Wealth Distribution

[GDS_Starfury]

unless theyre to big to fail.   ::)

[Dolan50]

President Andrew Jackson was aware of the danger of a corporate aristocracy and did put one out of business.

Unequal Protection: Jefferson Versus the Corporate Aristocracy
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/377:unequal-protection-jefferson-versus-the-corporate-aristocracy

"The first large privately owned corporation to rise up in the new United States during the presidential terms of Jefferson (1801 to 1809) and Madison (1809 to 1817) was the Second Bank of the United States. By 1830 the bank was one of the largest and most powerful private corporations and, to extend its own power, was even sponsoring its directors and agents as candidates for political office.

In President Andrew Jackson's annual message to Congress on December 3, 1833, he explicitly demanded that the bank cease its political activities or receive a corporate death sentence—revocation of its corporate charter. He said, "In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."

Jackson succeeded in forcing a withdrawal of all federal funds from the bank that year, putting it out of business. Its federal charter expired in 1836 and was revived only as a state bank authorized by the State of Pennsylvania. It went bankrupt in 1841."

The Three Threats to a free nation that Jefferson worried about.

"Thomas Jefferson's vision of America was quite straightforward. In its simplest form, he saw a society where people were first and institutions were second. In his day Jefferson saw three agencies that were threats to humans' natural rights:

Governments (particularly in the form of kingdoms and elite groups like the Federalists)

Organized religions* (he rewrote the New Testament to take out all the "miracles" so that in The Jefferson Bible—which is still in print—Jesus became a proponent of natural rights and peace)

Commercial monopolies and the "pseudo aristoi," or pseudo aristocracy (in the form of extremely wealthy individuals and overly powerful corporations)

Instead he believed it was possible for people to live by self-government in a nation in which nobody controlled the people except the people themselves. He found evidence for this belief both in the cultures of Native Americans such as the Cherokee and the Iroquois Confederation, which he studied extensively; in the political experiments of the Greeks; and in histories that documented the lives of his own tribal ancestors in England and Wales."

[W8taminute]

I just watched this video.  As imperfect as the situation is made out by the author I still want my freedom to make my money and keep it.  Under a wealth re-distribution system I should not be the one dividing my money up so that someone else worse off than me gets a better life.  That 1% should be the ONLY ones dividing up their money to share with the rest of the 99% poor folk. 

Still, I don't want any kind of wealth re-distribution.  What was that quote by Churchill?  Democracy (and capitalism by implication) is one of the worst systems on the planet but it's the best one we've got.  Or something like that.

[airboy]

I don't think most of you understand the current US tax strucuture. 
Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

This is the shorthand version:
1] When you die in the USA if your estate is $5,000,000 or less you can pass the assets to your beneficiaries without federal tax.
2] If you are married when you die, the couple can pass along $10,000,000 to beneficiaries tax free.

Over that $10 million - the tax rate is 40%!!!!

Regardless of the fact that the individual paid taxes on the money earned, the "death tax" over $10m for a married couple is 40%.

The marginal tax rate in the US for the weathest people is about 43% today (39% top rate plus the Obama healthcare tax).

How much is "fair" to redistribute from the people who made a bunch of money??  Does anyone really owe the feds 40% of your estate and 43% of your earnings at any level?  How much is "enough" for fairness?

Many of you guys think that the "little person" or the "middle class" get nailed on taxes while the "rich" pay much less.  This is simply a lie.  First, about 50% of US households pay no federal income tax.  A very small proportion of taxpayers pay almost all of the US federal taxes.  I can readily supply data to back this up also.

If you start screwing over people on taxes enough times they decide that taking risks and working harder is not worth it.  I"m actually one of those people.  I've turned down multiple, lucrative consulting jobs because when I weigh how much free time I have coupled with the fact that about 40% of my earnings are just going to the tax man I decide to not do the work.

Incentives matter for everyone - including the top 10%, 5% and 1% of people earning income.

[Windigo]

Well, chances are all our kids will spend 50 years in a cubicle doing the work for the 1%.

So what?

What is wrong with making a living, even if it means working for someone else?

You guys sound like work is a Bad Thing. WTF?

no one said that

[Windigo]

People are losing focus here.

It is about the concentration of wealth/power in a few thousand people world wide. Not whether a middle class guy has the right to work or living wage  or tax rates etc..

It is about the concentration of wealth/power in a few thousand people (including corporations). ONE ISSUE

It doesn't need to bleed into a polarized debate, it can start with questions and research.

Like how the hell did they make it?

[Steelgrave]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is, the reinforcement of a class system between the haves and the have nots.

The middle class is being sucked dry and is shrinking every year. The historic power of the middle class at the ballot box is being taken away by big piles of money on one side and by a growing entitlement state on the other. The whole "wealth redistribution" discussion is a straw man in this argument. The bigger question should be how do we stop the relentless attack on the middle class from both sides? How do we reclaim political power from the special interests? How do we make our voices matter again to those who hold true power in this country when our government and our institutions are bought and paid for?

The term "wealth redistribution" reminds me of what we screamed in the 50's,60's, and 70's by painting every opponent as a Communist (like Mandella, if you don't remember). We better get serious about reclaiming our country or be prepared to live a quiet life below the radar.

[Windigo]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is.

The middle class is being sucked dry and is shrinking every year. The historic power of the middle class at the ballot box is being taken away by big piles of money on one side and by a growing entitlement state on the other. The whole "wealth redistribution" discussion is a straw man in this argument. The bigger question should be how do we stop the relentless attack on the middle class from both sides? How do we reclaim political power from the special interests? How do we make our voices matter again to those who hold true power in this country when our government and our institutions are bought and paid for?

The term "wealth redistribution" reminds me of what we screamed in the 50's,60's, and 70's by painting every opponent as a Communist (like Mandella, if you don't remember). We better get serious about reclaiming our country or be prepared to live a quiet life below the radar.

It starts by getting focused.

[Steelgrave]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is.

The middle class is being sucked dry and is shrinking every year. The historic power of the middle class at the ballot box is being taken away by big piles of money on one side and by a growing entitlement state on the other. The whole "wealth redistribution" discussion is a straw man in this argument. The bigger question should be how do we stop the relentless attack on the middle class from both sides? How do we reclaim political power from the special interests? How do we make our voices matter again to those who hold true power in this country when our government and our institutions are bought and paid for?

The term "wealth redistribution" reminds me of what we screamed in the 50's,60's, and 70's by painting every opponent as a Communist (like Mandella, if you don't remember). We better get serious about reclaiming our country or be prepared to live a quiet life below the radar.

It starts by getting focused.

I agree. Which is why painting the issue as wealth redistribution is such a straw man argument.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is, the reinforcement of a class system between the haves and the have nots.

The middle class is being sucked dry and is shrinking every year. The historic power of the middle class at the ballot box is being taken away by big piles of money on one side and by a growing entitlement state on the other. The whole "wealth redistribution" discussion is a straw man in this argument. The bigger question should be how do we stop the relentless attack on the middle class from both sides? How do we reclaim political power from the special interests? How do we make our voices matter again to those who hold true power in this country when our government and our institutions are bought and paid for?

The term "wealth redistribution" reminds me of what we screamed in the 50's,60's, and 70's by painting every opponent as a Communist (like Mandella, if you don't remember). We better get serious about reclaiming our country or be prepared to live a quiet life below the radar.

Good posts Steele.

Yes, the wealth redistribution has been going on already. Lets ignore that and discuss how families develop their own wealth. Changing the existing wealth structures is never going to happen. The laws have been created to get to the current situation. All people can try to do is develop their own independent wealth.

I would say a country is more stable when families are independent. That means they have the ability to meet their needs. Additional wants lead to additional economic activity. Right now it seems the economy is a house of cards relying on everyone being dependent on everyone else for everything. All means of self sufficiency have been removed for the core education system. Now people train to be a tool of someone else. When everyone is dependent it is very easy to steer them all to whatever a group with power wants. The pet dog will say yes, master is good to me. The pet cat will say I am my own master.

Part of what came out of the China visit recently is the visas of news reporters (US based) that were pointing out how much a few people in China were making are being revoked or not renewed. China says these reporters are trying to tear down the government. The reporters are pointing out wealth discrepancy. You can't say the commie Chinese are evil for doing this, then turn around and say it's ok in our own societies.

Decide if you want a group in control like in China or if you want a return to stable democracy.

[LongBlade]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is, the reinforcement of a class system between the haves and the have nots.

I must be missing something.

So you guys are unhappy at the current distribution of wealth but you don't want to redistribute it?

OK, I agree: I wish I were richer, too.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is, the reinforcement of a class system between the haves and the have nots.

I must be missing something.

So you guys are unhappy at the current distribution of wealth but you don't want to redistribute it?

OK, I agree: I wish I were richer, too.

You seem to have put on effort to take AJ's position in this thread. I doubt you believe what you are posting.

[LongBlade]

You seem to have put on effort to take AJ's position in this thread. I doubt you believe what you are posting.

No I genuinely can't understand what the issue is here. There are some people who are fantastically wealthy. I am not one of them.

So what? I have enough.

While I'd like more I'm not going to go to great lengths to rearrange my life to earn significantly more. I know what I can do to get wealthier but today I'm content to make my family a priority.

[Windigo]

^on top of that, the subject of the video (and discussion) is not wealth RE-distribution, which no one here seems to be in favor of, but rather what the effect of the current distribution of wealth is, the reinforcement of a class system between the haves and the have nots.

I must be missing something.

So you guys are unhappy at the current distribution of wealth but you don't want to redistribute it?

OK, I agree: I wish I were richer, too.

Actually the basic problem solving tool is to look at the conditions/rules/regulations that allowed the situation to occur and adjust them. These factors are so far and away/isolated from the common man as to be considered alien.

[Windigo]

You seem to have put on effort to take AJ's position in this thread. I doubt you believe what you are posting.

No I genuinely can't understand what the issue is here. There are some people who are fantastically wealthy. I am not one of them.

So what? I have enough.

While I'd like more I'm not going to go to great lengths to rearrange my life to earn significantly more. I know what I can do to get wealthier but today I'm content to make my family a priority.

Yes, there are fantastically wealthy people, who are controlling more and more of the pie... the pie is not growing faster or as fast as their share is growing. Sooooooooo where is that growth coming from? Yes, from the share of the pie everyone else has. So what this really is about is balance, morality and ethics.