about absolute control. And given the dangers of this world there is merit to the notion of absolute control. But it can be relaxed in certain areas and improved for people in general, for the ‘non-members’. But that means less that 100% control and that makes the powers uneasy.

What happens if the income tax goes away? But first ask who gets hit the worst by the income tax? It’s the rich, the surgeons, the sports stars, the successful business owners.

The wealthy don’t pay any tax and it will always be that way as long as there is an income tax. They will always avoid it. Here’s one scheme they use, and now used by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates III as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This foundation is a complete tax dodge. Do I care? No. Why do I bring it up? Because it illustrates how the wealthy structure their money and escape the ‘income tax’.

Gates and Buffet originally endowed the Foundation with 40 billion dollars and now it’s well over 100 billion. Keep the numbers simple and say 100 billion is in the Charitable Trust that is this Foundation. The federal government mandates that charitable trusts distribute a minimum of 3% of the value of the trust each year. What’s 3% of 100 billion? 3 billion. How much on average for each day must be distributed? 3 billion divided by 365 days per year is more that 8 million per day. The Gates foundation distributes on average millions and millions of grants for vaccines, AIDS research, green tech etc. Much of it goes to university researchers so that relieves the federal government from having to fund some research but they’re in bed together on it.

Why would mega-billionaires engage this scheme? Because the charitable trust takes out an insurance policy on Gates, Buffett and other ultra wealthy ‘benefactors’ in case of their death and their estate settlement. This insurance policy has Gates, Buffet and the others as the beneficiaries with further sub-beneficiaries marked as the trust. This ensures the continuity of the trust in the event of a death of any of the principals.

But... but Gates, Buffett and others named as beneficiaries will take out a low interest practically indefinite period ‘loan’ against their insurance policy for billions upon billions and billions and there are no taxes on ‘loans’.

Again who cares? It shouldn’t concern us. It only shows that the wealthy can and will always have a way around income taxes. They may pay a symbolic amount. Buffett runs a farce in that his salary with Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000 per year. And he pays income taxes on this salary. Who is he fooling? But why should we care? We shouldn’t.

So returning to the question of what would happen if the income tax went away, was abolished? Forget about effects for the moment on government revenues.

What would happen to people? They would of course have more to spend each year.

But more than that there would be some ‘rich’ who are just below the threshold of ‘wealthy’ who would be empowered to reach and finally join the ranks of the wealthy. Ah but that would be a dangerous loss of control of the membership.

The income tax is a way of controlling membership into the circles of the wealthy. Tax the rich and keep them from becoming wealthy unless....they are invited and approved to join the club. This is the purpose of the income tax today.

Of course there exists superb solutions to the income tax in regards to government revenues and also to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.

The best and most American inspired solution is the FairTax.

Ask yourself, what do the wealthy do with all the money they pile up? The answer is that at some point they spend it. And when they spend it they will be taxed, no exceptions, no exemptions, no clever schemes to provide cover.

And the curve in the video would approach the ideal.

But again the absolute control over membership to the circles of the wealthy would be compromised, in their eyes.

The FairTax does not preserve the iron clad control of membership to wealth that the income tax provides. If it did, it would be the law of the land.

THEREFORE, the solution to the reality shown in the video is not to tax the ‘rich’ more, or to close loopholes on the wealthy (that’s a wac-a-mole problem), or raise the minumum wage through the roof or to create hostility towards the rich, or foster class warfare (which is a divide and conquer control game played by the ruling class) etc. etc. etc.

The solution is to understand and devise a workable model on how membership can be controlled and how the security benefits of membership can be assured. This is the essence of the problem.


42 posted on 12/28/2013 10:58:43 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

And I thought I liked Asian girls ‘cause they were pretty.


43 posted on 12/28/2013 11:01:24 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
The poor are not poor because Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have too much money. The poor are poor because, mostly, they aren't working (or are not working much), or because they lack the skills to move up the ladder, or because they live in an area where opportunity is limited, and haven't mustered the gumption to move, or sometimes because of illness or disability. All of these things are serious problems.

These are excellent points; but there are others that impact on the discussion that fall completely outside them (or could be "stealthily hidden in one) — let us consider entry level Computer Science jobs: most postings require at least 2 years experience with the particular software/OS/tools being used… I've seen even 5 years required for an entry level job.

Given that many graduates leave college with loads of debt, they're in a big pickle: they need experience to get a job in the field, but they need a job in the field to get experience. I've heard that this is the result of companies wanting to get more H1B-visas/foreign-hires, which they then can use to (a) write off taxes, and/or (b) not pay the actual worth/salary of the position.

44 posted on 12/28/2013 11:01:52 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I've heard that this is the result of companies wanting to get more H1B-visas/foreign-hires, which they then can use to (a) write off taxes, and/or (b) not pay the actual worth/salary of the position.

I think that this is totally overblown. My whole career was in IT, and I had zero formal training in computer science. I've hired many, many IT workers, and degrees meant nothing to me... in fact, I tended to shy away from the CS majors as I found them to be inferior to others.

We keep hearing about the H1B visas and the lack of "talent"... but these stories are only coming from the biggies like Microsoft and Google. The reality is that nearly every company in existence in this country needs IT people, and many of those workers are folks who are self-taught, or just happen to have an aptitude for computers and programming.

If someone likes working with computers, and is willing to put in the time (which often times means being on call and putting in one's spare time to learn new things), then they can make a great career with computers.

45 posted on 12/28/2013 11:15:13 AM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Oh goody another idiot trying to convince people that wealth distribution is a good thing. In socialist countries the only people who have anything are the top government officials pocketing everything. There is no middle class only the poor and those in charge.

In a capita;ist system one is free to try any hair brained idea they have to make money. Good at least in this system every one has the opportunity to generate wealth.

I do not give a rat’s behind what a CEO is compensated. If I want more in my life then I need to produce something that people find useful in their lives. They will pay me for my product and I will generate wealth. End of story.


46 posted on 12/28/2013 11:23:19 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
I would bet that the 0.1% ultra rich that I refer to, are highly influential uber authoritarian Socialist types that accumulate wealth by close cooperation of government and "business" enterprises. They might be called crony capitalists, but actually fit the criteria of Fascists, and and have gotten the economic system installed in America exactly as they wanted it.

What the leftists complain about is exactly what their super elitist leadership has used their wealth and influence to impose upon them, and they won't even be happy when everyone but that 0.1% is a serf.

And still, the Useful Idiots think the cure is to take more from the middle class because they will never stop producing no matter what.

47 posted on 12/28/2013 11:25:02 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

bump


48 posted on 12/28/2013 11:26:26 AM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
People are more dependent these days (learned from public school)

Well, it's not only that, it's that you aren't allowed to be independent.
Take a look at those couple of cases where municipalities tear up someone for growing their own foodstuffs.
(Or people that want raw milk, or raw honey, or basically anything that means less government control/involvement in their lives.)

Indeed, challenging the usurpations of officialdom is not allowed.
In New Mexico, our State Constitution says this:

Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
and yet there's a state statute, NMSA 30-7-2.4, that says:
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
  1. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
    1. a peace officer;
    2. university security personnel;
    3. a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
    4. a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
    5. a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
  2. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
  3. As used in this section:
    1. "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
    2. "university premises" means:
      1. the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
      2. any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
  4. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Now, obviously there is a conflict, the constitution says "no law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense" while the statute [a law] does so abridge the right: certainly to bear, and possibly to keep (say on-campus housing).

Attempts to address this, seeing how to challenge it, has almost always been met with indignation ("how dare you question us"), self-justification ("we do it in courtrooms, so we can do it in schools"), and blame-shifting ("see the state-rep" -> "see the Ag" -> "see the state supreme court" -> "see the state bar" -> "see a lawyer" -> "see a state rep" [ok, so the last one was actually never called back]).

49 posted on 12/28/2013 11:27:03 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

You never see leftists complain about the wealth of Soros and other big lefties.


50 posted on 12/28/2013 11:27:10 AM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson