A key truth very few investors and executives want to admit...from The Business Insider.

^It's not that it can't be done, you continue to throw our your 2 talking points and ignore what others are saying.

There is a growing chasm in what the average worker and the average executive level are paid. As our Canadian friend mentioned, with a finite amount of wealth there will always be poor people, ANYONE can be rich, yes, but not EVERYONE. You're a smart guy, I know you get the distinction, you just choose to ignore it.

And this all completely ignores the fact that we need people in unskilled labor jobs that will never be worth much money, because most could be trained to do it.

Yeah, it's not hard to put the garbage in the garbage truck. But we still need someone to do it.

I'll go back to Wal-Mart (granted, I can afford to shop other places and there choose not to support the Waltons because of their labor practices), what's wrong with paying these people enough that they don't have to use public assistance for food and housing to get by? That is a perfect example of the poor/middle class subsidizing the rich.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I agree, there will always be poor people, I get that. Not everyone can be wealthy. I get that. What I don't get is the argument "because that guy is rich, I am poor" Wal-Mart does pay a reasonable wage to those that earn it. You can move up at Wal-Mart, you can move up at McDonalds, not everyone there makes minimum wage. If you want to move up, the opportunity is there, it's easier to hang out in the break room and complain though. edit: a quick google search says the average assistant manager at Wal-Mart makes $46k a year, and the average manager is $92k. Three of every four individuals involved in store leadership started as hourly workers...

I think now we are getting somewhere. I am most definitely in agreeance with you on the #1 requirement being WORKING HARD. Nobody got anywhere by themselves unless they do that, and I 100% agree. However, working hard is not 100% of the pie. 75%? Absolutely.

I also think that we have to put things into perspective and there is a certain caveat here; working hard is good and all, but as you pointed out, you also worked CONSTANTLY (which is not working hard IMO). You simply traded one item (time) for another (money). If anything, you "paid it forward" in time for a loooooooooong time to get where you are now. In the grand scheme of things, you earned sweet-f-all, but it sounds as if the amount of time you spent was extraordinary. I earned 1% money last year in some months, all I had to do was work 3 weeks (21 days) straight for 14 hours a day! Is that really the world you want, where you have to work yourself to the bone for years upon years for the chance at being well off? Not everyone has the "brilliant idea" to be their own business entrepreneur, I certainly don't. I also can't handle not having a steady base paycheque that isn't going to magically disappear.

Edit- Oh, I actually worked 28 days straight one month. And 21 of those days was away from home, my bad. I worked over 1000 hours of overtime in 2013, where my job normally is only 1800 hours per year. I wouldn't wish that on anybody, and I only did it because I got paid. Never again!

Edit Edit- 14 hours was my base day. I was running up to 18 hour shifts constantly in a row in freezing weather. Just for info ;)

aircooled wrote: The bracket does not turn regressive, those people are just getting more deductions or are paying taxes at a different rate for some reason (e.g. capital gains). He is referencing overall percentage of income that ends up being payed as tax, not tax rate. Of note, for both sides here, is that investments in companies, in general, are going to be tax deductible. So, for the super rich not paying as high a percentage, this MAY be the result of businesses expenses (which can also be a bit of a scam of course) Also, having super high taxes for the super wealthy (as in pre-Regan era), in a way, Encourages business spending, since it is deductible. Right?

Taxes under Reagan are higher than they are today. It is an almost across the board rate increase if you start with rates under Obama and go to Reagan. So if the pre-Ronnie taxes were so onerous, but the general inequality in income was better, why would that be?

Xceler8x wrote:

novaderrik wrote: the reason the "rich" are getting "richer" is because the "middle class" is giving large chunks of their disposable income to the "rich" in the form of cell phone and cable bills as well as payments on the shiny new cars, boats, rv's, and houses that are sold by the "rich" to the "middle class". there are some "middle class" people that come between themselves and the "rich" in the form of making, transporting, selling, and servicing those things.

Economists have hard data proving that income growth for anyone not in the upper tier of income in the U.S. has not grown in at least 10 years. Some data says over 20 years. It really has very little to do with increased consumer spending or conspicuous consumption like what you describe. The numbers say the main reason is because the rich are soaking up almost all, if not all, income growth in the U.S. This is increasing income inequality which will cause all of us, rich and poor, all sorts of problems down the road. Income inequality is destabilizing to society.

This is the logical extension of the publicity surrounding the "cadillac drivin' welfare queen of the Reagan era." Look her up some time as she was a real grifter. Anyway, the truth of the matter is that there are certainly some people your are leveraging themselves to the hilt. It is easy to look at those folks and make judgements. We humans are very good at judging others on their perceived behaviors. The key here is perceived.

The real data shows that wages have been stagnant for a long time. Meanwhile worker productivity has never been higher....

Edit: I need to stay out of this forum.. lol

HiTempguy wrote: or we have the resources but it's sort of like elyisum (we're rich, so f*&k all you poor peoples, peace out!)

For fun, look up the Freedom Ship project.

In reply to mattm:

The top 85 has as much wealth as the bottom half of the population (net worth of top 85 = Net worth of bottom 3.5 billion). This is not the same as controlling half the worlds wealth. Without historic context I'm not sure if this is unusual or if this is just the way the world economy works.

Hell I'm not rich and I probably control as much wealth as the bottom 100 million or so.

So let's just assume for a minute that this wealth distribution is historically unprecedented and bad. What do we do to fix it? How would/could it be corrected?

nocones wrote: So let's just assume for a minute that this wealth distribution is historically unprecedented and bad. What do we do to fix it? How would/could it be corrected?

I think the mildest set of changes that could help would be higher minimum wages, a sharply progressive income tax curve as seen in the US around WW2, some way to plug the capital gains hole (maybe progressive taxation on it but I'm not sure what side-effects that would have), and corporate tax incentives for companies with smaller income spreads and that don't pay absolutely insane 8-digit+ salaries. That last one will be tricky because the tax code would have to cover all the ways accountants would try to hack the system, e.g. splitting GM into production, engineering and "management consulting" corporations to maintain the status quo without paying more - or even while paying less.

That wouldn't comprehensively solve the problem but I think it would be a huge help, to the point that people might not be too upset that it wasn't a comprehensive solution.

I think European/Canadian-style health care would also help a lot but that's more of a health care problem (and a very US-specific one at that).

I agree with GameboyRMH.

• I also think that companies should pay taxes according to the income disparity between the line worker and their CEO. More disparity between those jobs = much, much higher taxes. Less disparity = you pay the same as you do now. What's Behind the Huge (and Growing) CEO-Worker Pay Gap?

• If that doesn't work, start taxing the liquid assets a corp possesses. If the money isn't working or being used, it's taxed. Companies sitting on cash pile of over $1 trillion U.S. Companies Stashing More Cash Abroad As Stockpiles Hit Record $1.45T

• I'd give a tax credit to companies for hiring Americans.

• Since citizens can't hide money in foreign accounts anymore I say we spread the pain to corps. Google has millions in Switzerland? Tax it. Ford has millions sitting in Spain? Tax it. Top U.S. Firms Are Cash-Rich Abroad, Cash-Poor at Home

• I'd also end all subsidies to profitable industries like oil companies. They don't need a welfare check. America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies

• No more taxing income from stocks, bonds, etc at a lower rate than the rest of the U.S. That's a gimme to banks and the rich. This country was built on fairness and equality. That kind of preferential treatment should end. Forget Carried Interest, It's All About Taxing Capital Gains

This is the cost of enjoying the benefits of being a U.S. company. These companies enjoy many benefits here including world class infrastructure, skilled and well educated workers, and a very business friendly government. They can pay for this as their profits are currently through the roof. If they don't like it they can enjoy paying protection money to Mexican drug lords. That or paying the tax rate in Europe. They can also enjoy the brown out power shortages in any South American country that would welcome them.

What's funny is that most American's would probably agree on all this stuff, but because some aspects of it might be associated with targeting of unions, targeting of job growth, and targeting of the wealthy, each side, despite voters agreeing on a solution, end up in partisan battles with no progress.

I mentioned the idea of "taxes based on corporate income disparity" in this thread.

PHeller wrote: What's funny is that most American's would probably agree on all this stuff, but because some aspects of it might be associated with targeting of unions, targeting of job growth, and targeting of the wealthy, each side, despite voters agreeing on a solution, end up in partisan battles with no progress. I mentioned the idea of "taxes based on corporate income disparity" in this thread.

It's said that if everybody's pissed off about a piece of legislation then it was written correctly.

In reply to Xceler8x and GameboyRMH:

Why not restructure the tax code so US companies with huge foreign investments are better off bringing that cash back here?

<---- Far from convinced the government would in any way competently, efficiently and wisely use the tax revenue you guys hope is generated. You ever think that by raising taxes you're further incentivizing more companies to head for more palatable climes?

They won't leave that easily, trust me I know...

In reply to GameboyRMH:

You need to enlighten me on the ways of your tropical paradise before trust is offered.

oldsaw wrote: <---- Far from convinced the government would in any way competently, efficiently and wisely use the tax revenue you guys hope is generated.

vs private business creating a few ultra wealthy dudes who underpay employees and don't contribute much to society?

If we can generalize everything government does as wasteful then we can generalize private business as greedy and destructive.

I know through my job...hope that's enough.

PHeller wrote:

oldsaw wrote: <---- Far from convinced the government would in any way competently, efficiently and wisely use the tax revenue you guys hope is generated.

vs private business creating a few ultra wealthy dudes who underpay employees and don't contribute much to society? If we can generalize everything government does as wasteful then we can generalize private business as greedy and destructive.

I think the government represents a much greater threat to me than successful business people do in the exact same way that an organized crime mob would concern me much more than independent criminals each working to serve their self interests would…much harder to defend against a unified, systematic attack.

Resurrecting this thread because Bosnia decided they don't feel like waiting any more, at just 25% unemployment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/07/us-bosnia-unrest-idUSBREA160UU20140207