50 replies to this topic

[Alias]

This was briefly touched upon in the UK Election thread, and since I saw this article today I couldn't help but post the little collection of charts they had.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-a...-america-2010-4 (Click "view as one page", makes it far easier tor read than having to go through a slideshow)


The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties


Bigger image here.

Half of America has 2.5% of the wealth



Half of America has 0.5% of the stocks and bonds



Look at the gap grow!



The last two decades were great... except for American workers



Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years



But savings rates are sinking



Poor Americans have a slim chance of rising to the upper middle class



Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the gap



Income tax is getting lower and lower for the rich



America spreads the wealth far less than other developed countries



America's income spread is nearly twice the OECD average



The gap is not growing in other countries, like France



Inequality is the worst around Wall Street and Oil Land



If you aren't in the top 1% then you're getting a bum deal



---

I'm sorry, but after reading this I really cannot see how one can advocate a flat tax over the alternatives.

[Chyros]

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 8:14, said:

Half of America has 2.5% of the wealth
Poor Americans have a slim chance of rising to the upper middle class
Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the gap
America spreads the wealth far less than other developed countries
If you aren't in the top 1% then you're getting a bum deal
---

I'm sorry, but after reading this I really cannot see how one can advocate a flat tax over the alternatives.

Ummm, isn't this the whole point of the American Dream (a terrible nightmare IMO)? If you don't somehow strike it rich by finding an oil well or gold mine or invent the cold fusion you aren't supposed to be helped because you're "not working had enough" or something, right? . The all but surreal fear of communism and higher taxes ofc helps the Republicans keep a stranglehold on American politics while, if everybody voted on what's right for him or her (or what's right at all for that matter ), the Republicans would hardly hold any votes.

[Alias]

It's not just about America though, Wizard was advocating the UK Conservatives' position of flat tax. This is what flat tax leads you to.

[Chyros]

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 9:36, said:

It's not just about America though, Wizard was advocating the UK Conservatives' position of flat tax. This is what flat tax leads you to.

Of course it's not just the US, as you can see the income spread in the Netherlands isn't particlarly small either. I think the explicit fear of communism and the idea of the American dream is very fertile soil for extremes to flourish, though.

Edited by Chyros, 20 April 2010 - 07:48.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 8:36, said:

Wizard was advocating the UK Conservatives' position of flat tax. This is what flat tax leads you to.

We don't have flat tax now and from what I can make out, the UK isn't much different than the US.

[Alias]

It's a similar situation, yes, but it is nowhere near as bad.


In the UK it's the top 10% who have 31%, in the US it's the top 1% who have 34%.


They're both bad, yes. But the UK will end up like the US if idiotic corporatism keeps taking hold, which, thanks to multinationals, doesn't seem like a hard thing to do.

Edited by Alias, 20 April 2010 - 08:16.

[Wizard]

Whilst I can't disagree with any of the statistics you've provided, I am still not sure where the "bad" is in a meritocratic system?

[Alias]

Have CEOs and sport starts REALLY done THAT much to earn 1000 times more than the average income?

A multiple of 10, I could accept. A multiple of 1000, no.

Edited by Alias, 20 April 2010 - 09:13.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 9:22, said:

Have CEOs and sport starts REALLY done THAT much to earn 1000% more than the average income?

Ironically I was having this argument with my father-in-law on Sunday. So who gets to decide who earns what and why? It's all relative to the income generated by the industry/market in which that particular person works. I honestly don't see how it is wrong. It's all linked to supply and demand.

[Shirou]

@ Above. That is just bullshit. The whole point of those graphs is to show that corporate income, CEO salaries and the growth of wealth of the richest has grown yet nobody cared to share it with the people who work for them. The extra profit is there, the problem is that its all going to the rich minority. This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well. In the US, they apparently did not. Look at the derivatives, not the situation of the moment.

On top of that there is corrupt Republican administrations who cut taxes for the rich every time they are in office, as its those same rich that helped them in that position in the first place eh.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:22, said:

Have CEOs and sport starts REALLY done THAT much to earn 1000% more than the average income?

A multiple of 10, I could accept. A multiple of 1000, no.

Erm 1000% more income means you've got 11 times the average income, so what do you mean by 'multiples of 10 and 1000'. I think you confused yourself with the numbers a bit there.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 09:09.

[Alias]

My wording is a bit dodgy, sorry.

What I meant was why should a CEO earn 300 million a year when the average is $30000? I could understand around $300000, but nothing higher than that. There's no reason for it.

[Wizard]

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:04, said:

This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well.

Wages are just as linked to supply and demand as products. If the supply of CEO's/sportsmen in a particular field is low then wages will be high. If you've got your pick of the prospective employees competition is much greater and people will take a job for less to have a job.

Sharing the wealth equally (or even more equally) is a nonsense idea. Corporations exist to make a profit. Why reduce it by giving out more of your profit than you have to?

[Shirou]

I´m not saying it has to be equal, all I am saying that the American system according to the graphs will never lead to a more wealthy population as a whole. Instead, it just increases the wealth of the richest out there while the rest does not see anything returned of the increased profit.

If supply and demand were relative, then so would have to be salaries and taxes. If your CEO gets to earn a million dollars more, then John Doe from packaging should receive 50 bucks more as well. I don't see why CEO's should be privileged when it comes down to who gets more money. Its either everyone in the company or nobody and invest the profit in the company.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 09:28.

[Wizard]

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:26, said:

If supply and demand were relative, then so would have to be salaries and taxes. If your CEO gets to earn a million dollars more, then John Doe from packaging should receive 50 bucks more as well. I don't see why CEO's should be privileged when it comes down to who gets more money. Its either everyone in the company or nobody and invest the profit in the company.

Everyone benefits from profits. The issue I believe that Alias is making is that the benefits are proportional to the position and that the positions themselves, with respective wages, are disproportional in the first instance.

Which in my eyes is fine.

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:16, said:

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:04, said:

This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well.

Wages are just as linked to supply and demand as products. If the supply of CEO's/sportsmen in a particular field is low then wages will be high. If you've got your pick of the prospective employees competition is much greater and people will take a job for less to have a job.

It's not really about them being equal in absolute terms. What is noticeable is that the top wages are growing though and the bottom wages aren't, they are in fact falling. THAT is the problem here.

[Shirou]

Aside from the fact that I stand by Alias' point I was making a different point here. You state everyone benefits from increased profits:





That is just not true. I am pointing to the derivatives here. The proportional differences are increasing, which indicates that CEO's get more rises in salary while the end of the food chain doesnt. Corporations get from 50 percent to over 100 percent profit between 02 and now. Do I see a rise in workers pay? If they had kept their workers pay proportional then their profit wouldn't have doubled. But hey, somebody's gotta pay for the big mansions of the management. Workers minimal pay rise probably doesnt even compensate for inflation alone. Hence, the minimum wage falters..

Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 09:42.

[Wizard]

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:35, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:16, said:

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:04, said:

This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well.

Wages are just as linked to supply and demand as products. If the supply of CEO's/sportsmen in a particular field is low then wages will be high. If you've got your pick of the prospective employees competition is much greater and people will take a job for less to have a job.

It's not really about them being equal in absolute terms. What is noticeable is that the top wages are growing though and the bottom wages aren't, they are in fact falling. THAT is the problem here.

Would be interesting to see the total amount of money spent on the average wage (let's call that U$ 30k per annum) and the average wage of a top CEO (let's say it's U$30m). Add them up, what costs more, Joe Average or Mr Fatcat?

[Rich19]

The UK Conservatives have always favoured the richer class over the poorer class. I can't understand how people who aren't in the top few percent in terms of wealth can support some of their policies. The inheritance tax is a good example. Inheritance tax currently does not apply to 96% of the population. The Tories wish to abolish it, and many of their front benchers are set to make about 7 million in the process.

[Wizard]

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:39, said:

The UK Conservatives have always favoured the richer class over the poorer class. I can't understand how people who aren't in the top few percent in terms of wealth can support some of their policies. The inheritance tax is a good example. Inheritance tax currently does not apply to 96% of the population. The Tories wish to abolish it, and many of their front benchers are set to make about 7 million in the process.

You try and convince 'everyone' that they will never be in the 4% some day and that those policies will never apply to them. Also, the conservatives don't favour the richers classes, they favour free enterprise and capitalism, allowing business to make money, which in turn produces more money for everyone, proportionally of course.

Also, more and more people are suffering from inheritance taxes now as the cost of living has increased, the threshold hasn't. That means more and more people are inheriting greater sums than before without the tax threshold changing.

Bottom line, life isn't fair, why should wages be?

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:35, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:16, said:

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:04, said:

This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well.

Wages are just as linked to supply and demand as products. If the supply of CEO's/sportsmen in a particular field is low then wages will be high. If you've got your pick of the prospective employees competition is much greater and people will take a job for less to have a job.

It's not really about them being equal in absolute terms. What is noticeable is that the top wages are growing though and the bottom wages aren't, they are in fact falling. THAT is the problem here.

Would be interesting to see the total amount of money spent on the average wage (let's call that U$ 30k per annum) and the average wage of a top CEO (let's say it's U$30m). Add them up, what costs more, Joe Average or Mr Fatcat?

Mr Fatcat costs Joe Average more than Joe Average costs Mr Fatcat .

[Wizard]

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:48, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:35, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:16, said:

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:04, said:

This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well.

Wages are just as linked to supply and demand as products. If the supply of CEO's/sportsmen in a particular field is low then wages will be high. If you've got your pick of the prospective employees competition is much greater and people will take a job for less to have a job.

It's not really about them being equal in absolute terms. What is noticeable is that the top wages are growing though and the bottom wages aren't, they are in fact falling. THAT is the problem here.

Would be interesting to see the total amount of money spent on the average wage (let's call that U$ 30k per annum) and the average wage of a top CEO (let's say it's U$30m). Add them up, what costs more, Joe Average or Mr Fatcat?

Mr Fatcat costs Joe Average more than Joe Average costs Mr Fatcat .

Actually that wouldn't be correct either. The number of employees taking salary and benefits from the corporation would outstrip the benefits of the top person. If the CEO's salary and benefits were greater than the total of the staff beneath him (including long term pension contributions and health care in vastly larger quantity) then I suspect that the company wouldn't last long due to poor mismanagement and bankruptcy.

Edit: that makes more sense.

Edited by Wizard, 20 April 2010 - 09:53.

[Rich19]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:45, said:

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:39, said:

The UK Conservatives have always favoured the richer class over the poorer class. I can't understand how people who aren't in the top few percent in terms of wealth can support some of their policies. The inheritance tax is a good example. Inheritance tax currently does not apply to 96% of the population. The Tories wish to abolish it, and many of their front benchers are set to make about 7 million in the process.

You try and convince 'everyone' that they will never be in the 4% some day and that those policies will never apply to them. Also, the conservatives don't favour the richers classes, they favour free enterprise and capitalism, allowing business to make money, which in turn produces more money for everyone, proportionally of course.

Also, more and more people are suffering from inheritance taxes now as the cost of living has increased, the threshold hasn't. That means more and more people are inheriting greater sums than before without the tax threshold changing.

Abolishing the tax on the wealthy elements of society means cutting funding for social programmes, or making up the lost revenue in other taxes. Both options aren't exactly beneficial to the 96% of people who don't fall into the tax band. I would certainly rather that government policy tries to help people who are struggling to pay bills, rather than helping the millionaires inflate their bank balances.

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:45, said:

Bottom line, life isn't fair, why should wages be?

"Policy is made by the richer elements of society, so policy should most benefit those richer elements."

Am I understanding you correctly? I'm 99% sure that you yourself aren't a millionaire...

Edited by Rich19, 20 April 2010 - 09:54.

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:52, said:

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:48, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:35, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:16, said:

Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:04, said:

This shows that its not linked to supply and demand because if so then the lower and average incomes would have risen as well.

Wages are just as linked to supply and demand as products. If the supply of CEO's/sportsmen in a particular field is low then wages will be high. If you've got your pick of the prospective employees competition is much greater and people will take a job for less to have a job.

It's not really about them being equal in absolute terms. What is noticeable is that the top wages are growing though and the bottom wages aren't, they are in fact falling. THAT is the problem here.

Would be interesting to see the total amount of money spent on the average wage (let's call that U$ 30k per annum) and the average wage of a top CEO (let's say it's U$30m). Add them up, what costs more, Joe Average or Mr Fatcat?

Mr Fatcat costs Joe Average more than Joe Average costs Mr Fatcat .

Actually that wouldn't be correct either. The number of employees taking salary and benefits from the corporation would outstrip the benefits of the top person. If the CEO's salary and benefits were greater than the total of the staff beneath him (including long term pension contributions and health care in vastly larger quantity) then I suspect that the company wouldn't last long due to poor mismanagement and bankruptcy.

Edit: that makes more sense.

I think you're kind of missing the point. The point is that if all economic growth of a country is being poured into the top ten percent and everybody else gets less, a country's economic situation is said to be unsound in that it gets close to slavery.

[Alias]

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 19:45, said:

You try and convince 'everyone' that they will never be in the 4% some day and that those policies will never apply to them. Also, the conservatives don't favour the richers classes, they favour free enterprise and capitalism, allowing business to make money, which in turn produces more money for everyone, proportionally of course.

Key word here is business. People aren't making money. The greedy corporations that employ people are making money while the rest of the world suffers.

Businesses are not human.

[Wizard]

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:

Abolishing the tax on the wealthy elements of society means cutting funding for social programmes, or making up the lost revenue in other taxes.

To pay for services that wealthy people do not use (mostly, slight generalisation there, but you get the point). So why should the wealthy pay more for it than others? How is that fair?

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:

I would certainly rather that government policy tries to help people who are struggling to pay bills, rather than helping the millionaires inflate their bank balances.

So you're policy would be "rob from the rich to give to the poor"? Why be rich then? Why work hard and make money, only for it to be taken away and given, and let's face it, the following is true, to lazy bastards who can't be fucked to work a day in their life.

Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:45, said:

Bottom line, life isn't fair, why should wages be?

"Policy is made by the richer elements of society, so policy should most benefit those richer elements?"
Is that what you're really saying? I'm 99% sure that you yourself aren't a millionaire...

Whether I am a millionaire or not is irrelevant. I earn pretty damn good money, and God willing, will continue to do so. Why should that money, that I earn, go to pay for everyone else when I've earnt it? I don't mind paying for a National Health Service, or the police, or education, but I do mind paying for people who are unemployable and want-to-be-unemployable. So my point still stands, why should I pay more?

Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:58, said:

I think you're kind of missing the point. The point is that if all economic growth of a country is being poured into the top ten percent and everybody else gets less, a country's economic situation is said to be unsound in that it gets close to slavery.

But it's not though. The disparity is in the proportions of top and bottom, not the total amount spent. Mr Fatcat gets x bonus, Mr Average gets x bonus divided by the number of other people on his pay grade. It costs more to employ people than a person.

Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:00, said:

Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 19:45, said:

You try and convince 'everyone' that they will never be in the 4% some day and that those policies will never apply to them. Also, the conservatives don't favour the richers classes, they favour free enterprise and capitalism, allowing business to make money, which in turn produces more money for everyone, proportionally of course.

Key word here is business. People aren't making money. The greedy corporations that employ people are making money while the rest of the world suffers.

Ofc people are making money. If they aren't making money it has nothing to do with wages but lifestyle. If you spend more than you earn you'll be poor. If you spend less you'll make money. Money makes money. In a Capitalist system this is how it works.