How do you think Wealth is distributed in the United States?

[Fraggle145]

http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/


Charlie White -1 day ago
The issue of wealth inequality across the United States is well known, but this video shows you the extent of that imbalance in dramatic and graphic fashion.

The video, which started going viral on Friday and whose traffic continues to climb on YouTube — reflects the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States) as seen from many different sources. We present it without comment, letting you, our readers, be the judge.

So, what do you think? Is the current state of wealth inequality good for the United States, or has it gotten out of hand? Tell us in the comments, below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Thoughts?

[badger]

I lasted about 90 seconds befores I got the gist of it:

1- I don't have enough wealth for me.
2- I want more of the wealthy's wealth.

Should OU give some of football national championships to OSU since they don't have any? Should KU gives us some of their basketball ones?

In general, you should expect people to think and act selfishly. However, being selfish is often thought of as a bad characteristic and one that we don't want to be personally known for, nor would we want to associate with those who are considered selfish.

Yet, there always seems to be an underlying notion that people think others are selfish if they don't allow them to be selfish themselves.

Me, me, me. You're too wealthy and I'm not wealthy enough, but if the roles were reversed, it would be OK.

[REDREX]

How do you plan on having equal outcomes?-------Maybe the bottom 20% needs to get an education and work harder

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The Fed's QE programs have certainly exascerbated this problem by propping up the stock market while also inflating food and energy prices, which is a drain on the lower and middle class.

I also think CEO pay is out of control and that is owed to the system of corporate governance in the country. Corporate boards should have more independent directors.

[XingTheRubicon]

That's nice, I've decided long ago what's "fair" for me.

[BermudaSooner]

I always love it when I hear things like "The CEO makes 380x the average worker and he isn't working 380x harder." It has something to do with working harder, but the average American just doesn't have the skills to be the CEO. (Look at the much studied Ben and Jerry's disaster.)

Money doesn't have a conscience. Money goes where there is productivity and where two parties agree that the exchange makes sense. If my competitor and I both make ice cream, but his is much better than mine, the money will flow to him...as it should.

This "engineering" of what the different classes of society has is not noble and beneficial, it is evil. It is stealing.

I don't doubt that the masses came up with this "ideal" distribution...we see this evidenced in the re-election of Obama...and it is what will eventually turn the US into another France, only with less availability of snails and frog legs on our plates.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I lasted about 90 seconds befores I got the gist of it:

1- I don't have enough wealth for me.
2- I want more of the wealthy's wealth.

Should OU give some of football national championships to OSU since they don't have any? Should KU gives us some of their basketball ones?

In general, you should expect people to think and act selfishly. However, being selfish is often thought of as a bad characteristic and one that we don't want to be personally known for, nor would we want to associate with those who are considered selfish.

Yet, there always seems to be an underlying notion that people think others are selfish if they don't allow them to be selfish themselves.

Me, me, me. You're too wealthy and I'm not wealthy enough, but if the roles were reversed, it would be OK.Human nature to work for your own benefit, and own what you earn, and not to be punished by the government's power if they deem you have too much. The USA government was beautifully established to allow people to work and earn and keep most of what they earn. NOBODY thinks there is no role for government, but the founders established our govt. with the best system that has ever been produced. It IS under internal attack.

[FaninAma]

The Fed's QE programs have certainly exascerbated this problem by propping up the stock market while also inflating food and energy prices, which is a drain on the lower and middle class.

I also think CEO pay is out of control and that is owed to the system of corporate governance in the country. Corporate boards should have more independent directors.

Bingo. The growth of wealth in this country has become totally dependent on creating larger and larger amounts of debt. We alway hear that the consumer is driving the economy and the fuel they use is debt.

Those who profit from average citizens going into debt have and will continue to do well as long as the government and Federal Reserve is ran by Keyensian morons.

[badger]

Whenever I hear about wealth distribution, I'm reminded of that episode of Home Improvement where Tim's brother complains on his first day at work that he couldn't find his parking spot. After being told that he, nor Al have parking spots (Tim has one), the new employee Tim's brother says that he has a great idea --- Al and Tim can SHARE Tim's parking spot.

Al says that's a GREAT idea! Tim tells his little brother to shut up.

[KantoSooner]

Okay, I get that the distribution of wealth in the country is skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy. And I get that the authors of that video think that this is a bad thing (else why the lugubrious/menacing music).

Here's the fundamental question, however: Does a skewed distribution of wealth make me any less of a person or make my life any less worth living?

I would submit that, so long as I can supply myself with the necessities of life and some quantum of the things that I might not need but want, then, no, it does not.

Bill Gates has many, many times more money than I have. Does it make him happier than I am? More of a person than I am? Does it have any real impact on me whatsoever? Not really.

Leftist thinkers like to posit that leftists are more concerned with the interests of the collective, the arts, learning, caring for others and that sort of thing; and that the right/republicans/conservatives are simply money grubbing, shallow greed heads. It has always stuck me as ironic, then, that those on the left spend so much of their time jealously pondering other people's money and figuring ways to classify its accumulation as a social ill and then how to get their hands on it.

[BermudaSooner]

Bingo. The growth of wealth in this country has become totally dependent on creating larger and larger amounts of debt. We alway hear that the consumer is driving the economy and the fuel they use is debt.

Those who profit from average citizens going into debt have and will continue to do well as long as the government and Federal Reserve is ran by Keyensian morons.

So let me understand...your version of the devil is that Express Credit Auto guy who is very determined to finance you. Your solution to handling this "problem" of some people having "too much" is to deny the poor the right to get themselves in debt even if some willing enterprise will lend to them.

[FaninAma]

So let me understand...your version of the devil is that Express Credit Auto guy who is very determined to finance you. Your solution to handling this "problem" of some people having "too much" is to deny the poor the right to get themselves in debt even if some willing enterprise will lend to them.

Not at all. I think everybody has the right to be as stupid as they want to be. Going into debt for luxury items and items that lose their value quickly over time is stupid. Living beyond your means is stupid. Using high interest rate credit cards is stupid but far be it from me to oppose anybody's right to be stupid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Okay, I get that the distribution of wealth in the country is skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy. And I get that the authors of that video think that this is a bad thing (else why the lugubrious/menacing music).

Here's the fundamental question, however: Does a skewed distribution of wealth make me any less of a person or make my life any less worth living?

I would submit that, so long as I can supply myself with the necessities of life and some quantum of the things that I might not need but want, then, no, it does not.

Bill Gates has many, many times more money than I have. Does it make him happier than I am? More of a person than I am? Does it have any real impact on me whatsoever? Not really.

Leftist thinkers like to posit that leftists are more concerned with the interests of the collective, the arts, learning, caring for others and that sort of thing; and that the right/republicans/conservatives are simply money grubbing, shallow greed heads. It has always stuck me as ironic, then, that those on the left spend so much of their time jealously pondering other people's money and figuring ways to classify its accumulation as a social ill and then how to get their hands on it.Nicely said. Too bad that apparently a majority of voters are okay with the govt. supplying them with a living, and therefore are swayed by the redistribution mentality...yeah, it sucks.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So let me understand...your version of the devil is that Express Credit Auto guy who is very determined to finance you. Your solution to handling this "problem" of some people having "too much" is to deny the poor the right to get themselves in debt even if some willing enterprise will lend to them.Seems to me the main problem is government runaway spending and the consequent fear of the private sector to invest in much of anything, coupled with the fact that the crippling of the private sector results in less economic activity.

[badger]

I've heard that happiness is it's highest at about $75k annual income (individual) and is low on both sides the more you get away from that. That amount fills basic needs and is enough to provide comfort and security, I guess.

More than that, you start getting into gambling, drug use and other crap because you have too much time/money/etc to waste. Below that, you worry about bills, health, necessities, etc.

Quite frankly, if I had more money, it would end up in the bank. My check already gets directly deposited (into an account in NP's name, lol)

[KantoSooner]

Have you ever tried to figure out what sum of money it would take for you to say, 'enough' and just live on it?

I had one shining moment in my life when it looked like an innovation a small group of us had invented might be bought out by a Dutch tech company. I figured that six million, after taxes, would pretty much be my 'go to the islands forever' nut. Figured that, for that, I could buy a nice place to live, fix my daughter up to start her life, and still have enough to live extremely comfortably on the interest.

[Fraggle145]

The only thing that really bothers me about the top 1-10% controlling so much wealth is that their interests have the potential to become overrepresented in politics (left or right really doesnt matter since the top donors to both sides are usually the same people/corporations).

[KantoSooner]

Fraggle, the influence of money on politics is a funny thing. When you look at it closely, you'll find that, while money does indeed, 'talk', more important is persistence. If you can moblize and keep a group focused and on message, you can acheive the same impact as much better funded lobbying efforts.

[REDREX]

The only thing that really bothers me about the top 1-10% controlling so much wealth is that their interests have the potential to become overrepresented in politics (left or right really doesnt matter since the top donors to both sides are usually the same people/corporations).---- The most overrepresented group are Unions

[Fraggle145]

---- The most overrepresented group are Unions

What is your support for that argument?

[REDREX]

What is your support for that argument?-----Richard Trumka might as well just move in---

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/04/13/questionable-visitors-log-reveals-afl-cio-boss-made-four-dozen-white-house-trips/

[cleller]

Even as a tax hating conservative, I believe the CEO pay in this country is outrageous. Also certain athletes, celebrities, etc. I cannot imagine how they can accept those packages. That kind of greed is strange psychology. I wouldn't feel right taking that kind of cash, I'd rather see a big chunk of it put toward employee pay.

So, the video is shocking, but what are their solutions? Anything other than taxes?

[Soonerjeepman]

I've heard that happiness is it's highest at about $75k annual income (individual)


crap...I need more MONEY!!!!!

[Blue]

More class warfare. Yay. Divide and conquer. I wonder if that graph would be any better w/out hordes of immigrants and social programs such as welfare.

You don't need alot of money to live a good life, I will say however that the cost of living imposed by corporate America is making it much harder to live like most of us are used to.

[8timechamps]

Okay, I get that the distribution of wealth in the country is skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy. And I get that the authors of that video think that this is a bad thing (else why the lugubrious/menacing music).

Here's the fundamental question, however: Does a skewed distribution of wealth make me any less of a person or make my life any less worth living?

I would submit that, so long as I can supply myself with the necessities of life and some quantum of the things that I might not need but want, then, no, it does not.

Bill Gates has many, many times more money than I have. Does it make him happier than I am? More of a person than I am? Does it have any real impact on me whatsoever? Not really.

Leftist thinkers like to posit that leftists are more concerned with the interests of the collective, the arts, learning, caring for others and that sort of thing; and that the right/republicans/conservatives are simply money grubbing, shallow greed heads. It has always stuck me as ironic, then, that those on the left spend so much of their time jealously pondering other people's money and figuring ways to classify its accumulation as a social ill and then how to get their hands on it.

Excellent!

I'll go a step further...assuming the current wealth distribution in this country is a "bad thing", what is it exactly that can be done? Are we going to collect everyone's money and then redistribute? Is an extra tax on the top 1% really going to redistribute the nations wealth? Are we going to pass laws that disallow inheritances past a certain amount? Hint: The answer is "No" for all of those.

It's been mentioned in this thread already, but worth repeating, figure out what makes life "fair" for you, then go get that. This constant evaluation of how the wealth is distributed in this country is a counter-productive measure, that I'll never really understand.

[8timechamps]

Even as a tax hating conservative, I believe the CEO pay in this country is outrageous. Also certain athletes, celebrities, etc. I cannot imagine how they can accept those packages. That kind of greed is strange psychology. I wouldn't feel right taking that kind of cash, I'd rather see a big chunk of it put toward employee pay.

So, the video is shocking, but what are their solutions? Anything other than taxes?

Exactly.

Celebrities and athletes will continue to make ridiculous amounts of money as long as the country continues to pay them. CEO's will continue to make ridiculous amounts of money as long as the board of directors for the various companies continue to pay them.

In both of those cases, there is less than a .01% chance of anything ever changing. Regardless, there's the difference, wealth distribution versus income distribution.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the wealth distribution in this country. And even if I did, there is no "solution".

[Skysooner]

I've heard that happiness is it's highest at about $75k annual income (individual) and is low on both sides the more you get away from that. That amount fills basic needs and is enough to provide comfort and security, I guess.

More than that, you start getting into gambling, drug use and other crap because you have too much time/money/etc to waste. Below that, you worry about bills, health, necessities, etc.

Quite frankly, if I had more money, it would end up in the bank. My check already gets directly deposited (into an account in NP's name, lol)

I remember seeing something about that a few years back. I think the $75k is when people start being less stressed about things. When I hit $100k it seemed like I had more disposable income. I also think that having too much money can be a stressor if you don't know how to deal with it. You see all of these people who win the lottery and end up broke, because they have absolutely no idea how to deal with that much money. I'm like you. When I get extra money, it goes into the bank. I'm building a good retirement account and something I can leave for the care of my older autistic son. Frankly though my income has continued to go up a bunch, and I am happier all of the time.

[diverdog]

I don't think that anyone has really addressed the issues that were brought up in the video. What none of you are asking is why Americans.....92% according to the video, have such a skewed notion of how wealth is distributed in this country and I think I know the answer. It boils down to cheap credit, a modicum of inheritance from the WWII generation and some sort of government safety net. But mostly it is cheap credit that has allowed Americans to buy the American dream on time. Americans think they are a lot wealthier than they are and it is mostly an illusion. If they were forced to do a personal financial statement and had to list their assets and liabilities I bet most people would find that they are in bad shape. They will find that they are further down the income ladder and wealth ladder than they realize.

Americans by and large are broke. Most of their assets are tied up in the value of their homes which have fallen considerably. Canada's average household net worth now exceeds the US. I read in The Economist that the average Chinese family has more savings than the average US family. None of this is good. Americans are screwed and the sad thing is that they do not know how screwed they are and will be in the future. A lot of it has to do with cheap credit but there is also something much more sinister at work. Woman and immigrants have flooded the work force and for most of the last 35 years there has been a glut of labor in this nation. The glut is keeping wages and benefits down. Employers can always find cheaper labor. Throw in a global economy and you have a recipe for disaster. Somehow we are going to have to find a way to make this work or America will lose its middle class and our status in the world as a top economic power. Without a robust middle class we will have social unrest and an economy that will not work. Having such an imbalance in wealth will ultimately lead to resentment by the have nots against the haves and as history has shown that has never worked at well for the haves.

I actually think we need to go back to the tax rates under Ike. The current low tax rates on income over a million dollars has caused all sorts of bad consequences for this nation. Everything from large deficits to the wholesale raping of companies by greedy CEO's. We need to force capital back to innovation and building companies and getting American exports moving again. We have to start thinking long term and generationally if we want to survive. Our current system of inequality will work for only so long then the system breaks. It needs to be fixed and the playing field level again.

[MR2-Sooner86]

The only thing that really bothers me about the top 1-10% controlling so much wealth is that their interests have the potential to become overrepresented in politics (left or right really doesnt matter since the top donors to both sides are usually the same people/corporations).

People are idiots. More specifically, anybody who voted for Obama or Romney this past election is an idiot. It's not the money as you can see it coming a mile away. Well, informed people, like me, can see it coming a mile away.

Both candidates got big donations from the same big banks that got bailouts and special deals. Democrats loved to point out that Romney was the "Wall Street candidate" but they ignored the fact Obama is as well. By this point, W. had close to 1,000 convictions of financial fraud but Obama has zero (http://dailybail.com/home/convicted-bush-1300-clinton-1000-obama-00.html). Why? Many people in Obama's justice department worked for the law firms that defended said Wall Street firms.

Let's not forget Romney. He was a politically connected child born with a silver spoon that has lied and sold out his entire career. Republicans had a chance for a real candidate but their stupidity ruined any chance of that.

Of course, the people are really to blame. They voted for it. Maybe if they really voted for their beliefs instead of stuck with pesky tribalism "I'd vote for him but I'm unsure he'll win" maybe we'd be in a better location as a country.

As for wealth redistribution, isn't it funny most of those graphs show signs of this starting in the 70's? Of course things had started beforehand.

"I am now a Keynesian in economics" - Nixon

When the United States went to 100% fiat currency is when things really took off.

The left whines about the 1% but is very opposed to auditing the Federal Reserve, competitive currencies, gold standards, or anything of that nature. The right is too but not as much. They cry about wealth inequality but turn a blind eye to the fact that same 1% is sitting at the Fed controlling our money. They also ignore that Wall Street insider trading laws do not apply to Congress. As an open and public institution, the legal assumption has long been that any member of the public can have access to information about how Congress works. In practice, though, that's simply not true, as powerful members of Congress come into contact daily with market-moving tidbits. That gap between the law and the reality has made Capitol Hill a virtual free-fire zone for insider trading. Over the years, academic studies have found that members of the House of Representatives beat the market by as much as six percent per year and members of the Senate do even better than that. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857).

[diverdog]

People are idiots. More specifically, anybody who voted for Obama or Romney this past election is an idiot. It's not the money as you can see it coming a mile away. Well, informed people, like me, can see it coming a mile away.

Both candidates got big donations from the same big banks that got bailouts and special deals. Democrats loved to point out that Romney was the "Wall Street candidate" but they ignored the fact Obama is as well. By this point, W. had close to 1,000 convictions of financial fraud but Obama has zero (http://dailybail.com/home/convicted-bush-1300-clinton-1000-obama-00.html). Why? Many people in Obama's justice department worked for the law firms that defended said Wall Street firms.

Let's not forget Romney. He was a politically connected child born with a silver spoon that has lied and sold out his entire career. Republicans had a chance for a real candidate but their stupidity ruined any chance of that.

Of course, the people are really to blame. They voted for it. Maybe if they really voted for their beliefs instead of stuck with pesky tribalism "I'd vote for him but I'm unsure he'll win" maybe we'd be in a better location as a country.

As for wealth redistribution, isn't it funny most of those graphs show signs of this starting in the 70's? Of course things had started beforehand.

"I am now a Keynesian in economics" - Nixon

When the United States went to 100% fiat currency is when things really took off.

The left whines about the 1% but is very opposed to auditing the Federal Reserve, competitive currencies, gold standards, or anything of that nature. The right is too but not as much. They cry about wealth inequality but turn a blind eye to the fact that same 1% is sitting at the Fed controlling our money. They also ignore that Wall Street insider trading laws do not apply to Congress. As an open and public institution, the legal assumption has long been that any member of the public can have access to information about how Congress works. In practice, though, that's simply not true, as powerful members of Congress come into contact daily with market-moving tidbits. That gap between the law and the reality has made Capitol Hill a virtual free-fire zone for insider trading. Over the years, academic studies have found that members of the House of Representatives beat the market by as much as six percent per year and members of the Senate do even better than that. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857).

I agree with some of what you said. One of the problems with white collar crime enforcement has been a massive shift of FBI resources to the war on terror. Since 2004 their work in this area has substantially declined and along with that the number of convictions. Does not excuse Obama's crappy record in this area but it is a contributing factor.

About the only good thing I have seen is that the FBI has been investigating the bank I used to work for (it collapsed on bad loans) and they are starting to jail people for loan fraud.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Even as a tax hating conservative, I believe the CEO pay in this country is outrageous. Also certain athletes, celebrities, etc. I cannot imagine how they can accept those packages. That kind of greed is strange psychology. I wouldn't feel right taking that kind of cash, I'd rather see a big chunk of it put toward employee pay.

So, the video is shocking, but what are their solutions? Anything other than taxes?

As a shareholder I think CEO pay in this country is outrageous. I think you could start to reign it in by ensuring that corporations have more independant board members. Corporate governance in this country is a joke and a good ole boy insider club.

[FirstandGoal]

Okay, I get that the distribution of wealth in the country is skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy. And I get that the authors of that video think that this is a bad thing (else why the lugubrious/menacing music).

Here's the fundamental question, however: Does a skewed distribution of wealth make me any less of a person or make my life any less worth living?

I would submit that, so long as I can supply myself with the necessities of life and some quantum of the things that I might not need but want, then, no, it does not.

Bill Gates has many, many times more money than I have. Does it make him happier than I am? More of a person than I am? Does it have any real impact on me whatsoever? Not really.

Leftist thinkers like to posit that leftists are more concerned with the interests of the collective, the arts, learning, caring for others and that sort of thing; and that the right/republicans/conservatives are simply money grubbing, shallow greed heads. It has always stuck me as ironic, then, that those on the left spend so much of their time jealously pondering other people's money and figuring ways to classify its accumulation as a social ill and then how to get their hands on it.

Agree! I live in a neighborhood where the houses on one end are more in the higher middle class range and the ones on the more affluent end are pretty spectacular. It is a long, sprawling area and I can run about 6 miles before I complete my circuit. I run through this neighborhood all the time and as I run by I usually can't help but wonder about some of the people living in these big beautiful homes. I also happen to fill the prescriptions of many of these guys both in these homes and in equally affluent areas around town and I've never filled so many anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds ever in the history of my career.
Bottom line: Money can't buy you love. Or Happiness.
That being said, I would rather have the same set of problems I do now with the money I have rather than have the same problems and a whole lot less money.


Excellent!

I'll go a step further...assuming the current wealth distribution in this country is a "bad thing", what is it exactly that can be done? Are we going to collect everyone's money and then redistribute? Is an extra tax on the top 1% really going to redistribute the nations wealth? Are we going to pass laws that disallow inheritances past a certain amount? Hint: The answer is "No" for all of those.

It's been mentioned in this thread already, but worth repeating, figure out what makes life "fair" for you, then go get that. This constant evaluation of how the wealth is distributed in this country is a counter-productive measure, that I'll never really understand.

Agree again! So let me see if I gotcha here 8TC. If we were to take the money from the 1% and re-distribute it to be "fair" how long do you think that 1% would continue to work and amass wealth? In the long run, the wealth would leave our country (because either the 1% would leave or they would give everybody the finger and stop amassing wealth) Okay, now that you have redistributed, and those that are either smart, blessed, or lucky once again start amassing a "disproportionate" amount of wealth and what now? Redistribute again?
Ultimately all you would create is a worse economic condition for everyone because more wealth overall has left your country and gone somewhere else. Oh but hey.... at least it would be "fair."


I remember seeing something about that a few years back. I think the $75k is when people start being less stressed about things. When I hit $100k it seemed like I had more disposable income. I also think that having too much money can be a stressor if you don't know how to deal with it. You see all of these people who win the lottery and end up broke, because they have absolutely no idea how to deal with that much money. I'm like you. When I get extra money, it goes into the bank. I'm building a good retirement account and something I can leave for the care of my older autistic son. Frankly though my income has continued to go up a bunch, and I am happier all of the time.

I would agree that as a single earner, single mom household, 75K is my minimum amount for the stress factor. Any under that and I stress about money all of the time. Just over 100K is my personal "sweet spot" because I know I have enough to cover my current debts and anything unexpected (breast cancer anyone?) that comes up, but I don't have so much wealth that I become wasteful or take for granted what I have. I become most efficient in this range because I actually have enough to do something with and don't feel as if I need to hang onto every single dime for "just in case."

[pphilfran]

People...over time this inequality is inevitable...

The following is a quick, simple, reasonably accurate representation of what we should expect to happen...

A couple of things to keep in mind...

1. Bob, my imaginary low wage earner, could actually earn even less and save nothing
2. Betty, my high wage earner could actually earn far more and save even more

Bob:
* Few skills
* Wages increase 3% a year (matches inflation in my imaginary world)
* Saves 5% of annual salary
* Earns 6% on savings

Pedro
* Few skills and manages a few promotions along the way
* Wages increase 4% a year
* Saves 10% of annual salary
* Earns 6% on savings

Betty
* Highly skilled
* Wages increase 6% a year
* Saves 20% of annual salary
* Earns 6% on savings

At the end of 40 years working:
Bob has 10% the total wealth and his cut is falling every year
Pedro has 23.5% of the wealth and his cut is falling every year
Betty has 66.5% of the wealth and her cut is growing every year (bitch)

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/worth_zpsa5952dbc.jpg

[KantoSooner]

Now factor in the 'three generation rule' (which, interestingly, I got from a Chinese saying. Roughly, it parallels what we've said over here for as long as I've been around. The first generation makes the money, the second enjoys it, the third pisses it away. And now think of how shallow the gene pools of many great american families have gotten.
Given a big break to start with it should be pretty easy to create heriditary wealth that just doesn't stop, but it doesn't really seem to work that way. Give 'em enough time and the kiddies will eff up a truly sweet deal.

Try to name a list of truly wealthy families whose wealth extends back more than three generations. It's harder than you think. And the number is ultimately smaller than you anticipated.

Looked at over a longer time horizon, wealth distribution in the US is less of an issue than it might appear at first blush.

[okie52]

People are idiots. More specifically, anybody who voted for Obama or Romney this past election is an idiot. It's not the money as you can see it coming a mile away. Well, informed people, like me, can see it coming a mile away.

Both candidates got big donations from the same big banks that got bailouts and special deals. Democrats loved to point out that Romney was the "Wall Street candidate" but they ignored the fact Obama is as well. By this point, W. had close to 1,000 convictions of financial fraud but Obama has zero (http://dailybail.com/home/convicted-bush-1300-clinton-1000-obama-00.html). Why? Many people in Obama's justice department worked for the law firms that defended said Wall Street firms.

Let's not forget Romney. He was a politically connected child born with a silver spoon that has lied and sold out his entire career. Republicans had a chance for a real candidate but their stupidity ruined any chance of that.

Of course, the people are really to blame. They voted for it. Maybe if they really voted for their beliefs instead of stuck with pesky tribalism "I'd vote for him but I'm unsure he'll win" maybe we'd be in a better location as a country.

As for wealth redistribution, isn't it funny most of those graphs show signs of this starting in the 70's? Of course things had started beforehand.

"I am now a Keynesian in economics" - Nixon

When the United States went to 100% fiat currency is when things really took off.

The left whines about the 1% but is very opposed to auditing the Federal Reserve, competitive currencies, gold standards, or anything of that nature. The right is too but not as much. They cry about wealth inequality but turn a blind eye to the fact that same 1% is sitting at the Fed controlling our money. They also ignore that Wall Street insider trading laws do not apply to Congress. As an open and public institution, the legal assumption has long been that any member of the public can have access to information about how Congress works. In practice, though, that's simply not true, as powerful members of Congress come into contact daily with market-moving tidbits. That gap between the law and the reality has made Capitol Hill a virtual free-fire zone for insider trading. Over the years, academic studies have found that members of the House of Representatives beat the market by as much as six percent per year and members of the Senate do even better than that. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857).

Who was the "smart" choice in the last election?

[jkjsooner]

I also think CEO pay is out of control and that is owed to the system of corporate governance in the country. Corporate boards should have more independent directors.

That reminds me of something I heard the other day. Switzerland was voting on allowing shareholders to limit the compensation of executives. Note we're not saying the government could limit the compensation but shareholders - those people who actually own the company! Did they really need a law that says that?

The executive pay is a travesty. I understand if a guy can bring $500 million to a company that it's only fair he makes $100 million but most of these executives are mediocre and replaceable.

The problem is that shareholders really don't have a say. Their vote is too dilluted and too often their ownership is through a mutual fund. It's a system that has become rigged for the well connected.

[jkjsooner]

I always love it when I hear things like "The CEO makes 380x the average worker and he isn't working 380x harder." It has something to do with working harder, but the average American just doesn't have the skills to be the CEO. (Look at the much studied Ben and Jerry's disaster.)

Do you think the average CEO is not replaceable with someone who would be willing to do the job for much less? It's a network of well connected folks looking after themselves.

I'd be the the first to admit that I couldn't do the job of a CEO. I don't have the social skills to do it. However, I know there are hundreds of qualified people who do have the skills for every CEO.

There are exceptions of course. Had Steve Jobs earned a large salary he would have deserved every penny of it. But most CEO's are not as innovative or successful as Jobs.

If a CEO wants to make a ton of money he should be able to prove that he has brought that value to his company. That means he should exceed the expectations and do it over a long term. (Using short term profits or stock price increases is just asking for trouble as it encourages excessive risk as we've seen over the last decade.)

[FaninAma]

Relation between IQ and life outcomes in the U.S. among sibling pairs in a "Utopian" sample
IQ
<75
75–90
90–110
110–125
>125


Mean years of education
11.4 (10.9)
12.3 (11.9)
13.4 (13.2)
15.2 (15.0)
16.5 (16.5)


Percentage obtaining B.A.
1 (1)
4 (3)
19 (16)
57 (50)
80 (77)


Mean weeks worked
35.8 (30.7)
39.0 (36.5)
43.0 (41.8)
45.1 (45.2)
45.6 (45.4)


Mean earned income
11,000 (7,500)
16,000 (13,000)
23,000 (21,000)
27,000 (27,000)
38,000 (36,000)


Percentage with a spouse who has earned income
30 (27)
38 (39)
53 (54)
61 (59)
58 (58)


Mean earned family income
17,000 (12,000)
25,000 (23,400)
37,750 (37,000)
47,200 (45,000)
53,700 (53,000)


Percentage children born out of wedlock
49 (50)
33 (32)
14 (14)
6 (6)
3 (5)


Fertility to date
2.1 (2.3)
1.7 (1.9)
1.4 (1.6)
1.3 (1.4)
1.0 (1.0)


Mother's mean age at birth
24.4 (22.8)
24.5 (23.7)
26.0 (25.2)
27.4 (27.1)
29.0 (28.5)


Values are "Utopian sample" ("Full sample"). Earning values are the 1993 US Dollars.[42] (http://www.soonerfans.com/#cite_note-murray98-42)

[FirstandGoal]

Relation between IQ and life outcomes in the U.S. among sibling pairs in a "Utopian" sample
IQ
<75
75–90
90–110
110–125
>125


Mean years of education
11.4 (10.9)
12.3 (11.9)
13.4 (13.2)
15.2 (15.0)
16.5 (16.5)


Percentage obtaining B.A.
1 (1)
4 (3)
19 (16)
57 (50)
80 (77)


Mean weeks worked
35.8 (30.7)
39.0 (36.5)
43.0 (41.8)
45.1 (45.2)
45.6 (45.4)


Mean earned income
11,000 (7,500)
16,000 (13,000)
23,000 (21,000)
27,000 (27,000)
38,000 (36,000)


Percentage with a spouse who has earned income
30 (27)
38 (39)
53 (54)
61 (59)
58 (58)


Mean earned family income
17,000 (12,000)
25,000 (23,400)
37,750 (37,000)
47,200 (45,000)
53,700 (53,000)


Percentage children born out of wedlock
49 (50)
33 (32)
14 (14)
6 (6)
3 (5)


Fertility to date
2.1 (2.3)
1.7 (1.9)
1.4 (1.6)
1.3 (1.4)
1.0 (1.0)


Mother's mean age at birth
24.4 (22.8)
24.5 (23.7)
26.0 (25.2)
27.4 (27.1)
29.0 (28.5)


Values are "Utopian sample" ("Full sample"). Earning values are the 1993 US Dollars.[42] (http://www.soonerfans.com/#cite_note-murray98-42)




LOL, I'm all over the place on those charts and would most definitely would skew the stats over and over.

IQ over 125. Check.
Have a post-grad degree and have a good income, but no spouse. Had my first child at the age of 24 (and conceived one out of wedlock.)
Never had any problems with fertility but I only had 2 children. I guess that's what the second to last row is all about, but I'm not sure.

[SoonerorLater]

I was taught to never envy others. Other inviduals wealth or lack of it should not be a concern. As a matter of fact we as human beings should be happy for the success of others. I honestly don't understand the rancor in this country against the rich.

[Midtowner]

I was taught to never envy others. Other inviduals wealth or lack of it should not be a concern. As a matter of fact we as human beings should be happy for the success of others. I honestly don't understand the rancor in this country against the rich.

It's not so much envy as wishing for more of a meritocracy and at the very least, not having an undue burden placed on the most vulnerable while the top 1% live like lords and ladies, not having to concern themselves with anything but maintaining power. No country in the history of the world has ever maintained the sort of aristocracy we have now without drifting towards social upheaval. Either the elite are going to have to chip in more for bread and circuses or they're going to have a full-on revolt on their hands at some point. This is especially possible considering the deep cuts to entitlements and to military and police spending which are going to have to occur in the not too distant future in order that our investor class can continue to live their lifestyle uninterrupted.

This isn't about envy, it's about not wanting this country to crumble because its aristocracy refuses to pay the price of having a nominally free society.

[okie52]

It's not so much envy as wishing for more of a meritocracy and at the very least, not having an undue burden placed on the most vulnerable while the top 1% live like lords and ladies, not having to concern themselves with anything but maintaining power. No country in the history of the world has ever maintained the sort of aristocracy we have now without drifting towards social upheaval. Either the elite are going to have to chip in more for bread and circuses or they're going to have a full-on revolt on their hands at some point. This is especially possible considering the deep cuts to entitlements and to military and police spending which are going to have to occur in the not too distant future in order that our investor class can continue to live their lifestyle uninterrupted.

This isn't about envy, it's about not wanting this country to crumble because its aristocracy refuses to pay the price of having a nominally free society.

Just how much of a tax rate do the ruling aristocracy need to have to provide circuses and bread for the masses?

[REDREX]

Maybe the Gov't should stop promissing things they cannot deliver or pay for.--------------Even the poor in this country live better than the VAST majority of people in the world

[SoonerorLater]

It's not so much envy as wishing for more of a meritocracy and at the very least, not having an undue burden placed on the most vulnerable while the top 1% live like lords and ladies, not having to concern themselves with anything but maintaining power. No country in the history of the world has ever maintained the sort of aristocracy we have now without drifting towards social upheaval. Either the elite are going to have to chip in more for bread and circuses or they're going to have a full-on revolt on their hands at some point. This is especially possible considering the deep cuts to entitlements and to military and police spending which are going to have to occur in the not too distant future in order that our investor class can continue to live their lifestyle uninterrupted.

This isn't about envy, it's about not wanting this country to crumble because its aristocracy refuses to pay the price of having a nominally free society.

There has never been a true meritocracy and there never will. Some people are just better at playing the wealth accumulation game. These are the people who understand how to get rich by leveraging the efforts of others as well as their own efforts. I completely dimiss the idea rich people should be held hostage to provide entitlements to the have-nots to ensure social order. While poverty is nothing to aspire to, it's not a crime either. Poverty is the warning sign that says you need to play the game better.

I just can't understand the mindset of a person who sees something another has and feels entitled to even a part of it.

[Midtowner]

Just how much of a tax rate do the ruling aristocracy need to have to provide circuses and bread for the masses?

Enough to at least get rid of all deficit spending and pay down the debt. The system is rigged in their favor though and they'd apparently rather go off a cliff as a nation than to pay their fair share. Part of society is always going to have to be subsidized, especially with the advent of automation technology which will virtually replace the American worker. Not everyone will be able to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer or machinist and the jobs robots just can't do, e.g., plumbing are already saturated.


Maybe the Gov't should stop promissing things they cannot deliver or pay for.--------------Even the poor in this country live better than the VAST majority of people in the world

I prefer to compare the U.S. to peer nations. Being able to say that your poor are treated better than those in Liberia isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

[Midtowner]

There has never been a true meritocracy and there never will. Some people are just better at playing the wealth accumulation game. These are the people who understand how to get rich by leveraging the efforts of others as well as their own efforts. I completely dimiss the idea rich people should be held hostage to provide entitlements to the have-nots to ensure social order. While poverty is nothing to aspire to, it's not a crime either. Poverty is the warning sign that says you need to play the game better.

There will always be income inequality. I think most people understand that and are fine with it. When we have the sorts of concentrations of wealth we have right now? Well, great nations have burned over less dire situations. The only thing holding the poor in check is entitlement spending. Since we can't afford to imprison them all by increasing taxes on the middle class (the only thing seriously being talked about), something's gotta give.


I just can't understand the mindset of a person who sees something another has and feels entitled to even a part of it.

When that person rigged the game to get what they want and has the power to change the rules on their own whim, I certainly do.

[REDREX]

There will always be income inequality. I think most people understand that and are fine with it. When we have the sorts of concentrations of wealth we have right now? Well, great nations have burned over less dire situations. The only thing holding the poor in check is entitlement spending. Since we can't afford to imprison them all by increasing taxes on the middle class (the only thing seriously being talked about), something's gotta give.



When that person rigged the game to get what they want and has the power to change the rules on their own whim, I certainly do.---I would like to know what I did to "rig" the game----I started with nothing and worked for what I have today

[KantoSooner]

Mid, it's nice to see you back. There is a difference between a heriditary aristocracy and one based on money alone. The latter has a charming, and self-corrective, tendency to bear idiot off-spring and thus watch the whole thing get squandered.

[Midtowner]

---I would like to know what I did to "rig" the game----I started with nothing and worked for what I have today

If you think you're part of the wealthy elite, you're totally deluded. In fact, both parties are really full of nothing but useful idiots if they don't recognize the problem of unregulated financial markets. Obama is even worse than Bush was in that regard. I think history will be very unkind.

--unless you're one of five Oklahomans on Forbe's list.

[Midtowner]

Mid, it's nice to see you back. There is a difference between a heriditary aristocracy and one based on money alone. The latter has a charming, and self-corrective, tendency to bear idiot off-spring and thus watch the whole thing get squandered.

I think you're thinking smallish. Unfortunately, that self-corrective tendency doesn't correct the overarching problem, which is a darn near Dark Ages style concentration of wealth at the top.

[REDREX]

If you think you're part of the wealthy elite, you're totally deluded. In fact, both parties are really full of nothing but useful idiots if they don't recognize the problem of unregulated financial markets. Obama is even worse than Bush was in that regard. I think history will be very unkind.

--unless you're one of five Oklahomans on Forbe's list.----I know I am not one of the richest people in Okla.-----But if I am not part of your elite group can I stop paying income tax at the highest rate?-----

[Midtowner]

----I know I am not one of the richest people in Okla.-----But if I am not part of your elite group can I stop paying income tax at the highest rate?-----

The upper middle class top 9%ish folks kind of got screwed on that one, enjoy your 15 minutes as the sacrificial lamb put out there to protect the Wal Mart heirs. But no, you pay the exact same tax rate as the rest of us, no more.

[KantoSooner]

I think you're thinking smallish. Unfortunately, that self-corrective tendency doesn't correct the overarching problem, which is a darn near Dark Ages style concentration of wealth at the top.

In what way is that a problem? Is there more 'churn' in the economy with a flatter distribution? Maybe, but there's also less investment capital. Does a flatter distribution somehow release more creativity into the society? I see no evidence that it does; and Toqueville made the counter argument without much to support him, either. So, what is is about income inequality that is fundamentally bad?

[Midtowner]

In what way is that a problem? Is there more 'churn' in the economy with a flatter distribution? Maybe, but there's also less investment capital. Does a flatter distribution somehow release more creativity into the society? I see no evidence that it does; and Toqueville made the counter argument without much to support him, either. So, what is is about income inequality that is fundamentally bad?

The answer to your second question, it's yes. Income inequality is a bad phrase. It seems to imply that anyone who uses the term disparagingly is in favor of income equality, which would probably be worse than inequality.

What's fundamentally bad is that we have a shrinking middle class and a wealthy patron class which is able to shield most of its income from taxes and thus deny society its fair share, leading to deficits and debt. On top of that, the same patron class is replacing workers with technology or simply outsourcing their jobs overseas and not being required to pay a dime for the damage that causes to our economy.

We have to decide whether we're a nation set up for the common good or as a power structure to shelter the fortunes of the wealth elite and to provide them a docile labor force when (or if) they require one.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Who was the "smart" choice in the last election?

I'm sure a bright guy, such as yourself, will have no problem figuring that one out.

[okie52]

Enough to at least get rid of all deficit spending and pay down the debt. The system is rigged in their favor though and they'd apparently rather go off a cliff as a nation than to pay their fair share. Part of society is always going to have to be subsidized, especially with the advent of automation technology which will virtually replace the American worker. Not everyone will be able to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer or machinist and the jobs robots just can't do, e.g., plumbing are already saturated.



I prefer to compare the U.S. to peer nations. Being able to say that your poor are treated better than those in Liberia isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

They are already subsidizing the poor. You mean you want them to subsidize them more.

So, again, what is their fair share? 50% tax rates? 60%? 70%?

[okie52]

I'm sure a bright guy, such as yourself, will have no problem figuring that one out.

I only saw 2 candidates on OK's ballot...evidently they weren't the good choices.

[Midtowner]

And since some of y'all in the bubble refuse to watch a video which might actually challenge some of your preconceptions with math and numbers and such, here is the main takeaway:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Wealth-estimates-quintiles.png

Now, I would question the "ideal" label as I don't think the bottom 20% or so should have any wealth. There should be a segment of society living paycheck to paycheck and that should be around the bottom 20%, not the bottom 80%.

The middle bar is what most Americans are surveyed think our wealth disparity is and the final one is what it actually is.

Our country's next biggest problem is going to be that of productivity. Through technology, workers will become so productive that we're going to need fewer and fewer. Yes, some folks will be fine as entrepreneurs, but some definitely won't be able to find work, because unless you have marketable skills, which are becoming fewer and further between, you may be unemployable.

[Midtowner]

They are already subsidizing the poor. You mean you want them to subsidize them more.

Yes. The activities of the wealthy elite, billionaires, have resulted in more poor people because that's what they do--soak up as much money from the economy and keep it.


So, again, what is their fair share? 50% tax rates? 60%? 70%?

I don't know, I'm not proposing specific tax reforms, I'm arguing the morality of tax hikes on the wealthy. Am I for confiscatory tax schemes? Certainly not. Would I be in favor of keeping the current brackets and doing away with short term capital gains and making long term capital gains something on the order of 2-3 years to qualify for the lower rates and hiking those to boot? Darn skippy. There are a lot of things I'd think of as fair. Our current system is rigged to favor the extremely wealthy. If you don't agree, you're just being difficult.

[BermudaSooner]

Do you think the average CEO is not replaceable with someone who would be willing to do the job for much less? It's a network of well connected folks looking after themselves.

I'd be the the first to admit that I couldn't do the job of a CEO. I don't have the social skills to do it. However, I know there are hundreds of qualified people who do have the skills for every CEO.

There are exceptions of course. Had Steve Jobs earned a large salary he would have deserved every penny of it. But most CEO's are not as innovative or successful as Jobs.

If a CEO wants to make a ton of money he should be able to prove that he has brought that value to his company. That means he should exceed the expectations and do it over a long term. (Using short term profits or stock price increases is just asking for trouble as it encourages excessive risk as we've seen over the last decade.)

I'm saying it takes a very special skill to be a CEO of a major corporation, and that these people are few and far between. Through my career I've met and worked with many impressive people--and I've met and worked with many batting well above their batting average. If allowed, I could have made lots of money just betting for and against the right actors.

CEOs are not unlike QBs. You see how a team suffers missing that one very key component. Landry is a very good QB, but he was no Sammy. Tim Cook seems to be a very competent man, but he is no Steve Jobs. AAPL is up about 5% in the 18 months since he took over. I doubt Jobs ever saw such a small increase in 18 months. Lots going on for AAPL, so can't just blame on the CEO, but it is telling.

I've talked to the man that writes Bill Gross's bonus check every year (Gross is head of PIMCO, owned by Allianz). I asked him what it is like to write a $250 million check to Gross...and this is coming from a guy that probably makes at most EUR 2-3 million, he said, "he is worth every penny."

Of course there are CEO that are overpaid...but the point isn't to put into context how much money that person is making in relation to how much you are making. Put it into context of what has he done for that money. A CEO making $100 million who's company lost money is overpaid--I agree. A CEO making $250 million who made billions could possibly be underpaid.

[KantoSooner]

Mid,
"Society's fair share"

"a nation set up for the common good"

"not required to pay a dime for the damage this (their investment decisions) causes the country"

You're dealing with some very loaded phrases there, my friend.

What is society's 'fair share'? The Spanish Empire got fat, dumb and happy on 20% (the 'King's Fifth'). Jesus of Nazereth only demanded 10% (tithing) and he had divine help to call upon in a pinch. Shall we compromise at 15%, no deductions and call it fair?

Are we a nation set up to serve the common good? And what is that anyway? Is it everyone getting issued the necessaries of life and being told what they must do in exchange? That would certainly be in the common interest, seen one way. And, if I was living just beyond the boundaries of Stockholm's State School For Wayward Orphan Girls, I'd probably be content to work my day and then while away my evenings in communal bliss.

But you might just as well define 'common good' as a system in which you're permitted to do your deal and retain the fruits of your activity.

And as to having to 'pay' because you find you can source your product more cheaply or produce your product more cheaply outside the USofA? If I really can, and pay for the freight and STILL compete? Then, my friend, I've just discovered an enterprise that should NOT be done in the USofA. Should I be forced to pay damages to someone because I like to drink Scotch and that's not made in America? Should I have had to drive crappy cars forever....or should I have been allowed to buy a Japanese car that was better in every way and cheaper than their 1970's American competition (and, there is no way American makers would have ever shifted off their fat butts and fixed their product without the salutary impact of having their heads handed to them.)

I'm sorry, but the concentration in income we're seeing now is pretty typical of what happens with the disruption of new technology. It happened with the railroads in the 1890's. It's happening with digital communication and control today. It'll also flatten out over time as people leave deadend factory jobs and the like and move into positions that more fully utilize their brains and ability to collaborate and improvise, on the spot. (and no, I don't know what these jobs are. If I did, I would have monopolized control over them and joined the 1% on my floating space station, deliriously free from taxation and served space fruit cocktails by my Babarella-costume-clad 'assistants'.)

[BermudaSooner]

Yes. The activities of the wealthy elite, billionaires, have resulted in more poor people because that's what they do--soak up as much money from the economy and keep it.
.

I'm always baffled by this argument that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor...somehow soaking up an finite resource called money. Money is most definitely not finite..and I most definitely did not take mine from some poor bloke....I busted my *** and earned it.

[okie52]

Yes. The activities of the wealthy elite, billionaires, have resulted in more poor people because that's what they do--soak up as much money from the economy and keep it.



I don't know, I'm not proposing specific tax reforms, I'm arguing the morality of tax hikes on the wealthy. Am I for confiscatory tax schemes? Certainly not. Would I be in favor of keeping the current brackets and doing away with short term capital gains and making long term capital gains something on the order of 2-3 years to qualify for the lower rates and hiking those to boot? Darn skippy. There are a lot of things I'd think of as fair. Our current system is rigged to favor the extremely wealthy. If you don't agree, you're just being difficult.

I like being difficult if when it comes to "fairness" particularly where I don't agree with it. So we have half of the country paying no federal income tax and the system is "rigged" for the rich. It's pretty hard to go lower than 0. SS isn't certainly distributed proportionally either.

Hiking LTCGs would affect the little guy more than the big guys unless you are going to put a 2-3,000,000 limit. A lot of small business owners fall under that plateau.

There's a difference between income and wealth. Perhaps you are really wanting to up the estate taxes and lower the exemption.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I only saw 2 candidates on OK's ballot...evidently they weren't the good choices.

They weren't because Oklahoma isn't too bright. I mean Santorum won here.

Do what I did, don't vote. As a capitalist, I like choices. I don't like being forced by the state into their pre-approved duopoly.

[Midtowner]

I too share your vision of Barbarella costume clad 'assistants.' Alas, sexual harassment laws, amirite?

But let's just look at "common good." There are some things we've agreed to in the Constitution, a national defense (which is now utilized to protect the overseas interests of billionaires and their companies), the power of the Congress to authorize letters of Marque and Reprisal [I keed], statutory powers of Congress under the auspices of the Interstate Commerce Clause to protect the people from polluters, the power to regulate aliens, the statutory ability of Congress to pay entitlements to folks in the work force who would literally starve in the darkness without a subsidy.

The common good would also be served by not going into too much debt, and when we have a debt like ours and wealth inequality like we do, the only solution to our problem is painfully obvious--take it from the only place you can still get it from. You know the misattributed quote to Willie Sutton.. why do your rob banks? "Because that's where the money is." 'Cept taxes ain't robbery, it's getting a society to pay what it costs to be a society.

Now as to foreign competition, I agree to a point, but completely unregulated and open trade is dumb. If we must utilize cheap labor, let's utilize labor in a country which isn't stealing our intellectual property and using it to directly compete with us while manipulating its currency, etc. In other words, international competition is fine, but let's not be stupid about it and let's not let anyone steal our lunch money.

[XingTheRubicon]

2 kinds of people...those who utter the term "that's not fair" about anything, beyond the age of 8

and those who don't.

[Midtowner]

I'm always baffled by this argument that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor...somehow soaking up an finite resource called money. Money is most definitely not finite..and I most definitely did not take mine from some poor bloke....I busted my *** and earned it.

On the contrary, at any given time, there is a finite amount of money in the world.

You only get money by taking it from someone else and that someone else is either getting richer off of your efforts or making you poorer by theirs and yours or...you get the picture.

[Midtowner]

2 kinds of people...those who utter the term "that's not fair" about anything, beyond the age of 8

and those who don't.

Yeah, those who don't are the same a*sholes who fart in elevators.

[BermudaSooner]

On the contrary, at any given time, there is a finite amount of money in the world.

You only get money by taking it from someone else and that someone else is either getting richer off of your efforts or making you poorer by theirs and yours or...you get the picture.

We are playing semantics here? OK, at 3:31pm there is exactly X dollars in the world. At 3:32, there will be more.

[okie52]

They weren't because Oklahoma isn't too bright. I mean Santorum won here.

Do what I did, don't vote. As a capitalist, I like choices. I don't like being forced by the state into their pre-approved duopoly.

Well **** Obama won a lot of states.

Did a libertarian win any state or even get close during a primary or national election?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

People are idiots. More specifically, anybody who voted for Obama or Romney this past election is an idiot. It's not the money as you can see it coming a mile away. Well, informed people, like me, can see it coming a mile away.

Both candidates got big donations from the same big banks that got bailouts and special deals. Democrats loved to point out that Romney was the "Wall Street candidate" but they ignored the fact Obama is as well. By this point, W. had close to 1,000 convictions of financial fraud but Obama has zero (http://dailybail.com/home/convicted-bush-1300-clinton-1000-obama-00.html). Why? Many people in Obama's justice department worked for the law firms that defended said Wall Street firms.

Let's not forget Romney. He was a politically connected child born with a silver spoon that has lied and sold out his entire career. Republicans had a chance for a real candidate but their stupidity ruined any chance of that.

Of course, the people are really to blame. They voted for it. Maybe if they really voted for their beliefs instead of stuck with pesky tribalism "I'd vote for him but I'm unsure he'll win" maybe we'd be in a better location as a country.

As for wealth redistribution, isn't it funny most of those graphs show signs of this starting in the 70's? Of course things had started beforehand.

"I am now a Keynesian in economics" - Nixon

When the United States went to 100% fiat currency is when things really took off.

The left whines about the 1% but is very opposed to auditing the Federal Reserve, competitive currencies, gold standards, or anything of that nature. The right is too but not as much. They cry about wealth inequality but turn a blind eye to the fact that same 1% is sitting at the Fed controlling our money. They also ignore that Wall Street insider trading laws do not apply to Congress. As an open and public institution, the legal assumption has long been that any member of the public can have access to information about how Congress works. In practice, though, that's simply not true, as powerful members of Congress come into contact daily with market-moving tidbits. That gap between the law and the reality has made Capitol Hill a virtual free-fire zone for insider trading. Over the years, academic studies have found that members of the House of Representatives beat the market by as much as six percent per year and members of the Senate do even better than that. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857).

I can get down with this..Is the red letters what Jesus said?

[BermudaSooner]

'Cept taxes ain't robbery, it's getting a society to pay what it costs to be a society.


"There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act." ---Henry Reardon.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I withheld my vote for president this year also..And feel great about it.

I'm not rich..I'm not poor. What I have is what I have worked for. What I don't have I didn't work for.

With the people i work with, Wealth distribution isn't the issue..Wealth management is.

[jkjsooner]

I'm always baffled by this argument that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor...somehow soaking up an finite resource called money. Money is most definitely not finite..and I most definitely did not take mine from some poor bloke....I busted my *** and earned it.

I think Mid made the point already that you are not one of those he was talking about.

The problem I see is with the portion of society that basically lives off their wealth. I don't have a problem with the fact that they can live in luxury off their wealth but I do believe it has gotten out of hand.

Since wealth grows at a rate proportional to the wealth, the ultra-rich can keep soaking a larger and larger percentage of the nation's wealth without doing anything. If this continues unabated there will be problems. To some extent this is just a part of life. However, the changes in tax codes over the last 30 years (decreasing rates for the highest brackets, absurdly low capital gains rates, etc.) has made the problem worse.

[BermudaSooner]

I think Mid made the point already that you are not one of those he was talking about.

The problem I see is with the portion of society that basically lives off their wealth. I don't have a problem with the fact that they can live in luxury off their wealth but I do believe it has gotten out of hand.

Since wealth grows at a rate proportional to the wealth, the ultra-rich can keep soaking a larger and larger percentage of the nation's wealth without doing anything. If this continues unabated there will be problems. To some extent this is just a part of life. However, the changes in tax codes over the last 30 years (decreasing rates for the highest brackets, absurdly low capital gains rates, etc.) has made the problem worse.

OK, and why do you have a greater claim to my wealth than my kids do? Let's say I die with $2 billion in the bank that goes to my kids (actually most to the Gov't unless many trusts are set up, but I digress). Why does somebody else have a greater claim on my production than my children?

[jkjsooner]

Yeah, those who don't are the same a*sholes who fart in elevators.

I did that one time. I was alone and was getting off in in a couple of floors. Just prior to arriving at a floor some hot girl walked in. Not my smoothest moment by any stretch...

[jkjsooner]

OK, and why do you have a greater claim to my wealth than my kids do? Let's say I die with $2 billion in the bank that goes to my kids (actually most to the Gov't unless many trusts are set up, but I digress). Why does somebody else have a greater claim on my production than my children?

You sure do love to pretend that you're a billionaire...

The point I'm making is that everything we've done over the last 30 years has benefited the ultra-rich with predictable consequences.

You guys like to talk how we're moving towards socialism but any rational evaluation of our tax policies indicates that the pendelum is a lot further to the right than you care to admit.

We're at a point where we can lower capital gains rates (Bush) and if those expire (going back to what we had before) the right screams we're heading off the cliff of socialism.

[Boomer.....]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgh6wivCerE

[KantoSooner]

"'Cept taxes ain't robbery, it's getting a society to pay what it costs to be a society." -Midtowner

Okay, and what is that, anyway? How much does it cost to 'be a society'? Is it a billion dollars? $25,000 a head per year? 15% of GNP? 15% of everyone's income?

You simply can't run a country on the basis of 'whatever it costs'. Not for long at any rate.

Further, you posit some sort of mystical claim to the wealth of one person by another that appears to be based exclusively on, a) the disproportionate size of the the first person's stack and/or, b) the gross failure of the second person to take care of his own needs. It could perhaps be boiled down to 'You got, I want. Gimme.'

You'll excuse me for not seeing much in the way of compelling moral content, or logic, to either proposition.

[BermudaSooner]

You sure do love to pretend that you're a billionaire...

The point I'm making is that everything we've done over the last 30 years has benefited the ultra-rich with predictable consequences.

You guys like to talk how we're moving towards socialism but any rational evaluation of our tax policies indicates that the pendelum is a lot further to the right than you care to admit.

We're at a point where we can lower capital gains rates (Bush) and if those expire (going back to what we had before) the right screams we're heading off the cliff of socialism.

Well, certainly didn't intend to imply I'm a billionaire--just making a point. Why is the government more entitled to my production than my kids---still the question, still not answered.

[okie52]

You sure do love to pretend that you're a billionaire...

The point I'm making is that everything we've done over the last 30 years has benefited the ultra-rich with predictable consequences.

You guys like to talk how we're moving towards socialism but any rational evaluation of our tax policies indicates that the pendelum is a lot further to the right than you care to admit.

We're at a point where we can lower capital gains rates (Bush) and if those expire (going back to what we had before) the right screams we're heading off the cliff of socialism.

So if you lower capital gains and increase tax revenues that is bad for the masses. If you raise capital gains and reduce tax revenues then it is good for the masses...kinda Obama's fairness thinking, eh?

[diverdog]

Well, certainly didn't intend to imply I'm a billionaire--just making a point. Why is the government more entitled to my production than my kids---still the question, still not answered.

Because it provides an environment where your business is safe. Most rich kids don't go into the military yet they benefit enormously from it as do the rest of us. Who do you think pays a higher cost....the parents whose son got killed by an IED or some hedge fund manager paying another million in taxes?

I honestly think we need to return to the tax rates under Ike.

[okie52]

Because it provides an environment where your business is safe. Most rich kids don't go into the military yet they benefit enormously from it as do the rest of us. Who do you think pays a higher cost....the parents whose son got killed by an IED or some hedge fund manager paying another million in taxes?

I honestly think we need to return to the tax rates under Ike.

90% good grief. Of course you'll want the same loopholes, wouldn't you?

[REDREX]

Because it provides an environment where your business is safe. Most rich kids don't go into the military yet they benefit enormously from it as do the rest of us. Who do you think pays a higher cost....the parents whose son got killed by an IED or some hedge fund manager paying another million in taxes?

I honestly think we need to return to the tax rates under Ike.---If you never want to economy to get moving go back to the tax rates under IKE----

[SCOUT]

Because it provides an environment where your business is safe. Most rich kids don't go into the military yet they benefit enormously from it as do the rest of us. Who do you think pays a higher cost....the parents whose son got killed by an IED or some hedge fund manager paying another million in taxes?

I honestly think we need to return to the tax rates under Ike.

What about the rich kids that do join the military?

[diverdog]

What about the rich kids that do join the military?

When I say rich I am talking mega rich.

[Midtowner]

"There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act." ---Henry Reardon.

Hank Reardon is a fictional character.

And Ayn Rand collected Social Security.

[Midtowner]

"'Cept taxes ain't robbery, it's getting a society to pay what it costs to be a society." -Midtowner

Okay, and what is that, anyway? How much does it cost to 'be a society'? Is it a billion dollars? $25,000 a head per year? 15% of GNP? 15% of everyone's income?

You simply can't run a country on the basis of 'whatever it costs'. Not for long at any rate.

Further, you posit some sort of mystical claim to the wealth of one person by another that appears to be based exclusively on, a) the disproportionate size of the the first person's stack and/or, b) the gross failure of the second person to take care of his own needs. It could perhaps be boiled down to 'You got, I want. Gimme.'

You'll excuse me for not seeing much in the way of compelling moral content, or logic, to either proposition.

The second person in many cases can't possibly take care of his own needs. I used to think like that--that anyone, through their positive choices could become a contributing member of society, and that if every single lowlife right now decided to get off of SSI, go to college or trade school and make something of themselves, then there would be no more poor people, etc. How incredibly naive. I'm not saying I think you think that, but anyone who does is deluded.

It was easy to grow up thinking that growing up in a McMansion in Edmond, when money was something I didn't have much concept of, that the bills were magically paid, my private school tuition was an expectation and when my family looked at an undergrad degree the same way most families see a high school diploma.

Then I became a lawyer.

Part of my law practice is pro bono in the juvenile court system. All of those flowery notions that everyone is capable of making something of themselves is total BS. Do you know how many kids are born with permanent brain damage because their addict mothers couldn't put down the meth pipe for 9 months?

Neither do I, but those kids are destined for a childhood of being labeled "emotionally disturbed," then shipped off to prison the first time their uncontrollable urges lead them to do something stupid. Or how about the kid who grows up in foster care totally neglected, told he'll never amount to anything, who starts sniffing inhalents in high school and by his 18th birthday has an IQ adjusted sub 60. He needs a dose of personal responsibility!

But since we don't summarily execute these people, we have to warehouse them in prison or at least pay to shelter them and feed them as long as they behave reasonably well. I saw some dumbarse tell a judge just yesterday (when he was charged with fleeing from the police) that he was about to be put on disability because one leg was longer than the other. You can't make that up. There are unemployable people and since we don't want a mass insurrection, we pay for the bread and circuses and right now, that and defense spending are costing more than the taxpayers are currently paying.

Kenya is a society.

So is North Korea. What does it cost to be a part of those?

Probably a lot less than it does to be a part of the U.S.

Hey, you want that freedom and security to protect your eleventybillion dollar empire? Pay for it.

[diverdog]

90% good grief. Of course you'll want the same loopholes, wouldn't you?

Yeah I would take the same loopholes. Remind me what the debt was under Ike? How many years of economic growth did he oversee? Do you want to talk about growth in GDP, savings, capital investment, income under Ike?

[Midtowner]

Yeah I would take the same loopholes. Remind me what the debt was under Ike? How many years of economic growth did he oversee? Do you want to talk about growth in GDP, savings, capital investment, income under Ike?

game/set/match

[okie52]

Yeah I would take the same loopholes. Remind me what the debt was under Ike? How many years of economic growth did he oversee? Do you want to talk about growth in GDP, savings, capital investment, income under Ike?

So it was high tax rates that drove our economy?

Tell you what, I'll give you the 90% tax bracket if you'll give me the US being the only industrialized nation in the world with Europe and Japan in shambles while the US was virtually energy independent.

Can you do that?

[okie52]

game/set/match

Obviously a student of history.

[diverdog]

So it was high tax rates that drove our economy?

Tell you what, I'll give you the 90% tax bracket if you'll give me the US being the only industrialized nation in the world with Europe and Japan in shambles while the US was virtually energy independent.

Can you do that?

Okie:

Yes because the higher rates kept CEO's from raping companies for instance. It made people put their money to work and we built things....real things not paper money. Under Ike we thought about the long term. I would kill to go back to those days.

I think you also forget we spent heavily in Japan and Europe. We also paid our bills.

[cleller]

Can we go back to the food stamp/SSDI rates under Ike, too?

[diverdog]

Can we go back to the food stamp/SSDI rates under Ike, too?

Sure if you also allow union membership and pensions to go back to the standards under Ike. How about the ability of a single earner to support his family?

[okie52]

Okie:

Yes because the higher rates kept CEO's from raping companies for instance. It made people put their money to work and we built things....real things not paper money. Under Ike we thought about the long term. I would kill to go back to those days.

I think you also forget we spent heavily in Japan and Europe. We also paid our bills.

Good god we were thriving in an industrial vacuum. We were it...not just the big kahuna but the only kahuna. Even oppressive tax rates weren't going to derail the economy.

And you have often decried that nobody was paying 90% marginal with the loopholes and write offs that were available back then. The economy allowed us the ridiculous tax rates but that started changing even as early as JFK. If high taxes were the answer then Europe should be nirvana.

[diverdog]

Good god we were thriving in an industrial vacuum. We were it...not just the big kahuna but the only kahuna. Even oppressive tax rates weren't going to derail the economy.

And you have often decried that nobody was paying 90% marginal with the loopholes and write offs that were available back then. The economy allowed us the ridiculous tax rates but that started changing even as early as JFK. If high taxes were the answer then Europe should be nirvana.

No I have decried that no one under the current system pays the maximum rates. And it is true that no one paid 90% but they paid a hell of a lot more than they do now.

All I know is until Reagan showed up we paid our bills. I think tax rates have something to do with it. And before you ask...yes we spend to much.

[okie52]

No I have decried that no one under the current system pays the maximum rates. And it is true that no one paid 90% but they paid a hell of a lot more than they do now.

All I know is until Reagan showed up we paid our bills. I think tax rates have something to do with it. And before you ask...yes we spend to much.

No deficits before Reagan? Hell Reagan closed a lot of loopholes and raised the payroll tax to keep SS solvent. Which bills did we quit paying under Reagan that we were paying before?

[cleller]

Sure if you also allow union membership and pensions to go back to the standards under Ike. How about the ability of a single earner to support his family?

Well, that might entail being content with living in a 1200 SF non-air conditioned house, having one 47 Desoto (also no a/c), no cable, no cell phones, color TVs, no braces for the kids teeth, rarely eating out, writing letters, washing our own dishes, and dying 10 years earlier.

[okie52]

Well, that might entail being content with living in a 1200 SF non-air conditioned house, having one 47 Desoto (also no a/c), no cable, no cell phones, color TVs, no braces for the kids teeth, rarely eating out, writing letters, washing our own dishes, and dying 10 years earlier.

The good ole days....

[diverdog]

Well, that might entail being content with living in a 1200 SF non-air conditioned house, having one 47 Desoto (also no a/c), no cable, no cell phones, color TVs, no braces for the kids teeth, rarely eating out, writing letters, washing our own dishes, and dying 10 years earlier.

Hell I already live like that. I am a cheap bastage.

[diverdog]

No deficits before Reagan? Hell Reagan closed a lot of loopholes and raised the payroll tax to keep SS solvent. Which bills did we quit paying under Reagan that we were paying before?

defense.

[okie52]

defense.

Did we default on defense bills?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So it was high tax rates that drove our economy?

Tell you what, I'll give you the 90% tax bracket if you'll give me the US being the only industrialized nation in the world with Europe and Japan in shambles while the US was virtually energy independent.

Can you do that?How quickly we forget. Rather, how quickly the Left leaves out salient points concerning good economic times.

[diverdog]

Did we default on defense bills?

it is a good chunk of the $16 trillion dollar deficit. I believe the Pentagon came out a few years ago and said they could not account for two point three trillion dollars in spending. I have seen other estimates as high as seven trillion dollars. Some speculate the CIA has been laundering money, so to speak, through the Pentagon for our black programs. Trust me we spend way more on defense than anyone knows. It is out of hand and Ike warned us about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-325985.html

[KantoSooner]

The second person in many cases can't possibly take care of his own needs. I used to think like that--that anyone, through their positive choices could become a contributing member of society, and that if every single lowlife right now decided to get off of SSI, go to college or trade school and make something of themselves, then there would be no more poor people, etc. How incredibly naive. I'm not saying I think you think that, but anyone who does is deluded.

It was easy to grow up thinking that growing up in a McMansion in Edmond, when money was something I didn't have much concept of, that the bills were magically paid, my private school tuition was an expectation and when my family looked at an undergrad degree the same way most families see a high school diploma.

Then I became a lawyer.

Part of my law practice is pro bono in the juvenile court system. All of those flowery notions that everyone is capable of making something of themselves is total BS. Do you know how many kids are born with permanent brain damage because their addict mothers couldn't put down the meth pipe for 9 months?

Neither do I, but those kids are destined for a childhood of being labeled "emotionally disturbed," then shipped off to prison the first time their uncontrollable urges lead them to do something stupid. Or how about the kid who grows up in foster care totally neglected, told he'll never amount to anything, who starts sniffing inhalents in high school and by his 18th birthday has an IQ adjusted sub 60. He needs a dose of personal responsibility!

But since we don't summarily execute these people, we have to warehouse them in prison or at least pay to shelter them and feed them as long as they behave reasonably well. I saw some dumbarse tell a judge just yesterday (when he was charged with fleeing from the police) that he was about to be put on disability because one leg was longer than the other. You can't make that up. There are unemployable people and since we don't want a mass insurrection, we pay for the bread and circuses and right now, that and defense spending are costing more than the taxpayers are currently paying.

Kenya is a society.

So is North Korea. What does it cost to be a part of those?

Probably a lot less than it does to be a part of the U.S.

Hey, you want that freedom and security to protect your eleventybillion dollar empire? Pay for it.

I can accept everything you say here and still not buy off on your conclusion. So there are people who simply can't 'make it' in our society. Do we then get to choose what is done with/for them? Or is that a decision reserved to some misty authority out there? Can we say, for instance, that we will spend $X per such person and that's it? Or are we obligated to pay 'whatever'?

You earlier brought up military service. I would not want to go back to a conscript military. The record is quite clear: throughout our history, our military got its *** whupped comprehensively until such time as the conscripts got experience and became, for all intents and purposes, professional soldiers. Then they did the *** kicking. Now that we've had an all volunteer force, you can see the difference. Our military today does not waste the lives and bodies of thousands of young men (and today women) in on the job training. Our military now kicks *** from day one.

What I would like to see is a 'Universal National Service' requirement on every person in the country from the ages of 18-20. Give 'em housing in a barracks type environment, food, uniforms and a job to do (cleaning up national parks, working as teacher's aids, there's a lot that could be done with low cost labor. And there's a lot to be gained by the kid from Edmond bunking down next to the kid from Harlem.

But that's a digression.

Either in percentage or in absolute dollars, spending needs to be fixed and budgetting for government services needs to live within that limit. There is no justification for an open checkbook.

[XingTheRubicon]

You're not gonna get it.

You're not gonna get wealthy heirs' money. That's their money, it's been taxed. No leech with a sob story is going to get it.

You're not gonna get '50s tax rates,...tough, not gonna happen. Not even half way there.

You're not gonna get the poor to stop being stupid. The only thing that cures poverty is the poor hating poverty. (Currently, we have the richest poor people in the history of people...and that's part of the problem)

Now, do I think it's perfect or ideal that a few men own a huge chunk of the wealth...obviously not, but I would be more in favor of motivating others to earn their way in. Taking it from them and giving it some maggot in a trailer park eating funyuns is a waste of everyone's time...beside that, I already paid for his funyuns.

[FaninAma]

Midtown, the government is subsidizing the type of people you decry in your post to have more children. I see it every day. My brother has adopted 3 children from the same drug-addicted mother. She has had at least 2 more since they stopped adopting. The system is insane. If you subsidize poor behavior you are going to get more of that type of behavior.

[Midtowner]

Midtown, the government is subsidizing the type of people you decry in your post to have more children. I see it every day. My brother has adopted 3 children from the same drug-addicted mother. She has had at least 2 more since they stopped adopting. The system is insane. If you subsidize poor behavior you are going to get more of that type of behavior.

Oh I agree. I can't understand why we don't warehouse them in only nominally above substandard housing, bombard them with services for their kids to try to break the cycle of poverty, require the use of birth control like Norplant in order to qualify for services as well as regular drug testing. I'd also like to see them required to perform community service in exchange for their benefits.

The fact is though, these folks are out there and they're going to be out there. We can take affirmative steps to break the cycle of poverty (which neither party is interested in) or we can just allow the problem to grow. This is a much greater threat to this country than any outside foe and how many air craft carriers do you think we could spare in order to really fight poverty instead of relying on bandaid to bullethole responses.

[Midtowner]

Now, do I think it's perfect or ideal that a few men own a huge chunk of the wealth...obviously not, but I would be more in favor of motivating others to earn their way in. Taking it from them and giving it some maggot in a trailer park eating funyuns is a waste of everyone's time...beside that, I already paid for his funyuns.

I'm saying take it from them to stop running deficits and to pay for the government our Congress has brought us.

Someone has to pay for it. At the end of the day, that's going to have to be the folks who can afford to pay for it.

[olevetonahill]

I'm saying take it from them to stop running deficits and to pay for the government our Congress has brought us.

Someone has to pay for it. At the end of the day, that's going to have to be the folks who can afford to pay for it.

How about the Ones just quit Demandin More an more and then expecting some one else to pay for it?

[sappstuf]

Oh I agree. I can't understand why we don't warehouse them in only nominally above substandard housing, bombard them with services for their kids to try to break the cycle of poverty, require the use of birth control like Norplant in order to qualify for services as well as regular drug testing. I'd also like to see them required to perform community service in exchange for their benefits.

The fact is though, these folks are out there and they're going to be out there. We can take affirmative steps to break the cycle of poverty (which neither party is interested in) or we can just allow the problem to grow. This is a much greater threat to this country than any outside foe and how many air craft carriers do you think we could spare in order to really fight poverty instead of relying on bandaid to bullethole responses.

Repubs are for school choice instead of sending inner city blacks kids to schools that have failed for decades..

Getting a proper education is most certainly an affirmative step.

[diverdog]

Repubs are for school choice instead of sending inner city blacks kids to schools that have failed for decades..

Getting a proper education is most certainly an affirmative step.

Not a bad idea but it doesn't work well in reality.

[sappstuf]

Not a bad idea but it doesn't work well in reality.

That must be why so many parents in DC sign up for a lottery just to get their kids to a decent school...

[badger]

Repubs are for school choice instead of sending inner city blacks kids to schools that have failed for decades..

Getting a proper education is most certainly an affirmative step.

Tulsa once thought that if they had low-cost housing units citywide instead of just in north Tulsa, that would decrease crime.

Instead, it has just spread the crime across the city to where the low-cost housing places are.

By the same token, I would argue that the students are making the schools better/worse, not how much teachers are paid, how new or high tech the buildings are, what the student-teacher ratio is, how many standardized tests they take to prove it. If you move poor performing students from the same school to many schools, that's not going to make the students better.

[REDREX]

I'm saying take it from them to stop running deficits and to pay for the government our Congress has brought us.

Someone has to pay for it. At the end of the day, that's going to have to be the folks who can afford to pay for it.--- What a joke

[sappstuf]

Tulsa once thought that if they had low-cost housing units citywide instead of just in north Tulsa, that would decrease crime.

Instead, it has just spread the crime across the city to where the low-cost housing places are.

By the same token, I would argue that the students are making the schools better/worse, not how much teachers are paid, how new or high tech the buildings are, what the student-teacher ratio is, how many standardized tests they take to prove it. If you move poor performing students from the same school to many schools, that's not going to make the students better.

Black people should be corralled into as small an area as possible, not given any help and let nature take its course....

Got it.

[badger]

Black people should be corralled into as small an area as possible, not given any help and let nature take its course....

Got it.

You're the one that said black, not me. I said low-cost housing and poor performing students :)

In fact, the four victims in a low-cost apartment complex shooting in January here in Tulsa were all white residents of the complex. That was what once again brought to light that simply dividing up low-cost areas does not prevent or even minimize crime. It only moves it.

[Jacie]

So many opinions from so many viewpoints.

Well, here is the one that trumps em all, that tenth of a tenth of a tenth whatever percent that is controlling the lion's share of the country's wealth is content to let the rest of us argue amongst ourselves about solutions cause they know there is never going to be one.

[sappstuf]

You're the one that said black, not me. I said low-cost housing and poor performing students :)

In fact, the four victims in a low-cost apartment complex shooting in January here in Tulsa were all white residents of the complex. That was what once again brought to light that simply dividing up low-cost areas does not prevent or even minimize crime. It only moves it.

I'm not talking about moving people around. I'm talking about giving them a choice where their kids can go to school.

[diverdog]

That must be why so many parents in DC sign up for a lottery just to get their kids to a decent school...

My wife's school is a choice school. They only take about 75 kids in a large HS. The kids they take are either very smart or great athletes. There is just not enough room for everyone to get their school of choice. The really good ones are that way for a reason and they do not like to have students from the outside. And no one is racing to build schools to bring a bunch of inner city kids in as their primary students.

[badger]

I'm not talking about moving people around. I'm talking about giving them a choice where their kids can go to school.

If we give them that choice via vouchers, then that's another problem. The vouchers that have been provided (and fought by Tulsa area districts) to give special needs students for them to attend private school nowhere near covers the cost to attend private school.

It's like Oklahoma giving students OHLAP to attend college tuition-free. Sure you have tuition paid for, but OU freshmen are required to live in on-campus housing. And there's meal plans. And there's books. And there's all those stupid student fees.

I wish there was a solution that worked, but I just haven't seen anything that has, other than parents taking ownership of their schools, getting involved in their kid's education, etc.

[REDREX]

I'm not talking about moving people around. I'm talking about giving them a choice where their kids can go to school.---It does not matter where kids go to school if their parents have little or no interest in helping the children and do not even attempt to set a decent example for them. You can through all the money you want at the problem and it will not help

[sappstuf]

My wife's school is a choice school. They only take about 75 kids in a large HS. The kids they take are either very smart or great athletes. There is just not enough room for everyone to get their school of choice. The really good ones are that way for a reason and they do not like to have students from the outside. And no one is racing to build schools to bring a bunch of inner city kids in as their primary students.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program uses a lottery system to pick kids from failing schools. Graduation rates from kids in the program are 12% higher.

Sounds like progress to me...

[BermudaSooner]

Hank Reardon is a fictional character.

And Ayn Rand collected Social Security.

Hank is more and more real everyday. And why shouldn't Ayn Rand collect SS? She paid into it. I save as if SS won't be there for me, but if it is, I will take it as well....and I will receive a hell of a lot less than I paid into it...But that his how this pay as you go social program works. If I had the option to opt out and save that money myself, I would.

[Curly Bill]

School choice is one of those things that sounds good in a soundbite type way, but in reality is largely a crock of poo.

This and abortion is where I diverge paths from most of my Repub brethren.

[diverdog]

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program uses a lottery system to pick kids from failing schools. Graduation rates from kids in the program are 12% higher.

Sounds like progress to me...

Your point proves my point. The lottery is there for a reason because there is not that mich excess classroom capacity to support every student that wants choice.

[Curly Bill]

Move large numbers of students from bad schools into good schools and the good schools will end up just like the crappy schools. It's not near so much the schools that are good or bad, but the students within them.