1 percenters own HALF of the world's wealth

[Schaefer Light]

Our geography in the US is one of the main reasons for our economic strength.  The Great Lakes, deep water sea ports, and long, navigable rivers are tremendously beneficial, but what's most important is the fact that we have huge oceans to our east and west.  It also helps that we have relatively stable countries that aren't going to try to invade us (at least not in the conventional way) to our north and south.

[talltexan]

Most people, even in rich countries, own surprisingly little in assets. Consider someone earning $100k a year. Rich, eh? If that person lives paycheck to paycheck, and rents a house, that person might have about $50K in assets, at fire sale prices. Car, clothes, furniture. If Bill Gates has $50 billion in assets, he has as much as one million of those with only $50K in assets each.

The situation is more dire in poor countries. Most people do not think about income producing assets, and only think about the worth of their labor.

'1 percenters own HALF of the world's wealth' is a striking title, but it it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets. That is a decision, even if these people are not fully ware that they have made a decision.

More to the point is inequality of income, not assets.

No, it absolutely IS the inequality of assets that's the problem. 

But like Sol has pointed out, and very well IMO, it's not the fact that they have half the assets that's the real problem.  It's that having half the wealth gives them 99% of the power. 

If the the richest 50 people in the USA have 80% of the say about what rights for the LGTBQ community will be, that goes beyond material wealth.  If they can determine the direction that stem cell research can or can't go in.  If they can determine the laws and regulations that determine which forms of energy will be the winners or losers, etc.  This is the real problem.  It undermines our freedom. 

And saying "it just shows that most people have no interest in owning productive assets"....are you kidding me. 

The difference between me and the children of the Kochs, the Devos's, the Trumps, the Waltons is not a difference in a desire to own productive assets.  It's the difference between who is born to who. 

It was mentioned in a different post I think, but it's like playing monopoly where 99.999% of the players get invited to start playing with $200 dollars, and all the properties have already been purchased and everything is built up with hotels. 

I want to say as explicitly as possible that I have ZERO jealousy or envy that these people get to fly fancy planes and have 50 million dollar toys.  The problem is that they get to make decisions about how our society will operate.   

The children of the Koch's will have more ability to influence public policy than everyone in the whole state of Michigan combined who isn't worth a billion dollars or more. 

And right now policies are being enacted to let these children inherit an even LARGER percentage of their parents wealth.

I would encourage you taking a look at our current political system, compare it the Koch brother's political beliefs, and then make a determination of how much influence they have. The Kochs are libertarians. US governments take 35% of GDP and spend it primarily on the military, transfer payments, healthcare, and education. That's not a libertarian outcome, so the Koch brothers can be said to have marginal influence at best.

You are conflating the views of the Koch family with the oligarchy of several hundred big money donors who've funded anti-tax and anti-social safety net candiates for the last forty years. During that time, we've seen a tremendous increase in the income share of the top households. By itself, this isn't enough to prove one causes another, but the tax reform bill passed by the House today:

1. doubles the exemption on the estate tax until 2027 (when it is eliminated entirely),
2. Lowers the tax rate on pass-through corporations, and
3. lowers the corporate tax rate

These sure sound like Koch priorities to me.

[tooqk4u22]

If the the richest 50 people in the USA have 80% of the say about what rights for the LGTBQ community will be, that goes beyond material wealth.  If they can determine the direction that stem cell research can or can't go in.  If they can determine the laws and regulations that determine which forms of energy will be the winners or losers, etc.  This is the real problem.  It undermines our freedom. 

While this may be true, your presumption (or concern is) that the 50 richest people who have all of the say also all agree with each other.  Just like the rest of the income/wealth levels there is mix of the top 50 who see things one way vs the other (ie there are rich conservatives and rich liberals). So more likely than not your freedom isn't undermined any more or less that it would be otherwise. 

[FIREySkyline]

I find all of this broohaha about wealth distribution incredibly humorous and fascinating.

- What makes any one individual think they ought to get to choose who has how much and what is fair?
- If you get to choose, then what is fair? The limit is pure (unachievable) communism. Anything else is an arbitrary, unfair number. Does someone with 100x as much wealth as you have 100x more power? Does someone with 1,000,000 as much as you have 10x more power? Maybe they're just smarter about how to get money and how to wield influence and the money is just an irrelevant product of that?

The issue with "wealth inequality" is that there's no objective way to determine what's "equal enough". When there's less wealth, everything is more equal, but that tends to end up in a strongman dictatorship. When there's more wealth, there's much more "inequality" but much less centralization of power. Just look at Trump's election, regardless of whether you like the dope; if there was some Illuminati pulling the strings he wouldn't be in office. No one controls your destiny but you and income inequality has not resulted in a worse-off world EXCEPT when it is inequal by force as in a totalitarian system.

And those referencing the inevitable "revolutions" that result are referring to nations that were not formed to protect the individual's rights from the mob as the US was. That said, the Left in the US is doing its best to undermine individual rights in favor of group rights and warfare that trample the individual and that will lead to bad things. But as long as we have a system that protects the rights of each individual, income inequality isn't an issue. The higher the top end in a capitalist system, the higher the bottom end. Inequality SHOULD always be growing if wealth is being created. It shrinks when wealth is being destroyed.

*Sigh* The demands for central planning of all of our lives and assets is always amusing ... until it becomes reality. Then it's just criminal.

Ah, and one more thing; let's dispel the fiction about the benefits of the Nordic Countries/Canada: These countries have high taxes, no national defense, small, homogeneous populations, and are generally fiscally insolvent. Oh, and the rich in those countries pay for underground or foreign healthcare because healthcare is horribly overburdened and unavailable in most cases. Europe has been a walking disaster for centuries and for some reason the left in the US acts like we should act more like them. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it.

[Fresh Bread]

Which scandanavian countries are fiscally insolvent? Iceland's banks went bust during 2008 but its economy bounced back. Denmark & Sweden have private healthcare options, it's not underground? Iceland doesn't I don't think. And as to Europe being a walking disaster for centuries.. I don't know where to start with that one. I'm going to take that as a joke.

There's nothing wrong with disagreement on the left and right of politics as to how to make the world better. Everyone thinks the other side is wrong, but that's ok. For me, on the left, I do see the Scandanavian countries as a very desirable place to live and work but I also see that you can't convert the US to that system because of the size and the values shared by the society.

[Cwadda]

Look at the top 2 people in the United States Buffet and Gates. 

Was their money inherited? No.
Did they both start out roughly where I did - money wise yep. Brain wise nope ( both are smarter than me).

Good for them that they made great companies and made themselves and many others rich too!!!

Will they take it with them when they die? Nope.

We are all in the same boat.

Not only are they not taking it with them, but also they're giving it away.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I find all of this broohaha about wealth distribution incredibly humorous and fascinating.

- What makes any one individual think they ought to get to choose who has how much and what is fair?
- If you get to choose, then what is fair? The limit is pure (unachievable) communism. Anything else is an arbitrary, unfair number. Does someone with 100x as much wealth as you have 100x more power? Does someone with 1,000,000 as much as you have 10x more power? Maybe they're just smarter about how to get money and how to wield influence and the money is just an irrelevant product of that?

The issue with "wealth inequality" is that there's no objective way to determine what's "equal enough". When there's less wealth, everything is more equal, but that tends to end up in a strongman dictatorship. When there's more wealth, there's much more "inequality" but much less centralization of power. Just look at Trump's election, regardless of whether you like the dope; if there was some Illuminati pulling the strings he wouldn't be in office. No one controls your destiny but you and income inequality has not resulted in a worse-off world EXCEPT when it is inequal by force as in a totalitarian system.

And those referencing the inevitable "revolutions" that result are referring to nations that were not formed to protect the individual's rights from the mob as the US was. That said, the Left in the US is doing its best to undermine individual rights in favor of group rights and warfare that trample the individual and that will lead to bad things. But as long as we have a system that protects the rights of each individual, income inequality isn't an issue. The higher the top end in a capitalist system, the higher the bottom end. Inequality SHOULD always be growing if wealth is being created. It shrinks when wealth is being destroyed.

*Sigh* The demands for central planning of all of our lives and assets is always amusing ... until it becomes reality. Then it's just criminal.

Ah, and one more thing; let's dispel the fiction about the benefits of the Nordic Countries/Canada: These countries have high taxes, no national defense, small, homogeneous populations, and are generally fiscally insolvent. Oh, and the rich in those countries pay for underground or foreign healthcare because healthcare is horribly overburdened and unavailable in most cases. Europe has been a walking disaster for centuries and for some reason the left in the US acts like we should act more like them. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it.

The nation wants cutthroat competition. We want to live in a dog-eat-dog world. Therefore, the correct response to all of this is to throw back your beer, slam the glass down onto the bar, and say "Well, okay then. Let's do this." If people want competition, then give them competition. Most of the very left-wing socialist types are actually extremely intelligent people, so it's time for them to use that intelligence to their personal advantage and if they want to actually gain influence then they need to take power by getting the money.

This is already happening. Left-wing activist investors have been steadily increasing their influence with Vanguard to the point where they actually achieved 20% vote this year in favor of divesting of companies that fund genocide. If people want control, then they need to get the money. Period.

[Roe]

Ah, and one more thing; let's dispel the fiction about the benefits of the Nordic Countries/Canada: These countries have high taxes, no national defense, small, homogeneous populations, and are generally fiscally insolvent. Oh, and the rich in those countries pay for underground or foreign healthcare because healthcare is horribly overburdened and unavailable in most cases. Europe has been a walking disaster for centuries and for some reason the left in the US acts like we should act more like them. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it.

I'm born in and live in one of the Nordic countries. I agree with the part of your post that i omitted, but not the quoted part. This summary sound a bit like a right wing information bubble. I'm very critical about our current situation, and I could go on at lengths about the up-fuckery that has been committed, but the quote in general is incorrect.

[Bicycle_B]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html

Yep.  No surprise here.  The rich get richer....

Context matter a bunch here and more likely than not most people on this forum are part of the guilty 1%....

Global top 1% for income in US$ - $32,400.
Global Top 1% for net worth - $770,000 (includes home equity)

So really not that high of a bar.

Fwiw, I think purchasing power parity is a better comparison.  Apparently US$55,000 is the global median income by that measure for individuals.  As the article below says, $220,000 for a family of four.

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/771271476908686029/Segal.pdf

This forum has some families with incomes of $220k (currently MMM's!), but most households here are below that.  I think.

Clearly even if household income of forum members is $32k, we are a privileged group.  The article's research concluded that individual income of US$15,600 in 2012 was in the global top 10%, or $62,400 for a family of four. 

Fwiw, the $32k might be a little inaccurate based on the following. Apparently median individual income in US alone was about $31,000 in 2015.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

That means half of Americans had $31,000 income.  US population is 326 million, so 163 million Americans receive $31,000 or more.

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

World population is about 7.6 billion, so 1% of that is 76 million.  Seems like either 25%+ of Americans are in the $31,000-32,400 range and less than 25% are above it, with no one else in the world exceeding the $32,400 mark, or some of the statistics are inaccurate.  My guess is that the $32,400 number is a little off.

Probably doesn't change of any of the fundamental arguments about fairness, how to organize society, etc.

[LonerMatt]

Poverty creates motivation is the single stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life and shows a galling lack of knowledge around systemic inequality and its generational affect on mental and physical health.

For a forum that's supposed to be predisposed to be about decoupling from the rat race and the pit falls of income there are a lot of people who are not seeing the forest from the trees here.

[talltexan]

Don't claim Canadians aren't spending their fair share on military. They're ranked 16th in the world based on military spending.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[dude]

Let's go back to the several years that I had $0, was homeless at times and I was so dang happy when I could just get my hands on a Dr. Pepper every now and then, let alone some food...... I never had an attitude about people with money. I just don't understand why people worry or even think about anyone else's money situation. Why does it matter if others have $1 or $1 billion? What is it anyone else's business? If those that worry about others would worry about their own bank account they might have a little more money. Spend that time selling something instead of thinking about what others have that you don't.

Here is how I changed my bank account, I hung out with people that had money and they never knew I was homeless. I started doing the things they did, worked my (*) off and here I am today, one of the top few! I didn't make them feel sorry for me or ask them for things.... I rode my bike to work or walked and worked 120+ hour weeks. The first 3 years I owned my cleaning business I worked 365 days a year and on Christmas I had to clean a church 2 times instead of having one of my workers do it so they could have the day off. I worked hard then so I don't have to now.

It matters because they have an outsized influence on public policy and the policies they've chosen to push seek to beggar the rest of us so they can have more money and more power.  It spells the end of the liberal democratic style of government and economics we've had for the past 80 years or more.

[Joshua]

The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.

[dude]

The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.

I suspect most, like me, only really give a shit about the 1% who control our country. That does matter. A lot.

[farmecologist]

Poverty creates motivation is the single stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life and shows a galling lack of knowledge around systemic inequality and its generational affect on mental and physical health.

For a forum that's supposed to be predisposed to be about decoupling from the rat race and the pit falls of income there are a lot of people who are not seeing the forest from the trees here.

I agree.  Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'.  Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence. 

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

I agree.  Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'.  Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence. 

Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?

Can you give an example?

[Debts_of_Despair]

The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.

Does it count as satire even if the writer doesn't know they are being satirical?

[surfhb]

I agree.  Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'.  Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence. 

Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?

Can you give an example?

Here's one:

Being black or brown definitely puts you at a automatic disadvantage....that's well proven.    For my own experience, Peru has a level of racism on par with the old deep south.    Being white in South America puts you at the top of the list....more so than in the US. 

[Debts_of_Despair]

This thread cracks me up.  We are on a forum where one of the tenets is getting rich with VTSAX, which holds every evil megacorp there ever was.  Yet somehow we have a bunch of saints claiming the injustices of the world are everyone else's fault.  Pick your cause people, LOL!

[LonerMatt]

What makes you think I hold VTSAX?

What makes you think because I'm on the forum I'm necessarily a hypocrite?

Seems you're assuming a lot about my wealth, it's amount, it's allocation and my ambitions.

That seems remarkably unfair.

[LonerMatt]

I agree.  Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'.  Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence. 

Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?

Can you give an example?

Economics is not the be all and end all.

Generational trauma leads to significant barriers: increased rates of FAS, ADHD, ODD, lower life expectancy, increased rates of drug use, sexual abuse, neglect, development delay, homelessness.

Children (as in people <18) experiencing homelessness, whose parents have abused them, who are in and out of foster care do not have the same opportunities people like me (stable home, great education, doors already opened for me) have. It's simple, it's evident and it's not really up for debate.

I don't know of a 'law of economics' that applies to the psychological and health effects of poverty over the medium to long term.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

I agree.  Many in the world have NO chance to get ahead...even if they are 'motivated'.  Seems like some here live a very sheltered existence. 

Why? Do the laws of economics not exist in many places around the world?

Can you give an example?

Here's one:

Being black or brown definitely puts you at a automatic disadvantage....that's well proven.    For my own experience, Peru has a level of racism on par with the old deep south.    Being white in South America puts you at the top of the list....more so than in the US. 

I get some people have a disadvantage to overcome, I have my own disadvantages as I'm sure you do as well. I'm not trying to compare myself to someone in another country or culture, but I'm interested in an example where they have "No chance to get ahead".

To me, that is like saying "there are no problems or challenges in a community that common people are willing to pay for". I have a hard time envisioning such a place.. With one exception, cultures that have a different set of values where they don't care about "getting ahead". So for that disqualifies that culture because its not important to them.

[jlcnuke]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

[Joshua]

The irony of people on a forum dedicated to reaching financial independence and being the 1% complaining about the wealth of the 1% is off the scale. If you are worried about this and on this board you need to examine your precepts and world view.

Does it count as satire even if the writer doesn't know they are being satirical?

That's how I'm viewing it.

[LonerMatt]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

lol this is dumb as

[LonerMatt]

UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!

are you high or something?

[talltexan]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

Um, replace Bill Gates with Mark Zuckerberg in that statement.

It's still true. But Zuck is the steward of a platform through which many of us manage relationships. We use those relationships to stay in touch, to process events, and to, yes, persuade and identify people in an attempt to build a society more like the one we want.

MZ has been granted a lot of material wealth for his genius in building that social media platform. I would argue his control over the platform comes with a significant responsibility to society.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

Economics is not the be all and end all.

Generational trauma leads to significant barriers: increased rates of FAS, ADHD, ODD, lower life expectancy, increased rates of drug use, sexual abuse, neglect, development delay, homelessness.

Children (as in people <18) experiencing homelessness, whose parents have abused them, who are in and out of foster care do not have the same opportunities people like me (stable home, great education, doors already opened for me) have. It's simple, it's evident and it's not really up for debate.

I don't know of a 'law of economics' that applies to the psychological and health effects of poverty over the medium to long term.

Sorry I missed this yesterday....

You a make a couple good points which I mostly agree with, but the contrarian in me wants to question a few assumptions. To say its "not really up for debate" is pretty self defeating and un-creative in my opinion.

Economics is not the be all and end all.

It is when we are discussing this in the context of wealth, no matter what your situation laws of economics still apply. A person with the proper motivation and drive can still get ahead relative to others in his community. Now "getting ahead" might mean different things to different people/cultures, it might not be in a way that we feel is the "right way". I wont argue that we have a greater opportunity to build personal wealth than almost any country on the planet. But, I would argue that any person can bloom where they are planted(so to speak).

The things you listed are extreme disadvantages to what you and I probably grew up experiencing, but for someone growing up in that situation it also offers a HUGE opportunity because a lot of the problems are self evident and need solving. Serving people and solving problems in exchange for other goods and services is the basis of an economy on a small scale. Granted, they are also HUGE problems to solve. Given the right resources, someone with the right drive and motivation could make a world of difference.

Sometimes though, the community lives and dies, and for them that might be enough. Sometimes they might be happier without the outside influence because it is a big scary unknown. Sometimes the outside influence trying to convince them they have it "bad", and if only they just followed our way of thinking it would be "good", is actually a cause of instability within historically happy communities. So I tend to feel that unless someone is asking for help, its best to mind my own business and let them live the way they choose to live.

But like I said, I wont argue that we have 100x more opportunities to build personal wealth in this country, in large part because our culture values the creation of wealth. Comparing our personal wealth to other countries isn't really a apple to apple comparison.

[Spartans]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

Can't tell if serious..

[Spartans]

Gotta say, I am surprised at the number of Republicans on this board.  I thought it would skew heavily progressive.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

Gotta say, I am surprised at the number of Republicans on this board.  I thought it would skew heavily progressive.

Oh, I dunno.. I think it skews more progressive, ever poke your head into one of the ACA or political threads?

[AlanStache]

Gotta say, I am surprised at the number of Republicans on this board.  I thought it would skew heavily progressive.

There are a good number of Randian-"if you only try harder and pull on your boot straps harder you can overcome anything to become anything" types here. 

@GRS: Sounds like you watched "American Gangster" last night :-)

[jlcnuke]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

lol this is dumb as

a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.

UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!

are you high or something?

b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.

There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.

Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

@GRS: Sounds like you watched "American Gangster" last night :-)

Never seen it, is it good? Sounds good.

[AlanStache]

...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.

Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets.  Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.

[Spartans]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

lol this is dumb as

a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.

UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!

are you high or something?

b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.

There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.

Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).

The rich, both individuals and corporations, absolutely use their wealth to affect policy to help themselves and their political beliefs.  Campaign donations, lobbyists, what do you think is going on there?  The DeVos family donated millions to Trump's campaign then after he wins she's brought on as Secretary of education.  Do you think that was a coincidence?   

[jlcnuke]

...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.

Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets.  Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.

No plate is necessary to get a speeding ticket... It's a funny story, if completely untrue and unrealistic.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[jlcnuke]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

lol this is dumb as

a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.

UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!

are you high or something?

b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.

There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.

Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).

The rich, both individuals and corporations, absolutely use their wealth to affect policy to help themselves and their political beliefs.  Campaign donations, lobbyists, what do you think is going on there?  The DeVos family donated millions to Trump's campaign then after he wins she's brought on as Secretary of education.  Do you think that was a coincidence?

Can you get the difference between influence and total power? If so, you'll see your post brings nothing to the current discussion. By the way, poor campaign staffers also got themselves jobs they were probably unqualified for by helping out the "then candidate". It's not just for the rich.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[Iceplant18]

This touches on part of what is probably the largest threat to current civilized society.  Wealth inequality is often destabilizing.  As a larger concentration of resources is allocated to a smaller portion of the population, the likelihood of scarcity is increased in other portions of the population.  Humans don't behave civilized when scarcity is introduced and that has lead to the demise of previous civilizations in the past.  It is possible to have a small portion of the populations' wealth increase without decreasing the wealth of the rest of the population, however that is not currently happening.  Basic needs like education, healthcare, and opportunity to work are eroding right now for the majority even though our gross resources have not declined.  This is part of why the Occupy movement sprung up, and also part of why political polarization is increasing. 

One of the most valuable qualities of the MMM method is establishing a sustainable lifestyle for yourself and your family.  To that end, mind must be paid to others in our communities.  If the steps we take to accumulate wealth and achieve FIRE hurt others in the community around us, then the fruits of our efforts will erode in time.  We all depend on society around us to function properly in order to live our own dreams. 

[AlanStache]

...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.

Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets.  Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.

No plate is necessary to get a speeding ticket... It's a funny story, if completely untrue and unrealistic.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-car-apple-ceo-license-plates/story?id=14834608

"no-plate-no-ticket" please give me a little credit - you did not think that I was saying he could not be pulled over by a cop?  This is clearly a method to circumvent automated systems. 

[jlcnuke]

...
There aren't different speed limits for the rich.

Story goes that BackInTheDay Steve Jobes bought an identical new car every few months as in California you have a grace period to get licence plates, this let him speed, use the carpool lane solo and park in handicap spots without getting tickets.  Everyone knew it was him but legally no-plate-no-ticket.

No plate is necessary to get a speeding ticket... It's a funny story, if completely untrue and unrealistic.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-car-apple-ceo-license-plates/story?id=14834608

"no-plate-no-ticket" please give me a little credit - you did not think that I was saying he could not be pulled over by a cop?  This is clearly a method to circumvent automated systems.

Or he just liked having a a new car all the time... even the sole person who has been the source of this story over the years didn't say "why" he was getting a new car every six months. Which, by the way, doesn't require a person being a "1%er" even if they just really wanted to avoid red light tickets etc (back when the "loophole" still existed anyway).

It's not "clearly" done for any reason unless you have a memoir of his explaining his reasoning for doing so. There are people who won't wear the same outfit twice, who are poor. No reason that "I want a new car every six months" couldn't be all the reason needed for someone to get a new car every 6 months.

[Spartans]

Jealously is an emotion most of the world would be better off without. Oh, the whole "well it gives them all the power" is fucking bullshit. The civil rights movement didn't occur because the Fitzgerald's of the world decided that equal rights was going to make them more money. The SCOTUS didn't make gay marriage legal because Bill Gates called them up and said it was a good idea.

Oh, the "estate tax" that only takes money from the wealthy is going away so their estates will be taxed the exact same as the estates of people who never earned more than $20k/year in their life? Boo-freaking-hoo. That's how you "treat them the same as everyone else" instead of punishing them for their fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates still only gets to cast one ballot in the election, right??

lol this is dumb as

a. This response is dumb, as evidenced by the inability to properly form a sentence.

UGH LOOK HERE BUDDY WEALTH IS NOT CORRELATED WITH POWER!

are you high or something?

b. If you could use the English language properly, you could have used some reading comprehension to discover that I never said money doesn't provide "any" power. I said "it gives them all the power" is bullshit.

There aren't different speed limits for the rich. They actually (as a whole) get taxed at a higher rate than the average person. The teacher's union has a LOT more influence on Congress when forming laws than Mark Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Buffet. The wealthy are, historically, more likely to be involved in politics (including calling representatives, writing letters, etc) than the poor and that also makes their voices more likely to be heard (because the silent are rarely heard). However, contrary to what some morons seem to believe, there is no "New World Order" where the rich control everything and manipulate countries just to help themselves out a tiny bit.

Wealth can help to buy "influence" (which isn't nearly as influential as a lot of people think it is), but real power is either earned with votes or with the free choices of the masses (who, for the most part, are not rich).

The rich, both individuals and corporations, absolutely use their wealth to affect policy to help themselves and their political beliefs.  Campaign donations, lobbyists, what do you think is going on there?  The DeVos family donated millions to Trump's campaign then after he wins she's brought on as Secretary of education.  Do you think that was a coincidence?

Can you great the difference between influence and total power? If so, you'll see your pay brings nothing to the current discussion. By the way, poor campaign staffers also got themselves jobs they were probably unqualified for by helping out the "then candidate". It's not just for the rich.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Yes, it's just that the line between the two seems to be getting thinner and thinner to me with this current administration.

[AlanStache]

@jlcnuke: It is a beautiful Fall day where I am; I am going to go outside and enjoy.  I wish you happiness.

[DumpTruck]

A few token social justice issues given is enough distraction to lure some from the path of truth.

The truth is, the government was created by corporations, for corporations, and our version of it was intended to insulate the democratic process from the common man. It was described as an inconvenience of democracy that is needed to overcome.

You own food production, and you own education systems, and you own information systems. In our free society you control subliminally. The only way to "fight" is to stop contributing... tax dollars. If we all stopped working tomorrow the machine would crumble, how neat and fun would that be to trade services and goods instead of funny money? It would be so inconvenient, but remember, being a badass is about taking on some willing inconvenience.

[jlcnuke]

@jlcnuke: It is a beautiful Fall day where I am; I am going to go outside and enjoy.  I wish you happiness.

I hope you have a great day as well :D

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

The only way to "fight" is to stop contributing... tax dollars. If we all stopped working tomorrow the machine would crumble, how neat and fun would that be to trade services and goods instead of funny money? It would be so inconvenient, but remember, being a badass is about taking on some willing inconvenience.

...Funny story, I once suggested this same thing on another forum, well lets just say it didn't go over so well.

But hey, I'm you, we feed the machine through our own individual daily activities.

[index]

Have you seen this video?

https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

[SecretSquirrel]

Is it money that's the problem, or is it the system that allows one to buy favors?

[Debts_of_Despair]

What makes you think I hold VTSAX?

What makes you think because I'm on the forum I'm necessarily a hypocrite?

Seems you're assuming a lot about my wealth, it's amount, it's allocation and my ambitions.

That seems remarkably unfair.

Feel free to share your "guilt free" portfolio.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

@ Index

Interesting video... I'm not sure how I feel about the distribution of wealth, and I don't know if I'm all that concerned about it.

But here is what bothers me when I read some of the articles and videos out there pushing this narrative. The thing that bothers me is the interchanging of the terms "wealth" and "income". It isn't clear to me when I read or watch these that the author actually understands the difference, or maybe they do, but they fail to make it clear to the listener that there is a difference and explain that difference. I'm not sure most people understand the difference. I'm not sure how they came up with their figures either... There are a lot of unknowns.

Another part of the equation that is unclear to me(even after reading the video sources) is does the top 1% really "own" that much wealth or do they have a "controlling interest" in that wealth? That would be a pretty big distinction. But, I can see how using the term "own" would have a better affect on the audience. I have no idea which statement would be true.