Video about wealth inequality

[PineFarmMom]

Can your provide evidence other than vague anecdotes that "red tape" is what is stifling small business growth?

 

I am also curious as to what "red tape" was so harmful to a two employee business.

Why would personal experience not count? Red tape is not the only issue but it is one.

 

The red tape for him was the mounds of required

Paperwork he had to file that required so much of his time for a small business. It was a venture that he learned quickly was not worth the time investment.

[PineFarmMom]

Given your profession, I think you know wealth is not measured by how many cell phones, computers, or other stuff someone has. Unless you really believe most Americans have too many stocks, bonds, real estate and business investments, savings, etc, you can't argue they have too much of the kind of "stuff" the graph is portraying.

Disagree

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why would personal experience not count? Red tape is not the only issue but it is one.

 

The red tape for him was the mounds of required

Paperwork he had to file that required so much of his time for a small business. It was a venture that he learned quickly was not worth the time investment.

 

Having run a small business myself with a few employees, I am at a loss to figure out what constituted the "mounds" of paperwork.

 

And no, vague comments about "red tape" killing small business doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[Carrie12345]

I often hear people say those jobs are just for high school kids and such, just after school jobs. So how come they are open all freaking day? Seems they are actually full time jobs for people after all. 

 

Agreed.

 

When I worked a food service job in high school, I worked just as hard as the adult employees, just as fast, just as (inherently) risky, and got just as gross and smelly.  My basic work was comparable.  

 

My flexibility and experience, otoh, was not comparable.  They could and did work longer hours.  They could take more management responsibilities.  They didn't get paid anywhere near *enough* more than me in the long run, but I don't know how it could be said that they weren't NEEDED in full-time positions.  What high school student can manage the lunch shift?  How many elderly people (who shouldn't be forced to work anyway, imo) can handle the 3pm to midnight service?  "Normal", full-time adults are needed in the fast food industry.

[ktgrok]

Jeez-Louise. This subject is not about " having too much stuff ". Seriously, is your extent of understanding, or are you just out raise hackles? Wealth inequality, wealth ownership, etc is worlds away from the topic of Buying Stuff.

 

Not to mention, it's not like the 1% don't buy stuff. I'm guessing she didn't watch the video anyway. 

[idnib]

Right, but why would a CEO or Wall Street Banker be valued more now than 40 years ago? Especially, why would one be valued 100 times MORE than they were valued in the 50s? Not a bit more, not twice as much, but exponentially more. I'm not saying CEOs should make as much as a factory worker. But the fact that the wealth gap between those two has increased at an almost incomprehensible rate is what we are talking bout. 

 

They wouldn't. I'm not arguing that CEOs are much more valuable now, I'm arguing that we must include value as a measure. Tsuga was using a very linear example which only included IQ and the number of hours worked. If a movie studio pays Leonardo DiCaprio $20 million to be in a movie, of course he's not doing $20 million worth of acting. He's bringing $20 million of value, meaning the movie studio will make $100 million because he is in it. It's not a function of how many hours he has worked or his IQ.

 

I think it is impossible, outside of a living wage and some benefits, to tell people what someone's work is worth, because of the added value factor. It's the elephant in the room, and that's why I mentioned it. Making this discussion all about CEOs is very limiting; many wealthy people are not CEOs of anything. Beyond a certain baseline of (hopefully) a living wage, the government can tax earnings, it can control what is tax-exempt or what is not, it can close loopholes and work with foreign nations used as tax dodges, but it cannot dictate that a movie studio should only find DiCaprio worth $100,000 based on hours worked instead of $20 million. 

 

CEOs might be a bit different, as they are actually in charge of a company, unlike DiCaprio, and I suppose it would be possible to say they can only earn a multiple of their lowest-paid employee, but that doesn't really address all of the people in the video who are in the .1% who are not CEOs. And many of them are not. Most are probably investors and people who inherited money but are not the CEOs of their company. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by idnib

[Bluegoat]

Can your provide evidence other than vague anecdotes that "red tape" is what is stifling small business growth?

 

I am also curious as to what "red tape" was so harmful to a two employee business.

 

I can give an example.

 

Where I live, people who have under 200 chickens have been considered small egg producers - they don't have to satisfy the same regulatory requirements as someone with barns of several thousand.  Recently there has been a push by the egg board to insist on the small producers having certain bio-security measures in place.  Of course many cannot afford this - the effect will be to push many of them out of business.

 

This might be reasonable if we knew that these measures are in fact necessary for safety, however all the studies actually suggest that small flocks don't have the same risks as the larger ones, so the measures being proposed are in fact inappropriate. 

[ktgrok]

I can give an example.

 

Where I live, people who have under 200 chickens have been considered small egg producers - they don't have to satisfy the same regulatory requirements as someone with barns of several thousand.  Recently there has been a push by the egg board to insist on the small producers having certain bio-security measures in place.  Of course many cannot afford this - the effect will be to push many of them out of business.

 

This might be reasonable if we knew that these measures are in fact necessary for safety, however all the studies actually suggest that small flocks don't have the same risks as the larger ones, so the measures being proposed are in fact inappropriate. 

 

And who do you think is really behind this push? Random big government proponents, or large egg producers who don't want the competition? My bet is the latter. Another example of how wealth can protect itself, but shutting down the competition.  I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised. 

[SKL]

The argument that workers today are getting paid less relatively than in the past - I don't really think so.  I think the so-called "cost of living" has increased largely because people think they need more.  Look how much bigger the average American home is compared to past generations when things were supposedly so much better.  (Especially if you compare square feet per person.)  And how many cars and other big and small toys people "need to have."  Nobody's comparing apples to apples when they talk about trends in so-called "living wages."

[SKL]

Yes, more income and wealth provide more power, over our own lives as well as influence over others' lives.

 

However, most successful people are also decent people who use that influence for good.  Take that away and what do you think will be left?

[SKL]

Not to mention, it's not like the 1% don't buy stuff. I'm guessing she didn't watch the video anyway. 

 

FYI I did watch the video.

 

[SKL]

Focusing on your own solution does not address the problem of the entire system being increasingly "stacked" in favor of the already wealthy.  The only thing that will change that is more people asking "Why?"  

 

I disagree.  Focusing on things you can't personally fix, while being talked into the idea that your own situation is hopelessly out of your control, is a recipe for micro and macro failure.

 

It is very possible to discuss how things could be better for the "little guy" without comparing people to each other.  Many people at all wealth levels have managed to do this.

[EmseB]

Because it all comes down to money.  If a business has enough customers, it has enough money to deal with paying someone to deal with red tape.  That would be part of the cost of doing business.

 

This is true except when it comes to opening a business on the up-and-up.  Some people never get a chance to even try to secure customers because the cost of permits run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

[HomeAgain]

The argument that workers today are getting paid less relatively than in the past - I don't really think so.  I think the so-called "cost of living" has increased largely because people think they need more.  Look how much bigger the average American home is compared to past generations when things were supposedly so much better.  (Especially if you compare square feet per person.)  And how many cars and other big and small toys people "need to have."  Nobody's comparing apples to apples when they talk about trends in so-called "living wages."

 

 

I think this chart explains a lot.  They show minimum wage at what it was and what it would be in 1996 dollars.  You can see the decline for yourself. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

 

[Carrie12345]

The argument that workers today are getting paid less relatively than in the past - I don't really think so.  I think the so-called "cost of living" has increased largely because people think they need more.  Look how much bigger the average American home is compared to past generations when things were supposedly so much better.  (Especially if you compare square feet per person.)  And how many cars and other big and small toys people "need to have."  Nobody's comparing apples to apples when they talk about trends in so-called "living wages."

 

That is so not true.  You can Google and do the math yourself if you cared to.  The little apartment we rented was $962 in 2002.  It was up to about 1100 in 2005. Today, it goes for $2100/mo.

 

The numbers are out there, and they're way more meaningful than gut feelings.

[EmseB]

And who do you think is really behind this push? Random big government proponents, or large egg producers who don't want the competition? My bet is the latter. Another example of how wealth can protect itself, but shutting down the competition.  I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised. 

 

It's a combination of both forces working together.  Large businesses want barriers to entry and less competition.  They secure this with legislation, which is often sold to the public as for their own safety.  When you look at people proposing large-scale regulations for a certain industry, it is almost a given that, contrary to intuition, the largest companies in those industries are on board with the legislation.  They already have full time lawyers and consultants, and hiring a couple more won't hurt their bottom line.

 

In some cases, it does make people safer, but it's often at the expense of preventing competition because only large businesses can afford to comply with new regulations that new entrepreneurs cannot.

 

Then add in that when a business gets "too big to fail" the government will buy them out of a jam, and you never have any of those large businesses fail, which is what would actually create a vacuum where smaller entrepreneurs could enter in.

 

And we also are told that's all for our own good because if the bubble really burst it would be so bad for all of us that we'd never survive.  So the big banks and companies get to keep on doing what they did in the first place that caused the mess and pretend to be sorry and pretend that they are hurting, but really, they've allied with the same officials who are scolding them on T.V. about being irresponsible.

 

Think about it this way:  almost everything people did during the Great Depression to survive and make ends meet is now illegal in the U.S. without thousands of dollars in permits and/or safety inspections.  EVERYTHING.  We actively discourage people to innovate or create or sell on a small scale and then complain about the fat cats in agriculture, or children's toy companies, or even banking out of fear of something bad happening to us that the government must fix.  So they do.  And all those large companies LOVE it because it means they don't have to compete, they can continue getting larger and taking over more and more of the market share and accumulating more and more wealth.  At the expense of the middle class.

 

/soapbox

[goldberry]

I disagree.  Focusing on things you can't personally fix, while being talked into the idea that your own situation is hopelessly out of your control, is a recipe for micro and macro failure.

 

 

 

So... the *reason* I can't personally fix some of these things doesn't matter? The fact that politicians that are supposed to represent everyone are being paid off to only represent the wealthy doesn't matter?  I think it does matter. 

 

I think the idea that my voice has as much influence as the voice of the very wealthy (when money has been redefined as free speech) is ridiculously naive.  To ignore the dysfunction of the system is what those who are working the system want. They are the ones suggesting that hey, even though we have rigged the system in our favor, you just keep working hard enough and keep your head down, maybe you'll make it.   Just don't interfere with the way we have rigged things for our benefit.

[SKL]

I think this chart explains a lot.  They show minimum wage at what it was and what it would be in 1996 dollars.  You can see the decline for yourself. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

 

 

Keep in mind that employer-provided benefits and other costs of employing people have increased over the years.  Also, individual income taxes at lower income levels have decreased.  Meanwhile the minimum wage per your chart has fluctuated up and down, but not to the extent implied by all the outrage.

 

When recession hits, it is naturally going to hit people at all income levels.

 

Most people don't earn "minimum wage" for very long anyway.

[SKL]

Ya know, Queen Elizabeth and J.K. Rowling and Bill Gates and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton etc. have a lot more than I have.  I think I will go beat my head against the wall because gosh that gets under my skin and I can't do anything about it.  I will spend some time every day stewing about this and thank everyone who reminds me so I can stew some more.  This will greatly enhance my quality of life while magically improving my personal balance sheet.  I will also teach these valuable skills to my children.  And one of these days, Queen Elizabeth etc. will send me a personal handwritten letter apologizing for the shameful fact of their wealth.  I just know it.

[Pam in CT]

Re "arguments" vs. "data"

The argument that workers today are getting paid less relatively than in the past - I don't really think so.  I think the so-called "cost of living" has increased largely because people think they need more.  Look how much bigger the average American home is compared to past generations when things were supposedly so much better.  (Especially if you compare square feet per person.)  And how many cars and other big and small toys people "need to have."  Nobody's comparing apples to apples when they talk about trends in so-called "living wages."

 

It really isn't a matter of argument.  It's data.  

 

There's a lot of data, and different people can and should focus on the precise strengths and drawbacks of particular measures.  I take idnib's point that CEO salaries are just one piece of a bigger 1% picture that also includes sports figures, actors, hedge fund managers.  I take your point that minimum wage levels are not the only meaningful measure.  Different analysts have argued for/against focusing on wealth vs income.  Different analysts focus on the CEO/average company worker index (income), the Gini coefficient (also income but for the population as a whole), poverty rates, measures that look instead of income on consumption patterns, measures that look at different types of assets.

 

All reasonable issues.  Also reasonable to look at a range of sources of underlying data.  Here is the Economic Policy Institute slicing and dicing CBO wage data back to 1980.  Here is Scientific American summarizing a Harvard Business School survey, similar to that in the OP but looking at income distribution rather than wealth over about the same interval (the underlying study is linked if you care to look).  Here is a nice Pew Forum article that looks at several different measures and explains the differences between them.  Here is Census Bureau data that mostly focuses (at least longitudinally; there is a bit on inequality but it doesn't go back for a chronological perspective) at poverty rates.  There are more data sets - OECD, World Bank, CIA, go for it.

 

Economics Nobel prize winner Angus Deaton recently wrote a #Brilliant book on income inequality, and in its preface he wrote about measurement: how much it matters, how little we can say without it, and how important it is to get it right.  

 

So if your issue really is data and definitions and measurements, go for it -- dig in and find a data set and a set of measurement you can get behind.  There's a whole lot out there on the subject.  

 

Or, if on principle income inequality is just not something you care about, carry on.  Different people care about different things.  That's cool.  Rock on.

 

 

But vast and increasing income inequality is not an argument, or a feeling, or a state of mind.  It is a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA to add Pew link.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Pam in CT

[StephanieZ]

The sadly shocking thing to me is the vast majority of people I know who are actually in that bottom quintile . . . net worth under 10k . . . family income under 30k . . . and eagerly vote for Republicans. 

[Ausmumof3]

This shows a different view.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/05/how-much-do-the-ultra-rich-give-to-charity.html

Is it really charity if you supply the bandage to fix the wound you created? There are those who do good work no doubt, but it can't make up for underlying systemic problems.

[idnib]

I think it would be a mistake to move this thread into an overtly (parties, candidates) direction. Of course it is political, but it's such a good discussion I'd hate for it to get locked. Maybe people could edit a bit?

 

From the site's Terms of Use:

 

 

 

• Discusses politics. This refers to Posts that discuss the policies and politicians of the Democratic, Republican, libertarian, Tea Party, or other political parties. There are plenty of places on the Internet to discuss politics. This is not one of them.

 

[goldberry]

However, most successful people are also decent people who use that influence for good.  

 

I don't consider it using influence for good to negotiate for *your own business* to have to pay essentially no taxes, but smaller businesses still get stuck.  Or, to pay yourself 20 gazillion dollars a year and fly in the company jet, but manage to not be able to pay your employees enough to survive.  Or, to make all your employees part time so you don't have to provide health care, so you can get that big bonus you were promised.  

 

When companies hire lobbyists to wine and dine politicians, and donate unrestrained amounts of money to those politicians, are they really doing that for someone else's advantage?  Or for the general good?  When has that ever happened?

 

You may know many wealthy people that are very charitable and that's awesome.  Individual wealthy people are not usually the problem (with a few exceptions of course.)   It's the massive corporations that control and monopolize both the politicians and our country.  And yet... who are those corporations run by?   Someone is making those decisions.

[Guest]

The sadly shocking thing to me is the vast majority of people I know who are actually in that bottom quintile . . . net worth under 10k . . . family income under 30k . . . and eagerly vote for Republicans.

You do realize that there is more the one's political worldview than who hands out the most goodies, right? Basically you're saying that the dems should be a shoe in because they can buy the votes of poor people and those who don't buy in must be too ignorant to realize how important those wealth incentives and social safety net are compared to other values they hold that make them vote that way.

 

Disgusting.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[StephanieZ]

You do realize that there is more the one's political worldview than who hands out the most goodies, right? Basically you're saying that the dems should be a shoe in because they can buy the votes of poor people and those who don't buy in must be too ignorant to realize how important those wealth incentives and social safety net are compared to other values they hold that make them vote that way.

 

Disgusting.

 

Nope, what disgusts me is the very poor people I know who erroneously think that the ACA hurt them personally. They think, because they've heard it so often on TV, that the democrats take away jobs and raised their taxes and took away their health care. In fact, the opposite is true. What is disgusting is the very poor people who are, in our state, eligible for FREE healthcare via our state's Medicaid expansion, but who just don't understand that they are eligible for free health care BECAUSE of the ACA. They are uniformed and suffer because of it. They don't realize that the unemployment insurance they relied on would have been gutted if not for the (then, not now) democratically controlled WV government . . . They are simply misinformed and have been suckered in by richer, smarter, manipulative politicians who are working in their own self-interest by gutting labor protections, shifting taxes to the poorer people and away from the wealthy and business sector, etc. 

 

I'm in the top tax bracket, and I vote against my immediate financial self-interest every election by choosing to vote for "big government" Democrats who have the nerve to advocate for a society where we take care of the weaker among us instead of simply handing all the goodies to me and my economic peers. Thanks, but I'd rather live in more just more equal world. I don't for a minute believe that people should vote in their personal economic self interest.

 

What disgusts me is the lying and manipulating that goes on politically. If people understand what they are voting for, more power to you, that's what it's all about.

 

What I hear from some of the more blatant politicians is a constant stream of lies that tell poor and working class people that "Vote for me, and I'll get you a job, and I'll make you rich, like me!" It's pitiful and shallow. That is disgusting. 

 

What is right and good is people who are informed, thoughtful, and cast their vote according to what they believe is in the best interest of the greater good of all Americans and maybe even all the world. That's the way *I* cast my votes. For this to work, we have to have an "informed citizenry" which we don't have  . . . partially due to a weak education system and even more due to a horribly sick state of our journalism and a political class that seems to be devolving towards the lowest, crudest sort of self-aggrandizing self-serving idiocy that I can imagine. Honestly, this election cycle's Republican field is a farce.

 

ETA: The people I know personally and was/am talking about, here in WV, are not "conservative" right wingers voting Republican because of that conservative social agenda. Nope. I know plenty of people who are conservative socially and thus led to vote Republican sometimes. I get that. The issue I have are this entire other class -- the "poor whites" who are targeted by Trump, et.al. (What true social conservative would, in their worst nightmare, choose Trump!!??) These folks I'm talking about are ex-cons, drug-addicts, construction workers, high school drop outs, fast-food workers . . . who are socially perfectly accepting of gays, any religion, etc . . . (and generally completely confused by anti-gay or anti-Muslim stuff, as these 18-30 year olds are just too young to be bigots) . . . but they are poor, and they struggle, and they hear this rhetoric that the Republicans are going to help them. Just crazy, IMHO.

Edited February 18, 2016 by StephanieZ

[amy g.]

And this is why we can't have nice things.

[SKL]

Well, here's a question I was pondering.  Do you want to have wealth?  How much?  Why?  What would wealth do for you vs. spending your money on good insurance, great experiences, a good education for your kids?

 

When I was 19, I decided to change my educational course from an education degree to law / business.  The reason was that I felt I could make a bigger difference if I had the money to establish my own school vs. work for one in a relatively non-influential position.  My life path has gone all sorts of ways since then, but I've never desired wealth for the sake of wealth.  What I do have will probably go for my kids' education and to modestly launch them in life, because they won't qualify for aid.

 

A little wealth is nice for security, sure.  But beyond that, what is the point of accumulating, other than to make a difference that is bigger than oneself?  I think that is the dream of most of the wealth accumulators.  Can I prove it, no, any more than others can prove most of them are doing this just so they can force the government to help them steal from humble people.  But from what I've seen, that is how most wealthy people think.

 

There are always gonna be bad apples in every group.  There are corporate welfare queens and ghetto welfare queens.  Those outliers shouldn't be allowed to distort the overall picture.

[Guest]

Nope, what disgusts me is the very poor people I know who erroneously think that the ACA hurt them personally. They think, because they've heard it so often on TV, that the democrats take away jobs and raised their taxes and took away their health care. In fact, the opposite is true. What is disgusting is the very poor people who are, in our state, eligible for FREE healthcare via our state's Medicaid expansion, but who just don't understand that they are eligible for free health care BECAUSE of the ACA. They are uniformed and suffer because of it. They don't realize that the unemployment insurance they relied on would have been gutted if not for the (then, not now) democratically controlled WV government . . . They are simply misinformed and have been suckered in by richer, smarter, manipulative politicians who are working in their own self-interest by gutting labor protections, shifting taxes to the poorer people and away from the wealthy and business sector, etc.

 

I'm in the top tax bracket, and I vote against my immediate financial self-interest every election by choosing to vote for "big government" Democrats who have the nerve to advocate for a society where we take care of the weaker among us instead of simply handing all the goodies to me and my economic peers. Thanks, but I'd rather live in more just more equal world. I don't for a minute believe that people should vote in their personal economic self interest.

 

What disgusts me is the lying and manipulating that goes on politically. If people understand what they are voting for, more power to you, that's what it's all about.

 

What I hear from some of the more blatant politicians is a constant stream of lies that tell poor and working class people that "Vote for me, and I'll get you a job, and I'll make you rich, like me!" It's pitiful and shallow. That is disgusting.

 

What is right and good is people who are informed, thoughtful, and cast their vote according to what they believe is in the best interest of the greater good of all Americans and maybe even all the world. That's the way *I* cast my votes. For this to work, we have to have an "informed citizenry" which we don't have . . . partially due to a weak education system and even more due to a horribly sick state of our journalism and a political class that seems to be devolving towards the lowest, crudest sort of self-aggrandizing self-serving idiocy that I can imagine. Honestly, this election cycle's Republican field is a farce.

 

ETA: The people I know personally and was/am talking about, here in WV, are not "conservative" right wingers voting Republican because of that conservative social agenda. Nope. I know plenty of people who are conservative socially and thus led to vote Republican sometimes. I get that. The issue I have are this entire other class -- the "poor whites" who are targeted by Trump, et.al. (What true social conservative would, in their worst nightmare, choose Trump!!??) These folks I'm talking about are ex-cons, drug-addicts, construction workers, high school drop outs, fast-food workers . . . who are socially perfectly accepting of gays, any religion, etc . . . (and generally completely confused by anti-gay or anti-Muslim stuff, as these 18-30 year olds are just too young to be bigots) . . . but they are poor, and they struggle, and they hear this rhetoric that the Republicans are going to help them. Just crazy, IMHO.

So you're more well intentioned and pure because you believe in economic redistribution and certain social protections and those who disagree with you are either ignorant or evil? Seriously?

 

I'm impressed at your high view of those who are more poor and less educated than you. Really. They're obviously such sheeple they can't see through journalism or political pandering to *your* perspective. Because if they were better informed and less swayed by political rhetoric they'd definitely see how magnanimous your efforts on their behalves are. There surely couldn't be a fundamentally different view of the economy or sociopolitical realities at play. They're too *dumb* to think these things through.

 

I wish you could hear yourself, and not just your intentions. All politics aside it is stunningly condescending.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

And we want to deal with the video? The entire premise from the getgo is a farce - wealth is not distributed but assets and capital accumulated. Even the framing by Harvard as to how wealth in this country is divided and should be divided implies a finite pool and some equitable distribution.

 

The economic theory underlying this premise is faulty and ignores human economic behavior and self interest. All the chatter about having the wealth, how much of the wealth, etc, is framing things in terms of a national pot of gross production. For individuals, the more important factor is what is needed to survive and thrive, how they define those things for themselves, and how much their personal economic earning capabilities and realities stack up with those basic needs and aspired-to desires. Someone earning 80 million isn't inherently more or less virtuous than someone earning 80k, or 8k. Those earning less are not entitled by virtue of breathing to earning more, and their personal earnings are neither dictated by the wealth of others or set and limited by them. There is freedom of choice in work and vocation, earning power increases and decreases with various factors, and we have lower acceptable limits based on how much necessities cost to factor into the income equation, to protect the vulnerable from homelessness, starvation, or lack of basic medical care. Raising and lowering those limits has economic consequences and changes the economic behavior of the employee and employer. Some of those trade offs, like fewer jobs available per if the floor is higher, may be acceptable. Ceilings to income earning also has consequences and those may or may not be unacceptable. It is not some given fact of life that human flourishing is guaranteed so long as coerced 'equity' of some imagined asset pool is achieved.

 

So much more wrong with that video. Lots of good intentions and unintended consequences. Keynesian economics is not the only model by which the economy can be understood and taking for granted the assumed premises of this viewpoint is short sighted, to say the least. Models of understanding macroeconomics have strengths and weaknesses, all of them. This video and a whole lot of common journalistic discourse on the subject seems to take that worldview as fact rather than one of many ways to approach the data and distill solutions.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[StephanieZ]

So you're more well intentioned and pure because you believe in economic redistribution and certain social protections and those who disagree with you are either ignorant or evil? Seriously?

 

I'm impressed at your high view of those who are more poor and less educated than you. Really. They're obviously such sheeple they can't see through journalism or political pandering to *your* perspective. Because if they were better informed and less swayed by political rhetoric they'd definitely see how magnanimous your efforts on their behalves are. There surely couldn't be a fundamentally different view of the economy or sociopolitical realities at play. They're too *dumb* to think these things through.

 

I wish you could hear yourself, and not just your intentions. All politics aside it is stunningly condescending.

 

The people I am talking about are indeed ignorant, uneducated, and misled. One man was actually illiterate, truly couldn't read. I loved him. He died last summer, from his addiction. He was 30, loved his little daughter, worked his ass off, was in and out of jail and rehab, totally failed by his parents (no dad, shit for mom), the child welfare system (that didn't protect him), the educational system (that didn't educate him), the justice system  (that treated his addiction as a crime instead of a disease), the medical system (that lacked the follow on care to actually help him) . . . And, he died. Despite a few strangers trying to do right by him and despite his good heart and skillful hands.

 

He was one of those people I'm talking about. 

 

I talked to at least half a dozen guys like this in the last 2 years who worked on the construction crews on my house. I guarantee you that they are uneducated, often illiterate, and definitely not savvy enough to make good decisions for themselves or their country. I have no qualms about "condescending" to these folks on matters that require any depth of understanding of the nation or politics or economics. They are good human beings, but utterly ignorant about how the government works, how the economy works, world works, and how they could better survive in an economy that is designed to fuck them over.  These folks know *nothing* about credit scores, let alone big picture tax structures or economics. These folks use pay day lending, live paycheck to paycheck always, buy iPads for their toddlers when they don't own a single book . . . I helped sweet Jeremiah (the one who died) set up an iPad FOR HIS THREE YEAR OLD *twice* because the first one he bought got "lost" (stolen by an associate more likely). I had to set it up for him because he couldn't read, and he had no email address . . . And, no one he knew better (baby-momma', friends, etc) could help him either. So, I set it up for him and loaded it with free apps for his toddler. I cried that night. And I cried a lot more when I learned he'd died. 

 

The decisions our politicians make MATTER and KILL actual real human beings. Jeremiah would NOT be dead if our state's mental health system worked like it should, like it could, like we CAN afford. (Believe me, our state spent 10s-100s of thousands of dollars incarcerating him . . . money that could have saved him if otherwise spent.) His daughter would still have a daddy who adored her and worked 7 long days/wk whenever he was not in jail or rehab to take care of her. Who did his utter best to make it work with his baby's momma despite her being even worse addicted than he and her slutting around with any random drug supplier . . . I got to know him well because he was on my contractor's weekday crew . . . and then he moonlighted for me on weekends painting the interior of my house. We often worked side by side. He was a damn good painter. And a good man. And he's lost. Because our systems suck. Someone, somehow, somewhere could have and should have saved him. Every system that failed him is under concerted attack by the Republicans who currently control our state legislature. Our schools, our public health system, our CPS, are all grossly underfunded and crippled. I don't comprehend how people of good hearts can choose time and again to neglect those who need care the most and are utterly lost. There are large parts of our country where there IS NO HELP. I discovered that just miles from my college-town-enclave of "normal" there are "hollows" of SERIOUSLY POOR people who simply have no access to what I had assumed everyone has. 

 

POOR. REALLY REALLY POOR. POOR like probably very few of us could possibly know, because it's a kind of poor where no one you know has a computer. Where your mom was a prostitute who left you with random strangers in town and your dad was a total unknown. POOR. Those are the people who I want our government to serve. And, lowering MY tax rates isn't going to help them. That I can promise you.

[Guest]

Never mind, this will get too political and my goal isn't to pick a fight. Have a nice night and thank you for your compassionate heart for the people in your life you see needing help, Stephanie. If more people care for one another than look to policies for solutions the world will be a much improved place for those most vulnerable and in need.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[idnib]

 But income redistribution to pay for the social safety net isn't a long term solution beyond a certain point - humans behavior *changes* to respond to those laws.

 

You say beyond a certain point. The location of that inflection point is what's under discussion.

 

When public school system was implemented, or Medicare, or Social Security/disability, there is no doubt they changed human behavior, some for better, some for worse.  I agree with you. But they provide benefits to all of society, including reduced crime, better home values, and stronger communities. I have spent substantial amounts of time in countries where with little to no safety net except strong family ties, and those countries are always a corrupt, unbalanced mess. There, anyone upper middle class and above are constantly worried about security (real security, like guards, not just locking the house), riots, and general unrest. 

 

Thoughts I'm thinking out loud, don't take them as pointed questions or anything....  :)

 

Can we rely on everyone simply working hard in a world of globalization and automation? Is there a limit to how productive someone should be? (We are more productive than ever, but are working the same or more hours. If someone gets the same amount of work done faster via diligence or technology, should the response simply be to give them more work?) Should a person who works diligently at a middle-class job for 40-50 hours/week be able to afford an important medical procedure or public higher education for his or her children? Will we acknowledge that people who have already retired might live longer than they thought with new technologies they could not have anticipated while dutifully saving?

[Ausmumof3]

Well, here's a question I was pondering. Do you want to have wealth? How much? Why? What would wealth do for you vs. spending your money on good insurance, great experiences, a good education for your kids?

 

When I was 19, I decided to change my educational course from an education degree to law / business. The reason was that I felt I could make a bigger difference if I had the money to establish my own school vs. work for one in a relatively non-influential position. My life path has gone all sorts of ways since then, but I've never desired wealth for the sake of wealth. What I do have will probably go for my kids' education and to modestly launch them in life, because they won't qualify for aid.

 

A little wealth is nice for security, sure. But beyond that, what is the point of accumulating, other than to make a difference that is bigger than oneself? I think that is the dream of most of the wealth accumulators. Can I prove it, no, any more than others can prove most of them are doing this just so they can force the government to help them steal from humble people. But from what I've seen, that is how most wealthy people think.

 

There are always gonna be bad apples in every group. There are corporate welfare queens and ghetto welfare queens. Those outliers shouldn't be allowed to distort the overall picture.

In my country a law was passed last year that means that large corporations don't need to disclose how much tax they pay. This means no one knows whether they pay anything at all. And follows on revelations that several actually aren't paying any tax. Yet they are using roads and infrastructure to produce their wealth but that has to be paid for by average individuals. So Mr wealthy corporation is having his lifestyle and his roads paid for by mr can't buy shoes for the kids cause I have to pay the power bill.

 

It's not about redistributing wealth but making sure those who are using infrastructure and can afford to do so are paying for the infrastructure they use.

 

I think if you think that the wealthy are wanting to be wealthy to help others you are very idealistic. Most humans just aren't that altruistic. Some are.

 

I don't want wealth. I want enough for my news which we pretty much have. I want those who don't have enough to have what I have.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[Frances]

So you're more well intentioned and pure because you believe in economic redistribution and certain social protections and those who disagree with you are either ignorant or evil? Seriously?

 

I'm impressed at your high view of those who are more poor and less educated than you. Really. They're obviously such sheeple they can't see through journalism or political pandering to *your* perspective. Because if they were better informed and less swayed by political rhetoric they'd definitely see how magnanimous your efforts on their behalves are. There surely couldn't be a fundamentally different view of the economy or sociopolitical realities at play. They're too *dumb* to think these things through.

 

I wish you could hear yourself, and not just your intentions. All politics aside it is stunningly condescending.

If you head on over to the high school board, creekland started a discussion about an educational political activity done recently at her high school. Students first chose candidates based on names and then on their stance on issues, and the results were very, very different. Most people commenting think the results wouldn't be much different for many voting age adults.

 

My husband certainly sees this at election time in his workplace with people from just about one education extreme to the other. His first time working during a presidential election he was shocked at the lack of very basic knowledge about our government, the electoral process, and differences between the two major political parties.

[Ausmumof3]

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EconEffects

 

Here's an article that explores some of the issues that are caused by inequality even when not associated with poverty.

[goldberry]

 

A little wealth is nice for security, sure.  But beyond that, what is the point of accumulating, other than to make a difference that is bigger than oneself?  I think that is the dream of most of the wealth accumulators.  Can I prove it, no, any more than others can prove most of them are doing this just so they can force the government to help them steal from humble people.  But from what I've seen, that is how most wealthy people think.

 

 

I wish that was true, SKL, but to me it doesn't match what I see, particularly in the corporate world. Maybe people start out like that and somehow it changes.  Maybe it has something to do with the corporation as an entity, and the idea that shareholder gain trumps all other factors and removes any individual responsibility or morality.  I don't know.  

 

But to me the actual *outcomes*, the actual legislation that gets passed, that companies are paying lobbyists for and donating for, does not support the idea that most of those accumulating wealth are out for the greater good.  I wish that was true.

[MistyMountain]

Resources are finite. A system cannot support itself with extreme differences between a wealthy elite and everyone else. Everyone cannot generate wealth in a system of finite resources. It is not at all about envying people for having more stuff or bigger houses. It is about more and more people not making ends meet for basic shelter, food and health care needs. Obviously we are better off then 3rd world countries but that does not mean that we should just live with the corrupt parts of our system. The world wide political system has many different systems. Keeping inequality to more reasonable levels is good for society overall. A major cause if the Great Depression is the inequality and it is a big problem with the economy.

 

There will always be people that will need help in society. A safety net does a much better job then individuals. Individuals with a lot of money donate less per capita then people with less money. There are exceptions to that but the overall statistics is that wealthy people donate less then people who are less well off. A middle class slide is not a good thing. It makes the middle class more like the poor and it occurs with extreme inequality. The effects of poverty are obvious. It does lead to getting a poorer education, it affects the health and it causes violence and stress. It is not a good thing for society. The lower and middle class makes less money when you account for inflation and it is caused in part by the inequality.

 

No one wants everyone to literally make an equal amount of money but when you have an extreme like we do it does have a effect on everyone else's well being. Countries with a better Gini coefficient do not have everyone earning the same and using more material resources. When I talk about the problem with inequality it is not about wanting a huge house filled with stuff at all.

 

Global inequality is another issue too that has different causes and is a big problem.

Edited February 18, 2016 by MistyMountain

[SKL]

As far as wanting to pay less tax, I do think that it is better for me to be able to personally decide where my money goes.  I have always donated a sizeable % of my take-home pay, even when my wealth was negative, and even when my marginal tax rate was 45%.  Regardless of who is in office, the political decisions about where the tax money goes tend to be counterproductive on several levels.  No political party has figured out how to really fight poverty, insecurity, social ills.  It isn't immoral for me to keep a little more money to give to a good cause that I can monitor closely.  Or to pay someone a good price for services I would otherwise perform myself.  Not that I'm a tax lobbyist, but I do believe that lower tax rates are good for the nation as a whole.  Historically, the economy improves and the working class benefits when taxes decrease at all levels.

[Frances]

As far as wanting to pay less tax, I do think that it is better for me to be able to personally decide where my money goes. I have always donated a sizeable % of my take-home pay, even when my wealth was negative, and even when my marginal tax rate was 45%. Regardless of who is in office, the political decisions about where the tax money goes tend to be counterproductive on several levels. No political party has figured out how to really fight poverty, insecurity, social ills. It isn't immoral for me to keep a little more money to give to a good cause that I can monitor closely. Or to pay someone a good price for services I would otherwise perform myself. Not that I'm a tax lobbyist, but I do believe that lower tax rates are good for the nation as a whole. Historically, the economy improves and the working class benefits when taxes decrease at all levels.

Do you have a source for your last statement? I've been googling and reading lots of studies that look at historical tax rates, especially the highest marginal rates, and they all seem to say the opposite. During times of higher tax rates on the wealthy, including on capital gains, the economy grew faster and income inequality decreased, and vice versa. Obviously the studies are only looking at correlations and not claiming causation, but the historical data doesn't support the theory of trickle down economics.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you have a source for your last statement? I've been googling and reading lots of studies that look at historical tax rates, especially the highest marginal rates, and they all seem to say the opposite. During times of higher tax rates on the wealthy, including on capital gains, the economy grew faster and income inequality decreased, and vice versa. Obviously the studies are only looking at correlations and not claiming causation, but the historical data doesn't support the theory of trickle down economics.

You are correct. Also, since the decrease in income tax rates and lowering the taxes on capital gains, we have also experienced more frequent market bubbles and the after effects of those same bubbles bursting.

[Guest]

Higher taxes does not equal more money to help the poor. I don't trust any current politicians or candidates (especially?) to put the money where it is needed.

[Onceuponatime]

My two cents, and a little levity:

 

"Money, if you pardon the expression, is like manure. It's not worth a thing unless it's spread around encouraging young things to grow." - Horace Vandergelder III

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Agree. A higher capital gains tax just prevents everyone who has a 401k instead of a pension from having a retirement. The current contribution limit to the 401k means they cant even save enough now, even if the spouse is working...the market just isnt going up fast enough to compensate for the rise in taxes and health care and the wage stagnation.

401k plans are not subject to taxes on capital gains so I have no idea what you are going on about.

[Scarlett]

The people I am talking about are indeed ignorant, uneducated, and misled. One man was actually illiterate, truly couldn't read. I loved him. He died last summer, from his addiction. He was 30, loved his little daughter, worked his ass off, was in and out of jail and rehab, totally failed by his parents (no dad, shit for mom), the child welfare system (that didn't protect him), the educational system (that didn't educate him), the justice system (that treated his addiction as a crime instead of a disease), the medical system (that lacked the follow on care to actually help him) . . . And, he died. Despite a few strangers trying to do right by him and despite his good heart and skillful hands.

 

He was one of those people I'm talking about.

 

I talked to at least half a dozen guys like this in the last 2 years who worked on the construction crews on my house. I guarantee you that they are uneducated, often illiterate, and definitely not savvy enough to make good decisions for themselves or their country. I have no qualms about "condescending" to these folks on matters that require any depth of understanding of the nation or politics or economics. They are good human beings, but utterly ignorant about how the government works, how the economy works, world works, and how they could better survive in an economy that is designed to fuck them over. These folks know *nothing* about credit scores, let alone big picture tax structures or economics. These folks use pay day lending, live paycheck to paycheck always, buy iPads for their toddlers when they don't own a single book . . . I helped sweet Jeremiah (the one who died) set up an iPad FOR HIS THREE YEAR OLD *twice* because the first one he bought got "lost" (stolen by an associate more likely). I had to set it up for him because he couldn't read, and he had no email address . . . And, no one he knew better (baby-momma', friends, etc) could help him either. So, I set it up for him and loaded it with free apps for his toddler. I cried that night. And I cried a lot more when I learned he'd died.

 

The decisions our politicians make MATTER and KILL actual real human beings. Jeremiah would NOT be dead if our state's mental health system worked like it should, like it could, like we CAN afford. (Believe me, our state spent 10s-100s of thousands of dollars incarcerating him . . . money that could have saved him if otherwise spent.) His daughter would still have a daddy who adored her and worked 7 long days/wk whenever he was not in jail or rehab to take care of her. Who did his utter best to make it work with his baby's momma despite her being even worse addicted than he and her slutting around with any random drug supplier . . . I got to know him well because he was on my contractor's weekday crew . . . and then he moonlighted for me on weekends painting the interior of my house. We often worked side by side. He was a damn good painter. And a good man. And he's lost. Because our systems suck. Someone, somehow, somewhere could have and should have saved him. Every system that failed him is under concerted attack by the Republicans who currently control our state legislature. Our schools, our public health system, our CPS, are all grossly underfunded and crippled. I don't comprehend how people of good hearts can choose time and again to neglect those who need care the most and are utterly lost. There are large parts of our country where there IS NO HELP. I discovered that just miles from my college-town-enclave of "normal" there are "hollows" of SERIOUSLY POOR people who simply have no access to what I had assumed everyone has.

 

POOR. REALLY REALLY POOR. POOR like probably very few of us could possibly know, because it's a kind of poor where no one you know has a computer. Where your mom was a prostitute who left you with random strangers in town and your dad was a total unknown. POOR. Those are the people who I want our government to serve. And, lowering MY tax rates isn't going to help them. That I can promise you.

Liking your post wasn't enough. And although I don't believe politics or any human can solve these problems, I do appreciate the gut wrenching real look inside the poorest and weakest among us.

 

My Dh has need to hire day laborers for the jobs he oversees. One, a man near 60, is a good worker that Dh asks for by name. His life is much like what you described except he is much older. He is a felon, an addict, has kids he can't care for etc. Recently, this man showed up to a job site drunk....the temp agency called Dh and told him if she saw the man she would have no choice to have him pee in a cup.....Dh went to the job site where the man was hiding from view....and he drove him home to save the man his $10 per hour/no benefits/temp job. Dh said he was so drunk he could barely walk and he cried all the way home. That haunts me. It haunts Dh.

 

And I have a distant cousin who is on FB sharing every horrible thing about her life and her choices. She has no clue how to navigate life, how to help herself, how to curb her own behavior to avoid much of the pain she suffers.

 

These are two stories out of 1000s. Can barely stand to think about it because I can do so little to help. But I do have compassion for them. And I have to say compassion feels much better than condemnation.

[Frances]

Agree. A higher capital gains tax just prevents everyone who has a 401k instead of a pension from having a retirement. The current contribution limit to the 401k means they cant even save enough now, even if the spouse is working...the market just isnt going up fast enough to compensate for the rise in taxes and health care and the wage stagnation.

The limits are $36k total for a working couple, rising to $48k at 50. The vast majority of working couples do not make enough to be able to contribute the maximum each year. For those that do, the limits don't prevent them from saving in other ways.

[SKL]

I feel the "what people think the distribution is" part of the video really shows "how people think access to basics + comforts is distributed."  Access to basics and comforts has little to do with wealth.  In fact, for most of us, the more comforts we choose to enjoy, the less wealth we end up with.  But again, for most of us, that is a positive choice (whether we think in those terms or not).  The thousands I spend on a trip are not adding to my bottom line, and I'm totally cool with that.  Replace travel with a nicer kitchen, more square footage, a nicer car, another TV or video game, alcohol, moving to get a better job or neighorhood environment (costing home equity), etc.

 

And the investment in education IMO is an asset even though it doesn't show up on the balance sheet as wealth.  I went deep into debt to get my graduate education, but then that education made it possible for me to afford some comforts and eventually build some wealth.  Why shouldn't those diplomas and licenses have figured into my wealth statistics before I paid off my loans, just like an investment in stock or real estate would have?  Well, because "wealth" is more about accounting than real value.

[StephanieZ]

One random thought . . . 

 

One of my primary reasons for wanting to amass a large amount of wealth (3-4 million for a married couple) is for "retirement". The reason I have determined that we need THAT much is to ensure that we could pay the massive costs for in-home nursing assistance if one of us needed it. Essentially, my drive to amass large wealth is driven by fear of our insecure elder care. Since we have to self-fund our late life care, we need massive wealth to do that without risking being institutionalized (which I DO NOT want and would gladly pre-authorize physician assisted suicide if I could, but that is not generally assured or even legal, and I don't want my children or spouse in legal jeopardy for helping me) and I don't want to be a burden to my kids. 

 

Likewise, we invest *many* thousands of (after tax) dollars per year in personal disability insurance to again insure against catastrophe should dh become disabled during his working years. If we spend 10k/yr for disability insurance, that's about 18k pre-tax . . . So an ENTIRE ADDITIONAL 8-9/hr  staff person could be employed if we didn't need to spend that on disability insurance . . . 

 

So, truly, if we had a better safety net for aging and disability . . . then I'd have much less need or desire to amass great wealth. I make all the major strategic financial decisions in my family, and I guarantee you that if I trusted any degree of a reasonable safety net for those needs (as many other countries do indeed provide), I would need *much* less wealth. As it is, one is driven to accumulate massive wealth to insure against the disaster of needing extensive lengthy medical/nursing care. If I did not have to worry about THAT need, then our need for retirement savings would be vastly less.

 

Honestly, our life-time adult major financial needs have been 1) paying back our own educational debts 2) paying for our kids to get through school with as little educational debt as possible so they aren't bound by it for decades as we have been and 3) making sure our late-life nursing/care needs are met without burdening our kids or ending up in an institution where we never wish to be. Those things, and only those, things are what drives our particular family to truly maximize our earnings and savings. 

 

Another driver for wealth accumulation is often the need to secure a fragile family member's well being (special needs children, etc.) . . . fortunately, we have not faced that challenge, although I certainly keep in the back of my mind the need to be able to take care of any of our children should some disaster strike . . . 

 

If we lived in a world where those needs didn't require HUGE financial inputs from us, then we'd need to earn much less now (could share more with our employees and/or work less and hire another vet) and we could retire much earlier (age 55-60 for dh instead of age 65-70). 

 

These things are all very interrelated. I don't know what drives someone who has a net worth of 5 million to head towards the 50 million or 5 billion mark. But I sure know what drives us, and many families like us, to aspire to that 3-5 million net worth mark. That's what it takes to be truly secure that you'll never need to be a financial burden on your kids nor be vulnerable to being institutionalized against your will. That's ridiculous. If we are lucky, and our kids are lucky, they'll inherit a lot of money because we'll never have a lengthy illness and die fast in our time.

 

But, honestly, I'd personally much rather be able not be working so hard because of a deep fear of late life care and an intimate knowledge of how vast the difference in quality of life can be if you have large financial resources in late life vs. limited resources. That fear and insecurity obviously does drive us to "productivity" but it also feeds anxiety, depression, substance abuse, family discord, and a host of other ailments and societal ills. I imagine that those living in countries with long-time secure and stable social safety nets have so changed the motivators in their populations that it makes it much easier for people to shift their personal goals to reduced wealth accumulation. I imagine that is how much of northern Europe "thinks" and I have certainly heard things from Europeans who express happiness with the trade-off they make . . . a bit less wealth accumulation by the top earners but much more vacation/family/free time during their working years and much more security for themselves and their parents/children/other loved ones throughout the life cycle.

[ktgrok]

Most are investing in other ways, with their after tax dollars, so they have a hope of living and eating in retirement. Taxing their capital gains at an even higher rate just puts them further behind. But hey, who cares. We got a contract. Those pensions gotta be paid off their backs.

 

So do you have a suggestion? Or do you think the current level of inequality is fine and in fact sustainable? Is it good for democracy for such a tiny fraction of the people to have such a huge proportion of the wealth? 

[SKL]

One random thought . . . 

 

One of my primary reasons for wanting to amass a large amount of wealth (3-4 million for a married couple) is for "retirement". The reason I have determined that we need THAT much is to ensure that we could pay the massive costs for in-home nursing assistance if one of us needed it. Essentially, my drive to amass large wealth is driven by fear of our insecure elder care. Since we have to self-fund our late life care, we need massive wealth to do that without risking being institutionalized (which I DO NOT want and would gladly pre-authorize physician assisted suicide if I could, but that is not generally assured or even legal, and I don't want my children or spouse in legal jeopardy for helping me) and I don't want to be a burden to my kids. 

 

Likewise, we invest *many* thousands of (after tax) dollars per year in personal disability insurance to again insure against catastrophe should dh become disabled during his working years. If we spend 10k/yr for disability insurance, that's about 18k pre-tax . . . So an ENTIRE ADDITIONAL 8-9/hr  staff person could be employed if we didn't need to spend that on disability insurance . . . 

 

So, truly, if we had a better safety net for aging and disability . . . then I'd have much less need or desire to amass great wealth. I make all the major strategic financial decisions in my family, and I guarantee you that if I trusted any degree of a reasonable safety net for those needs (as many other countries do indeed provide), I would need *much* less wealth. As it is, one is driven to accumulate massive wealth to insure against the disaster of needing extensive lengthy medical/nursing care. If I did not have to worry about THAT need, then our need for retirement savings would be vastly less.

 

Honestly, our life-time adult major financial needs have been 1) paying back our own educational debts 2) paying for our kids to get through school with as little educational debt as possible so they aren't bound by it for decades as we have been and 3) making sure our late-life nursing/care needs are met without burdening our kids or ending up in an institution where we never wish to be. Those things, and only those, things are what drives our particular family to truly maximize our earnings and savings. 

 

Another driver for wealth accumulation is often the need to secure a fragile family member's well being (special needs children, etc.) . . . fortunately, we have not faced that challenge, although I certainly keep in the back of my mind the need to be able to take care of any of our children should some disaster strike . . . 

 

If we lived in a world where those needs didn't require HUGE financial inputs from us, then we'd need to earn much less now (could share more with our employees and/or work less and hire another vet) and we could retire much earlier (age 55-60 for dh instead of age 65-70). 

 

These things are all very interrelated. I don't know what drives someone who has a net worth of 5 million to head towards the 50 million or 5 billion mark. But I sure know what drives us, and many families like us, to aspire to that 3-5 million net worth mark. That's what it takes to be truly secure that you'll never need to be a financial burden on your kids nor be vulnerable to being institutionalized against your will. That's ridiculous. If we are lucky, and our kids are lucky, they'll inherit a lot of money because we'll never have a lengthy illness and die fast in our time.

 

But, honestly, I'd personally much rather be able not be working so hard because of a deep fear of late life care and an intimate knowledge of how vast the difference in quality of life can be if you have large financial resources in late life vs. limited resources. That fear and insecurity obviously does drive us to "productivity" but it also feeds anxiety, depression, substance abuse, family discord, and a host of other ailments and societal ills. I imagine that those living in countries with long-time secure and stable social safety nets have so changed the motivators in their populations that it makes it much easier for people to shift their personal goals to reduced wealth accumulation. I imagine that is how much of northern Europe "thinks" and I have certainly heard things from Europeans who express happiness with the trade-off they make . . . a bit less wealth accumulation by the top earners but much more vacation/family/free time during their working years and much more security for themselves and their parents/children/other loved ones throughout the life cycle.

 

This is interesting and instructive.  A person who considers herself well-off (and who is indeed in a very very high %ile by world standards) is accumulating wealth because of insecurity, in a country which in fact does have a social security and medicare system.

 

Personally I trust that the system designed for all Americans will probably be "good enough" for me, as long as I have a paid-off home.  I choose not to make decisions based on fears of what might happen.  Yes, I know things "could" happen and life could get hard in many ways, financial and otherwise.  But I believe that no amount of wealth can really protect us from the unknown future.  I don't try to control things I can't control.

 

Of course our tax-funded elder support / elder care system is not perfect, and I am certain that is the case in every other country too.

 

But if the elder care system is the problem, IMO the elder care system should be the target.  If taxpayer-funded disabled care is the problem, disabled care should be the target.  Targeting wealthy people just on the basis that they have built wealth is counterproductive.  Especially since, as you pointed out, some people are building wealth primarily because they are insecure about what the government is going to do with our tax money.  A focus on bringing down their wealth is only going to make them more insecure, without fixing anyone else's insecurity problem.