Forum Thread

ah, the benificence and benefit of absolute wealth-distribution

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Someone I know very well had for some time complained of the disparate distribution of wealth in the U.S.
    And, granted, that some 1% control some 98+% is a bit of a bonanza-bias. Back in the late 1970s and
    early '80s, 2% controlled 86 percent of assets. There has been an amassing, resulting in a diniro-deprivation
    for many, tho not as bad now as back then when 55 percent of the sample's families showed zero or neg-
    ative net worth. Yet now, more than then, there are less than then jobs in which one can be gainfully employed!
    And I frequently read predictions that "traditional" employment will continue an attrition what with continued
    off-shoring, increasing robotics, and astounding "3-D copier" manufacture of pieces, parts, even organs.

    The someone I know was only concerned about his income level and tax rate being "under seige" by the bipart
    blitz of: 1) that 1% causing an evaporation out of the economy for their indulgences and ostentations and
    2) the pauper proportion of populace draining the economy as subsidy of their indigence-insurgency (so to
    speak). Thus welfare subsidy should be shut-off other than that trickle necessary to provide prolongation of
    health -- and not promulgation of revolution and revolt. But no more Twinkies via food stamps' payment.
    But worst, in his Ezekialic exclamations excoriating economics . . . that that 1% can be actually RICH when
    others, like him who I know, work their asses off for so exponentially less!!!!

    Well, after many conversations, I decided to research the situation. If we dressed the FED and IRS in tights
    and provided cudgels and lances, would Reserve as Robin Hood really accomplish equalization of economics?
    Now that there are not the jobs for the unemployed multitudes, we're not dealing with a demographic of freeloaders.
    Now when (kind of a worst-case) someone pays several million cash for a yacht and then spends 20 million to
    remodel (including elongating) it . . . . but others are actually having to choose between meds or meals . . . . .

    The someone I know has specified, focused on, the upper echelon whose inordinate incomes should be somehow
    distributed to include his status and statistics, he's stated.

    Well, to the point.
    There are apprx 312 million people in the U. S.
    There are 476 billionaires in the U. S. (cumulative wealth = 3.3 trillion)
    The wealthiest 400 families in the U. S,. possess more than the combined wealth of half the rest of the population.
    The top 30% net worth is $l8,500,000,000.000.

    the top 1% . . . av. ann. income 1,308,200 .. . . . . . net wrth 16,439,400 . . . wealth (non-income) 15,171,600
    the top 20 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 226,200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,062,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,719,800
    the top 60-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216,900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.700
    the top 40-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,700.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12,200
    the bottom 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10,600). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14,800)

    Now we take the top 1% of the population (=3,120,000) . . . . .whose av. net wealth is 16,439,400
    Now we do the multiplication; we come out with a total of $51,190,918,000 "distributable excessive wealth"
    Now if we equitably and equally and "humanitarianly" distribute that, each of the US population gets $207.65.
    But if we divide that only to the bottom 40 ("most-need-distribution") each member thereof gets $519.10.

    Obviously, wealth distribution is no solution just based on the above. And wealth distribution would result in depletion
    of philanthropy and investment and charity and, yes, the valid high-end economic/commodity/employment realm.
    There must be the means to become wealthy, for there must be wealth. Otherwise we'd have no civilizations, not
    to mention culture (such as fine arts which are donor-dependencies decidedly!)
    Well, the someone I know was, at this point of my revelations to him, a bit anxiety-alleviated.
    But then I revealed, further, that between him and his wife, their combined incomes put them in the top 10% . . . .

    Thus, within the paradigm of his prior promulgations of distribution from the "enriched" . . . he'd be on the pay-out level!!!!!

    As for tax cuts (or "rebates"), Bush's "benificence-bonanza to boost productivity and consumerativity surely solved nothing.
    And another time I'll deal with some interesting info on Reagan's "revolution" as a monetarist retrogression.