Relative wealth... Being middle class

[Cammie]

I don't think anyone has said that.

 

Did you see the quote I was responding to?  That was exactly what was stated.  That poor people had "wasted" their talents while rich people had used their talents - and oh by the way they are wonderful for paying taxes, giving to charity and "providing jobs."

 

According to FOX (yes, FOX) the POOR give a higher percentage of their income to charity.  Almost double the percentage that the wealthy give to charity.  http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/04/24/poor-middle-class-and-rich-who-gives-and-who-doesnt/

 

The article also points out that the rich usually get deductions for their charitable giving while the poor rarely itemize and so there is no benefit to them (other than the good karma!)

[Reefgazer]

I believe Heigh Ho is in NY, where they have some very favorable tax policies for seniors, which means most seniors pay little/no property tax, even those that are fairly high income (as I recall, retirement savings are not included in income limits).  I forgot what the name of the program is, but the state reimburses the localities for the taxes not paid.  In the town where we have a home, most seniors apply for this each year and the several I know who are granted this exemption are also financially comfortable.  And yes, I *know* they are financially comfortable, so let's get that out of the way up-front.  Since we are in a declining, low-COL town, the income limits for the tax exemption allow for an excellent lifestyle while still being eligible for skating out on taxes.  In the meantime, since so much of the town is populated by seniors and the chronically unemployed/enderemployed, the huge tax burden has to be borne by working-age people who are actually working and who are so disgusted with pulling the weight of so many non-taxpayers that they are moving out, thus exacerbating the problem.

 

Also, I thought I read somewhere that seniors, as a group, were the wealthiest age group in the nation.  In fact, the 2011 census lists the 3 highest net worth groups by age (out of 8) as 65-60, 70-74, and 75 and over.  I certainly don't begrudge them this money, because they did work hard and earn it.  But let's face it, many are also the greatest generation/silent generation and older boomers who benefitted greatly from a federal/state largesse in the 50s and 50s, as well as a rocking good economy in many of the post-WWII years, and I don't get how it's justifiable to exempt them from paying taxes like the rest of us.

Wow.

You're painting senior citizens with a pretty broad brush.

I think your impressions are less than accurate and are highly biased, as well. There is no possible way for you to know that those are the people who are voting to "starve" the schools or that they believe that their "per person household income that allows two homes isn't enough."

Most of those seniors whom you resent so much have worked all their lives to save enough money to live a good life. Why is that a problem for you if some of them are able to afford a nice house or a second home? One day, many years from now, you and your dh may be able to do the same. Right now, apparently you aren't in their financial position, but you haven't been working for the past 50 years, either.

I don't understand the tremendous bitterness and resentment.

 

[Reefgazer]

I read this thread backwards, from last page to first.  Yes, STAR is the name of the program I couldn't think of.  And with enhanced benefits, the limit on STAR can be $83K( and change).  In addition, our locality gives other property tax breaks (such as combat veteran breaks, which nearly every over-80 male gets in addition to STAR and the other breaks).

Here's NY's Rules:

Local governments and school districts in New York State can opt to grant a reduction on the amount of property taxes paid by qualifying senior citizens. This is accomplished by reducing the taxable assessment the senior's home by as much as 50%.

To qualify, seniors generally must be 65 years of age or older and meet certain income limitations and other requirements. For the 50% exemption, the law allows each county, city, town, village, or school district to set the maximum income limit at any figure between $3,000 and $29,000.

Localities have the further option of giving exemptions of less than 50% to seniors whose incomes are more than $29,000. Under this option, called the "sliding-scale option," such owner can have a yearly income as high as $37,399.99 and get a 5% exemption in places that are using the maximum limit.

 

Enhanced STAR

• provides an increased benefit for the primary residences of senior citizens (age 65 and older) with qualifying incomes
• exempts the first $65,300 of the full value of a home from school taxes as of 2015-16 school tax bills (up from $64,200 in 2014-15)

STAR exemptions apply only to school district taxes. They don't apply to property taxes for other purposes, such as county, town or city (except in cities where city property taxes fund schools - Buffalo, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers).

 

[LucyStoner]

I for one am not begrudging an 80+ year old combat veteran (Korea would be the most likely war for that age group) a break on his property taxes. In some places, SS wouldn't cover the tax bill.

[Cammie]

While the incomes of the middle 60 percent of income earners rose by less than 40 percent between 1979 and 2007, the incomes of the top 1 percent nearly tripled during that same time period. During the first year of the economic recovery, the top 1 percent captured nearly all of the resulting income gains.  The rich are not redistributing that money back to society. Total tax rates are roughly flat in effect across income levels, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. And on average, the rich aren't giving away extra money to charity either, according to this new study. The bottom line: Rich people are making much more money before, and they're keeping it for themselves.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/rich-people-charitable-giving_n_1819142.html?ir=India

 

A lack of identification with those in need may explain in part why a 2007 report from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that only a small percentage of charitable giving by the wealthy was actually going to the needs of the poor; instead it was mostly directed to other causes — cultural institutions, for example, or their alma maters — which often came with the not-inconsequential payoff of enhancing the donor’s status among his or her peers.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html

[3in9th]

What the current 1% looks like...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk5OJBry2ss

[Cammie]

 

So not to go all religious on people, but there is something to be said about the parable of the ten talents.  Why do we begrudge financially successful people what they have?  Why (on this board anyway) is it so taboo to admit that some people just waste their gifts, their time, their money, and it's not anyone else's fault?

 

 

 

As long as we are going to the Bible - I was raised that this was an important verse - "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

 

In my house that meant if you had money, if you had health, if you had opportunities, it was expected that MUCH more would be demanded from you in your interactions with your fellow human beings.

 

Seems to be that is not begrudging financially successful people what they have...that is expecting that when they have been blessed with so much...much more is expected from them in return.  Not a particularly favorite Bible passage with the current crop of politicians and 1% ers I understand.

 

[marbel]

Did you see the quote I was responding to?  That was exactly what was stated.  That poor people had "wasted" their talents while rich people had used their talents - and oh by the way they are wonderful for paying taxes, giving to charity and "providing jobs."

 

<snip>

 

No, she didn't say that.  She said that there are some people who waste their talents and end up poor, while others do not and end up wealthy.   You don't think that's true?   You don't know anyone who has had some wealth and/or other advantages and wasted them?  

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I for one am not begrudging an 80+ year old combat veteran (Korea would be the most likely war for that age group) a break on his property taxes. In some places, SS wouldn't cover the tax bill.

 

Goodness yes.  Especially with the freaking tax rates around here. 

 

We get a tax break too with the STAR program.

[Scarlett]

What the current 1% looks like...

Thanks for this link. That is amazing information.

 

It is definitely a broken system and I think we are all better off acknowledging that.

[SKL]

Did you see the quote I was responding to?  That was exactly what was stated.  That poor people had "wasted" their talents while rich people had used their talents - and oh by the way they are wonderful for paying taxes, giving to charity and "providing jobs."

 

According to FOX (yes, FOX) the POOR give a higher percentage of their income to charity.  Almost double the percentage that the wealthy give to charity.  http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/04/24/poor-middle-class-and-rich-who-gives-and-who-doesnt/

 

The article also points out that the rich usually get deductions for their charitable giving while the poor rarely itemize and so there is no benefit to them (other than the good karma!)

 

Keeping in mind that earnings do not equal wealth, a lot of low-income people are retired folks who have enough cash to live a middle-class lifestyle and give a bit to charity.  And a business owner who lives comfortably, but reports a loss on his business, is in the "low income" quintile.

 

I'd also like to know where they got those figures.  The source I most often see is the tax returns, where they compare the charitable giving of people who itemize to those people's incomes, and leaves out the people who don't itemize.  However, to itemize, you have to have certain characteristics that rarely equate to "poor."  Usually a significant chunk of state/local tax or mortgage interest.  I've never seen any statistic on how much actual poor people give.  I am sure many of them do give, and help their neighbors, but I doubt the average poor family outright donates 1.3% of their income in cash.

 

Also FYI, itemized deductions phase out above a certain income, and there are additional limits on charitable deductions for people who give a lot as a % of their income.

 

And I don't know if they included the giving that many wealthy people arrange to occur upon their deaths, which is huge.

[SKL]

Did you see the quote I was responding to?  That was exactly what was stated.  That poor people had "wasted" their talents while rich people had used their talents - and oh by the way they are wonderful for paying taxes, giving to charity and "providing jobs."

 

No, I said some of them.  If you are living in denial of that fact, that is your right.

 

[SKL]

I believe Heigh Ho is in NY, where they have some very favorable tax policies for seniors, which means most seniors pay little/no property tax, even those that are fairly high income (as I recall, retirement savings are not included in income limits).  I forgot what the name of the program is, but the state reimburses the localities for the taxes not paid.  In the town where we have a home, most seniors apply for this each year and the several I know who are granted this exemption are also financially comfortable.  And yes, I *know* they are financially comfortable, so let's get that out of the way up-front.  Since we are in a declining, low-COL town, the income limits for the tax exemption allow for an excellent lifestyle while still being eligible for skating out on taxes.  In the meantime, since so much of the town is populated by seniors and the chronically unemployed/enderemployed, the huge tax burden has to be borne by working-age people who are actually working and who are so disgusted with pulling the weight of so many non-taxpayers that they are moving out, thus exacerbating the problem.

 

Also, I thought I read somewhere that seniors, as a group, were the wealthiest age group in the nation.  In fact, the 2011 census lists the 3 highest net worth groups by age (out of 8) as 65-60, 70-74, and 75 and over.  I certainly don't begrudge them this money, because they did work hard and earn it.  But let's face it, many are also the greatest generation/silent generation and older boomers who benefitted greatly from a federal/state largesse in the 50s and 50s, as well as a rocking good economy in many of the post-WWII years, and I don't get how it's justifiable to exempt them from paying taxes like the rest of us.

 

The seniors close to me have worked hard all their life just to have that roof over their head, and now they have a lot of out-of-pockets for house upkeep and ever-growing cost related to medical issues.  I am in favor of giving them a break.

 

Where I live, the senior exemption for property taxes is only 25%.  I would like it to be higher.  My parents don't have a nickel to fix things in their home that are deteriorating (unless their kids give it to them).

[SKL]

As long as we are going to the Bible - I was raised that this was an important verse - "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

 

In my house that meant if you had money, if you had health, if you had opportunities, it was expected that MUCH more would be demanded from you in your interactions with your fellow human beings.

 

Seems to be that is not begrudging financially successful people what they have...that is expecting that when they have been blessed with so much...much more is expected from them in return.  Not a particularly favorite Bible passage with the current crop of politicians and 1% ers I understand.

 

 

I agree with this.  However, most people who have a lot of spare cash ARE giving back.  And they are giving back in many ways.

 

But it doesn't matter.  No matter what they do, they are going to be smeared.  You can call it "justice," I suspect it involves the other "j" word.

[Reefgazer]

I do not agree that having served in combat should entitle a person to not pay property tax. This is coming from someone who's DH served multiple combat tours and would be eligible for the reduction if that were our primary home. What makes that particular activity more valuable than someone who devoted their career to selfless charitable work, or who spent their lives raising a severely disabled child? Why shouldn't the latter also get the deduction, if we're in the business of handing out entitlements? If a locality is considering a tax reduction (and I don't believe those are a good idea when applied selectively), it makes sense that it is income based and not activity based. If SS doesn't cover taxes, then an income based program could recognize that. But those in my family and a few others I referenced who get this reduction have multiple retirement income sources, not just SS, so obviously, living just on SS doesn't spply to them.

 

I for one am not begrudging an 80+ year old combat veteran (Korea would be the most likely war for that age group) a break on his property taxes. In some places, SS wouldn't cover the tax bill.

[Reefgazer]

I'm not denying that the elderly who have a home have worked hard for their entire lives to get it. But that could be said of anybody in any age bracket. I'm not sure why seniors are financially recognized for their hard work and others are not. Having to hustle to keep a roof over your head is not unique to seniors. If medical issues come into play because of financial hardship than that should be taken into account no matter the age group.

The seniors close to me have worked hard all their life just to have that roof over their head, and now they have a lot of out-of-pockets for house upkeep and ever-growing cost related to medical issues. I am in favor of giving them a break.

 

Where I live, the senior exemption for property taxes is only 25%. I would like it to be higher. My parents don't have a nickel to fix things in their home that are deteriorating (unless their kids give it to them).

[marbel]

I do not agree that having served in combat should entitle a person to not pay property tax. This is coming from someone who's DH served multiple combat tours and would be eligible for the reduction if that were our primary home. What makes that particular activity more valuable than someone who devoted their career to selfless charitable work, or who spent their lives raising a severely disabled child? Why shouldn't the latter also get the deduction, if we're in the business of handing out entitlements? If a locality is considering a tax reduction (and I don't believe those are a good idea when applied selectively), it makes sense that it is income based and not activity based. If SS doesn't cover taxes, then an income based program could recognize that. But those in my family and a few others I referenced who get this reduction have multiple retirement income sources, not just SS, so obviously, living just on SS doesn't spply to them.

 

 

Because they voluntarily put themselves in danger in the defense of their country?    Because not only they but their families sacrificed in terms of income, time together, and the knowledge that their loved one had a greater chance than most people of not coming home from work (deployment)? 

 

No doubt there are some veterans who don't need it.  Surely some greatly benefit from it. I suppose that it, like all entitlements, can simply be ignored if people who qualify for it don't want to take advantage of it.  

[Cammie]

  You can call it "justice," I suspect it involves the other "j" word.

 

I have to admit...I don't know what that word is?

[marbel]

I have to admit...I don't know what that word is?

 

I'm guessing she mean jealousy.

[marbel]

This last paragraph makes a very good point about charitable giving.

 

"Rich" and "elite" people tend to make their donations to things like the arts, college endowments, and other programs which ENHANCE the lives of humankind.

 

Middle class people tend to make their donations to organizations whose efforts DIRECTLY IMPACT the lives of the struggling poor and working class.

 

The types of giving are completely different. Both are needed; both are good.

 

(And I wish I could find the NPR radio show I heard in which this was discussed in detail. But it was several years ago, and I don't have time to go searching for it now.)

 

And doesn't that take us back to the comments about middle-class people living in high COL areas benefiting from cultural opportunities? Those cultural opptys wouldn't be available if it weren't for the wealthy patrons, giving their money, right?

 

(I'm still dubious that many middle-class families are able to take advantage of all those cultural opptys, but if it weren't for wealthy donors, there would be almost no chance of it happening.)

[SKL]

This last paragraph makes a very good point about charitable giving.

 

"Rich" and "elite" people tend to make their donations to things like the arts, college endowments, and other programs which ENHANCE the lives of humankind.

 

Middle class people tend to make their donations to organizations whose efforts DIRECTLY IMPACT the lives of the struggling poor and working class.

 

The types of giving are completely different. Both are needed; both are good.

 

(And I wish I could find the NPR radio show I heard in which this was discussed in detail. But it was several years ago, and I don't have time to go searching for it now.)

 

I tend to agree, but I would add that many wealthy / high-income people do also give to human service charities, or to foundations that fund human service charities.  They also donate time to support all sorts of charities.

 

There is a local, internationally-acclaimed hospital system that has received lots of $$ from rich donors.  Does this help poor people?  Yes, it does.  I personally know two low-income people whose lives were saved at this hospital and they did not have to pay one penny.  (One had a massive heart attack, one had a serious car accident in which the other 3 passengers were instantly killed.)  I'm sure there many more examples that I are not in my personal circle.

 

And all those donations to universities - that is the only reason regular people can even dream of attending such a school.  Plus, universities develop technologies that are important to everyone.  Like the medical technologies that saved my sister's micropremie and many others (including destitute people).

 

Donations to cultural and educational programs also increase the chances for kids born poor to expand their horizons and have a better chance in life.

 

Are some donations done for selfish reasons?  I'm sure they are.  Just like people of all income levels do some things for selfish reasons.  That is no reason to smear the whole group.

[regentrude]

This last paragraph makes a very good point about charitable giving.

 

"Rich" and "elite" people tend to make their donations to things like the arts, college endowments, and other programs which ENHANCE the lives of humankind.

 

Middle class people tend to make their donations to organizations whose efforts DIRECTLY IMPACT the lives of the struggling poor and working class.

 

The types of giving are completely different. Both are needed; both are good.

 

Every working class or poor (or middle class) family whose child receives financial aid from the college feels a direct impact from the rich people's donations to college endowments. Because that ios where this money comes from.

Without this, many students would not be able to attend college. Nothing increaes social mobility as much.

[SKL]

I'm not denying that the elderly who have a home have worked hard for their entire lives to get it. But that could be said of anybody in any age bracket. I'm not sure why seniors are financially recognized for their hard work and others are not. Having to hustle to keep a roof over your head is not unique to seniors. If medical issues come into play because of financial hardship than that should be taken into account no matter the age group.

 

But we're all going to be seniors someday, so I don't see it as discriminatory.

 

Most people's income goes down and health-oriented expenses go up after they retire.  Plus they may have to pay for services such as cleaning as their mobility decreases.  And they have fewer options to look for new ways to cover their expenses.  Plus things are just plain harder.  It's harder to read, write, and everything else.  I do some pro bono tax work for some older people, and I hate how hard they make it for these folks.  For example, if you get a little pension from some factory job you had 20 years ago, you have to find out how the annual payments compare to your Required Minimum Distribution or whatever the heck it's called.  You have to do this for each little pension payment.  I have an old friend who gets about $987 per year (in monthly installments) and they make him go through this crap (which he doesn't understand, as he was a factory worker, not a pension taxation expert).  Then you have to figure out whether your little pensions make some of your social security income taxable, and how much.  And then you have to figure out the differences between how the state and the federal government look at all this.  Give old people a break already.

[3in9th]

 That is no reason to smear the whole group.

 

There is also no reason to exalt the whole group.

[Cammie]

I'm just trying to get my head around how 1% owning 40% of wealth is not a problem for people.  How much wealth would the 1% have to control for it to be a problem?  50%? 70%? 90%? 

 

I have to believe there is some magic number that would make just about everyone uncomfortable with the wealth distribution patterns.  

 

Or is it that those people at the 1% are always going to be perceived as deserving and hard working and morally entitled to that inequity...no matter what they had to do to tip the scales to make sure they got what they wanted and kept it?  And the rest of the country is going to be perceived as too lazy to take advantage of the American dream, or too willing to do nothing?

 

This is, I would argue, is a result of the vision we have of America and the "Protestant work ethic."  We (as a nation) believe that the rich are rich because they work harder, are morally entitled to the wealth.  The fact that the 1% has been manipulating the playing field for years to make sure they get and hold on to the wealth is something we don't want to accept.  One article I cited above stated that in the first years of economic recovery all most ALL of the gain went to the top 1%.  Do people think this is by accident?

 

 

[SKL]

There is also no reason to exalt the whole group.

 

I'm not exalting, I'm responding to the constant attacks against successful people, who are essentially being blamed for the fact that poor people also exist.

 

In general, rich people are similar to everyone else.  But those who are upwardly mobile have done something right, as a group, to get that way.

 

If people didn't always start in on how selfish, unfair, stingy or corrupt well-off people are, I wouldn't need to say anything in their defense.

[SKL]

I'm just trying to get my head around how 1% owning 40% of wealth is not a problem for people.  How much wealth would the 1% have to control for it to be a problem?  50%? 70%? 90%? 

 

I have to believe there is some magic number that would make just about everyone uncomfortable with the wealth distribution patterns.  

 

Or is it that those people at the 1% are always going to be perceived as deserving and hard working and morally entitled to that inequity...no matter what they had to do to tip the scales to make sure they got what they wanted and kept it?  And the rest of the country is going to be perceived as too lazy to take advantage of the American dream, or too willing to do nothing, or too lazy?

 

This is, I would argue, is a result of the vision we have of America and the "Protestant work ethic."  We (as a nation) believe that the rich are rich because they work harder, are morally entitled to the wealth.  The fact that the 1% has been manipulating the playing field for years to make sure they get and hold on to the wealth is something we don't want to accept.  One article I cited above stated that in the first years of economic recovery all most ALL of the gain went to the top 1%.  Do people think this is by accident?

 

I really don't see it as a problem.  If someone can explain exactly why 1% owning 40% of the wealth is a problem in a prosperous country, then go for it.

[SKL]

I disagree that almost all the gain went to the wealthy.  Lifestyles have improved.  People don't recognize this because expectations have also increased.  For example, look at the average size of a single family house.  It has increased a lot, and yet most people don't seem to realize that.  Similar comment for family cars, electronics, appliances, level of education attained, savings, medical interventions, and many other things.

[Pawz4me]

I'm just trying to get my head around how 1% owning 40% of wealth is not a problem for people.  How much wealth would the 1% have to control for it to be a problem?  50%? 70%? 90%? 

 

I have to believe there is some magic number that would make just about everyone uncomfortable with the wealth distribution patterns.  

 

Or is it that those people at the 1% are always going to be perceived as deserving and hard working and morally entitled to that inequity...no matter what they had to do to tip the scales to make sure they got what they wanted and kept it?  And the rest of the country is going to be perceived as too lazy to take advantage of the American dream, or too willing to do nothing, or too lazy?

 

This is, I would argue, is a result of the vision we have of America and the "Protestant work ethic."  We (as a nation) believe that the rich are rich because they work harder, are morally entitled to the wealth.  The fact that the 1% has been manipulating the playing field for years to make sure they get and hold on to the wealth is something we don't want to accept.  One article I cited above stated that in the first years of economic recovery all most ALL of the gain went to the top 1%.  Do people think this is by accident?

 

I totally agree with you.

 

And FWIW we're a lot closer to rich than poor.  Not one percenters, but we're very comfortable.  A lot of the manipulations that have been done over the years to benefit the very rich are helping us, too.  A lot.  You'd have to be almost willfully blind to not "see" it.  There's something very wrong and scary with the wealth distribution in this country.  It can't continue going the way it has been for the past few decades.

 

[Scarlett]

I really don't see it as a problem. If someone can explain exactly why 1% owning 40% of the wealth is a problem in a prosperous country, then go for it.

My stomach literally lurched as I read your post.

 

I have l no ill will toward anyone in that 1%. If I knew any of them personally I might.....but I can't judge them based on their wealth.

 

But I find it disturbing that people, any people, are ok with that sort of distribution.

[Cammie]

  But those who are upwardly mobile have done something right, as a group, to get that way.

 

 

Yup, born into the right family, for the most part,  In the right part of the country, with the right skin color, and the right private schools, and the right colleges, where they made the right contacts, married into the right families and were able to pursue the right professions.  I'm not saying there are not a few self-made individuals in the top 1% but my experience is that they are few and far between.

[FaithManor]

SKL, the problem is that money rules politics. Votes are bought. Thus the non-wealthy are not represented in the political process due to the fact that 1% controls so much wealth. My $10.00 contribution to a politician does not buy me political access. Donald Trump's million dollar donation does. When this much wealth is controlled by so few, the government becomes controlled by that flow of dollars and not by care for the citizenry.

 

So, the "peasants" can only expect more and more legislation to go against them because they have no clout, and as they become more and more like the serfs of old who had no say in their lives whatsoever, the situation worsens. A true republic/democracy can only survive when there are limits on the aristocracy's access to political clout. We are at a dangerous precipice because the political access of the masses is waning rapidly as the aristocracy takes over Washington as well as our state houses.

 

If you think Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or the Walton family cares two hoots about your well being, you are sorely mistaken. When in history as the aristocracy ever cared for the serfs that make them rich unless forced by law and/or bloodshed to do so?

 

It's vital that a thriving middle class survive as the bulk of households in order to check the power of the aristocracy, but our middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. Everyone should care very, very deeply about this issue. There is nothing wrong with being rich. It's not immoral. But history has proven time and again that when this much wealth is concentrated in the hands of so very few, the corruption of the governing bodies becomes staggering, and the rights of the general public, the non-rich, diminishes greatly. Let history be our teacher in this matter.

[SKL]

Roughly 2/3 of Americans own their own homes, including 29% "free and clear."  http://statisticbrain.com/percent-of-americans-who-own-their-home/

 

This in line with other developed countries.  And our houses tend to be way bigger.

 

There was a reduction in homeownership in recent years, because we had an economic crisis.  A lot of that was because of people buying too much house on credit.

 

What is the wealth being hoarded by the 1%?  I'm guessing the majority of it is businesses, though some of it is real estate that is leased to the 1/3 who don't own homes.  So people put their money into building a business, which is not without considerable effort and risk, creating jobs for those who aren't business owners, and that is a reason to be hateful or angry?

[SKL]

SKL, the problem is that money rules politics. Votes are bought. Thus the non-wealthy are not represented in the political process due to the fact that 1% controls so much wealth. My $10.00 contribution to a politician does not buy me political access. Donald Trump's million dollar donation does. When this much wealth is controlled by so few, the government becomes controlled by that flow of dollars and not by care for the citizenry.

 

So, the "peasants" can only expect more and more legislation to go against them because they have no clout, and as they become more and more like the serfs of old who had no say in their lives whatsoever, the situation worsens. A true republic/democracy can only survive when there are limits on the aristocracy's access to political clout. We are at a dangerous precipice because the political access of the masses is waning rapidly as the aristocracy takes over Washington as well as our state houses.

 

If you think Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or the Walton family cares two hoots about your well being, you are sorely mistaken. When in history as the aristocracy ever cared for the serfs that make them rich unless forced by law and/or bloodshed to do so?

 

It's vital that a thriving middle class survive as the bulk of households in order to check the power of the aristocracy, but our middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. Everyone should care very, very deeply about this issue. There is nothing wrong with being rich. It's not immoral. But history has proven time and again that when this much wealth is concentrated in the hands of so very few, the corruption of the governing bodies becomes staggering, and the rights of the general public, the non-rich, diminishes greatly. Let history be our teacher in this matter.

 

I absolutely disagree that history proves that only the wealthy have a political voice in the USA.  I would also point out that wealthy people don't all lean one way.  For every wealthy conservative there is a wealthy liberal donating money to the liberal campaigns.

 

[SKL]

If our middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate (and I don't agree that it is), it's because we are re-defining what "middle class" means.

[Cammie]

Figure 1: Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S. in 2010

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 3 and Figure 2 for the details.

 

Really great paper on income distribution in the US - http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html by a UC Santa Cruz Sociology Professor.

[Serenade]

I disagree that almost all the gain went to the wealthy.  Lifestyles have improved.  People don't recognize this because expectations have also increased.  For example, look at the average size of a single family house.  It has increased a lot, and yet most people don't seem to realize that.  Similar comment for family cars, electronics, appliances, level of education attained, savings, medical interventions, and many other things.

 

This is a very good point.  

 

Also today many things are considered needs that in the past were only wants.

[SKL]

Figure 1: Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S. in 2010

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 3 and Figure 2 for the details.

 

Really great paper on income distribution in the US - http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html by a UC Santa Cruz Sociology Professor.

 

I don't deny that rich people control most income-producing assets.  I do deny that this is a huge crisis.

 

In what prosperous country are the majority of income-producing assets owned and controlled by the middle class or poor?

[Runningmom80]

What the current 1% looks like...

 

whoa.

[Pawz4me]

SKL, the problem is that money rules politics. Votes are bought. Thus the non-wealthy are not represented in the political process due to the fact that 1% controls so much wealth. My $10.00 contribution to a politician does not buy me political access. Donald Trump's million dollar donation does. When this much wealth is controlled by so few, the government becomes controlled by that flow of dollars and not by care for the citizenry.

 

So, the "peasants" can only expect more and more legislation to go against them because they have no clout, and as they become more and more like the serfs of old who had no say in their lives whatsoever, the situation worsens. A true republic/democracy can only survive when there are limits on the aristocracy's access to political clout. We are at a dangerous precipice because the political access of the masses is waning rapidly as the aristocracy takes over Washington as well as our state houses.

 

If you think Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or the Walton family cares two hoots about your well being, you are sorely mistaken. When in history as the aristocracy ever cared for the serfs that make them rich unless forced by law and/or bloodshed to do so?

 

It's vital that a thriving middle class survive as the bulk of households in order to check the power of the aristocracy, but our middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. Everyone should care very, very deeply about this issue. There is nothing wrong with being rich. It's not immoral. But history has proven time and again that when this much wealth is concentrated in the hands of so very few, the corruption of the governing bodies becomes staggering, and the rights of the general public, the non-rich, diminishes greatly. Let history be our teacher in this matter.

 

Well said, particularly about viewing our current situation through the lens of history.  Having so much wealth in the hands of so relatively few has never, ever been a good thing for a country.

 

But I'm a little more pessimistic than you -- I think we passed over the precipice from a republic/democracy to an oligarchy quite a while ago.

[Tsuga]

What's the catch? Are the neighborhoods super-scary, or are the property taxes ridiculously high?

 

(I'm not being snarky -- I am really wondering! :))

 

I think the catch is the schools. If you're homeschooling, you don't have to worry as much about it. That said, a school's average is just that: an average. It doesn't prescribe an outcome for your own kid.

 

We are in a higher-income school district. When my kids act out and when other kids act out they are treated as children, not criminals.

 

That said I do think that many schools in Seattle take this approach.

 

But I also want to say that living in a fixer-upper is expensive! If we could just do that without incurring huge maintenance costs we'd do it!

 

 

 

If our middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate (and I don't agree that it is), it's because we are re-defining what "middle class" means.

 

I don't think so. Just looking at my family, my partner's family, and most families I know, the grandparents did not have college degrees. While serving in the military as enlisted men, or working a union machinist's job, they were able to support a family of 3+ on one salary without accessing any social programs.

 

When my ex-h was in the military at the highest enlisted rank, we qualified for food aid, even with my making a bit of money on the side. Sergeants also qualified for food aid in some circumstances, and not 4+ kids, either.

 

My grandpa today would be totally lost.

 

To me, middle class is something that is accessible to someone of average income, average effort, and which gives you a chance at some basic things:

 

A salary that allows you to:

• put down on a 30-year-mortgage or build a house
• Buy food for your family of 4 including real meat once or twice a week
• Take one or two weeks off work to drive to a neighboring state and stay with family, or camp
• Save a bit and pay for your kids to go to CC and then a state college
• Retire with something more than social security
• If you both have to work to get to this, then the salaries must allow these as well as day care, at least subsidized daycare.

But in my experience, the people who are able to do this (and they don't have cable, don't go to Mexico) have combined salaries of at LEAST $80,000, usually more. They have to have college degrees, but only 40% of the population has a degree.

 

The average jill who graduates high school and goes to work in a hair salon used to be middle-class. Middle intelligence, middle effort, but can make her way with hard work, not to get rich but to be able to live without qualifying for benefits.

 

That is not the case. $55k is pretty much the bare minimum in most cities to live without subsidies.

 

You mentioned mixed-income housing. I think a lot of Americans would like to think that working full time meant they could pay their own way and weren't taking government programs for their housing, which can be taken away on a political whim. People don't want handouts.

[Cammie]

.

In what prosperous country are the majority of income-producing assets owned and controlled by the middle class or poor?

 

Since you asked... this list give a good indication in how other countries are less skewed in favor of the 1% at least when it comes to income distribution.

 

 

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 5 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.

Table 8: Income equality in selected countries

Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient

1.  Sweden 23.0

2.  Norway 25.0

8.  Austria 26.0

10.  Germany 27.0

17.  Denmark 29.0

25.  Australia 30.5

34.  Italy 32.0

35.  Canada 32.1

37.  France 32.7

42.  Switzerland 33.7

43.  United Kingdom 34.0

45.  Egypt 34.4

56.  India 36.8

61.  Japan 38.1

68.  Israel 39.2

81.  China 41.5

82.  Russia 42.3

90.  Iran 44.5

93.  United States 45.0

107.  Mexico 48.2

125.  Brazil 56.7

133.  South Africa 65.0

Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.

 

Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).

 

[3in9th]

 

Since you asked... this list give a good indication in how other countries are less skewed in favor of the 1% at least when it comes to income distribution.

 

 

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 5 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.

Table 8: Income equality in selected countries

Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient

1.  Sweden 23.0

2.  Norway 25.0

8.  Austria 26.0

10.  Germany 27.0

17.  Denmark 29.0

25.  Australia 30.5

34.  Italy 32.0

35.  Canada 32.1

37.  France 32.7

42.  Switzerland 33.7

43.  United Kingdom 34.0

45.  Egypt 34.4

56.  India 36.8

61.  Japan 38.1

68.  Israel 39.2

81.  China 41.5

82.  Russia 42.3

90.  Iran 44.5

93.  United States 45.0

107.  Mexico 48.2

125.  Brazil 56.7

133.  South Africa 65.0

Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.

 

Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).

 

 

I don't know if it's worth it to continuing to provide evidence for SKL.

 

 

[KrissiK]

I found this article .... Interesting. "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, don't hate me because I'm rich!" I think the author of this article is grading wealth on a curve and using an very small sample. My friend's son was pre-med at a UC school. One of his classes was graded on a strict curve. Which means that he could have a 95% average in the class and still be pulling a C as a grade. Does that mean he's not a smart kid? No, it just means that there are people who are smarter/harder working/better test takers than he is within the microcosm of the "very smart". Same thing with wealth. If you took a bunch of millionaires and sorted them on a bell shaped curve, you could see the "middle class" and the "poor" within that group. I think the author needs to spend a year or two volunteering at an orphanage in Haiti and then re-read the article. He needs a change in perspective.

[Arcadia]

I think the author needs to spend a year or two volunteering at an orphanage in Haiti and then re-read the article. He needs a change in perspective.

She just need to look at her own backyard. There are lower income people in Palo Alto. A mobile home park is in the process of being sold there.

 

"PALO ALTO -- They're the clerks and cooks and janitors of an upscale enclave, a city that they could never afford to move to now, and they want to stay."

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_27406422/palo-alto-supervisors-put-8-million-pot-save

[SKL]

 

Since you asked... this list give a good indication in how other countries are less skewed in favor of the 1% at least when it comes to income distribution.

 

 

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 5 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.

Table 8: Income equality in selected countries

Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient

1.  Sweden 23.0

2.  Norway 25.0

8.  Austria 26.0

10.  Germany 27.0

17.  Denmark 29.0

25.  Australia 30.5

34.  Italy 32.0

35.  Canada 32.1

37.  France 32.7

42.  Switzerland 33.7

43.  United Kingdom 34.0

45.  Egypt 34.4

56.  India 36.8

61.  Japan 38.1

68.  Israel 39.2

81.  China 41.5

82.  Russia 42.3

90.  Iran 44.5

93.  United States 45.0

107.  Mexico 48.2

125.  Brazil 56.7

133.  South Africa 65.0

Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.

 

Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).

 

 

You keep switching between income and wealth.  They are not the same thing.

 

But again, if our rich people are way richer than the rich people in some other countries, so what?

 

I mean, you can't get much poorer than 0 income, so if the gap widens, it means rich people getting richer, not poor people getting poorer.

 

I feel we focus way too much on relative wealth instead of making sure everyone's basic needs are met.

 

There are lots of countries on your list where low-income people are not getting their basic needs met, certainly not to the extent they would be in the USA.

[LucyStoner]

You mentioned mixed-income housing. I think a lot of Americans would like to think that working full time meant they could pay their own way and weren't taking government programs for their housing, which can be taken away on a political whim. People don't want handouts.

Mixed income housing need not be structured as a handout. Washington state has an amazing array of housing options that are not directly subsidized but are made possible by partnerships between non-profits, the state and developers. Yes, the developers recieve an incentive of tax breaks but the entire community benefits from people being able to afford to live close to where they work. But these options are out of the hands of maintaining budget expenditures for direct subsidies and get good projects built that would otherwise never break ground.

 

http://www.wshfc.org

 

Another interesting option is non-profit land trusts for families to band together with others and take the escalating cost of land partially out of the equation for their home purchase.

 

http://www.homesteadclt.org

 

The idea that innovations like these are nothing but hand outs and that people shouldn't need help ever is an aging notion of charity and applies negative connotations to a positive thing- people of all backgrounds coming together to find a public solution for a public problem.

[SKL]

You mentioned mixed-income housing. I think a lot of Americans would like to think that working full time meant they could pay their own way and weren't taking government programs for their housing, which can be taken away on a political whim. People don't want handouts.

 

So explain me why we judge the following two scenarios differently:

 

1. Rich business owner is taxed and tax money is used to pay for housing subsidies.
2. Rich business owner is forced to pay a higher wage so employees can afford housing.

For what it's worth, I think the way we manage housing subsidies sucks.  But a transfer of wealth is a transfer of wealth, whether it's via tax/subsidy or via legally enforced wage hikes.

 

Now some would say that lower taxes would lead to more families being able to afford unsubsidized housing.  Others say lower taxes would never trickle down to benefit the little guy.  Age-old debate.  The fact remains that 2/3 of Americans are homeowners, and probably a fair number of others (younger workers, students) are working toward that goal.

[SKL]

Mixed income housing need not be structured as a handout. Washington state has an amazing array of housing options that are not directly subsidized but are made possible by partnerships between non-profits, the state and developers. Yes, the developers recieve an incentive of tax breaks but the entire community benefits from people being able to afford to live close to where they work. But these options are out of the hands of maintaining budget expenditures for direct subsidies and get good projects built that would otherwise never break ground.

 

http://www.wshfc.org

 

Another interesting option is non-profit land trusts for families to band together with others and take the escalating cost of land partially out of the equation for their home purchase.

 

http://www.homesteadclt.org

 

The idea that innovations like these are nothing but hand outs and that people shouldn't need help ever is an aging notion of charity and applies negative connotations to a positive thing- people of all backgrounds coming together to find a public solution for a public problem.

 

I agree.  Certain tax credits are resulting in a great deal of sustainable, responsible economic improvement in low-income communities.

[LucyStoner]

I agree. Certain tax credits are resulting in a great deal of sustainable, responsible economic improvement in low-income communities.

In HCOL areas, the impacted communities aren't even always traditionally considered low income.

 

WSHFC homebuyers can earn up to $97k

 

WSHFC financed and credited rentals are available in lots of areas, low income and not.

 

That said, not all states have these types of options and it definitely shows.