Income and wealth inequality

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

In addition to their multiples homes, vacations, and cars, I'm assuming these "hypothetical" $2m folks also have country club memberships? 

Not hypothetical. People he knows.

At least one does, that I'm aware of anyway.  So?  I'm failing to see any relevance.

ETA: Nor do I understand the "hypothetical".

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?

If only I had a Mercedes.  "> 

toooshay

ctrzaska said:

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

No. Like ALL policy issues you study the issue, get in resident experts, decide on your goal and figure out what might achieve that goal.


Though I'm pretty sure you kinda knew that. 

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?


jeezus what an AH.

May want to read my last sentence again there, Robin Hood, and refrain from putting words neither stated nor implied in my mouth.  And as carefully as I chose my words, this time since nuance clearly isn't your strong suit.

puhleeze. because I stretched and said "getting by"?

You are trying to tell us that 2 mil a year is just "ok", essentially.

Whatever. That post gets my vote as Clueless of the Year.

RobB said:

Not hypothetical. People he knows.

heh

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

And this illustrates the depth of the problem. If I'm reading your post correctly, despite their large income (and it is very large, in comparison to most Americans), they still feel their economic position to be somewhat precarious.

So we are in an economy where inequalities of income and wealth are at near historic levels, yet even those who are supposedly benefitting from this state of affairs do not feel economically secure.  

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

May want to read my last sentence again there, Robin Hood, and refrain from putting words neither stated nor implied in my mouth.  And as carefully as I chose my words, this time since nuance clearly isn't your strong suit.

puhleeze. because I stretched and said "getting by"?

You are trying to tell us that 2 mil a year is just "ok", essentially.

Whatever. That post gets my vote as Clueless of the Year.

No.  And I'm telling you nothing of the sort.  But please, don't bother... it's clearly too far over your stratified head, and I've lost most interest.

The $1.5m a year crowd just breathed a HUGE sign of relief, though.

Carry on, and have fun storming the castle.

PVW said:

And this illustrates the depth of the problem. If I'm reading your post correctly, despite their large income (and it is very large, in comparison to most Americans), they still feel their economic position to be somewhat precarious.

So we are in an economy where inequalities of income and wealth are at near historic levels, yet even those who are supposedly benefitting from this state of affairs do not feel economically secure.  

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

It's quite large by any standard.  I wouldn't at all go so far as to say that those in that position do not feel economically secure, presuming investments are solid and they're not overextended (which, if not ok, should eliminate them from the discussion, presumably).  

But those making $1m+ now haven't been doing so for their entire careers, or more likely for even the better chunk of it.  The average age of your garden-variety millionaire is actually over 60 (interestingly the average age of those worth more than $25m is 65, and most are still working).  I suppose if you ask they'll say they're quite comfortable.  But for some of the (relatively) younger crowd there's always that next rung, that next deal, the apartment on the higher floor or on the park.  There's always someone or something that pushes the bar higher.  And for the older crowd there's the question of supporting that pre-60 lifestyle further into retirement and down to their children and grandchildren, and/or into a legacy contribution somewhere.  Some of those caught in the middle are by many reports at least unsure of their future, wondering whether to eke out a few more years as a partner somewhere while looking over their shoulder at Washington.  And while I very much doubt these ever-increasing crowds are losing sleep over their status, I strongly suspect they're as watchful over their assets as someone making ten or twenty times less.

But this all started with "luxury".  If you're looking up at seven figures, I'm sure it is.  If you're looking down from that perch, it's not hard to see how they may perceive it as comfort.  Because when they look up, and they most assuredly can for quite a bit, THAT'S "luxury".  And here we're merely talking about income levels and not net worth, when we start counting millionaires by the millions.  And on the ridiculous cycle of subjectivity goes.

PVW said:

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

And this illustrates the depth of the problem. If I'm reading your post correctly, despite their large income (and it is very large, in comparison to most Americans), they still feel their economic position to be somewhat precarious.

So we are in an economy where inequalities of income and wealth are at near historic levels, yet even those who are supposedly benefitting from this state of affairs do not feel economically secure.  

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

no. if they don't feel financially secure, it's not the economy's fault. they're simply morons.

ctrzaska said:

PVW said:

And this illustrates the depth of the problem. If I'm reading your post correctly, despite their large income (and it is very large, in comparison to most Americans), they still feel their economic position to be somewhat precarious.

So we are in an economy where inequalities of income and wealth are at near historic levels, yet even those who are supposedly benefitting from this state of affairs do not feel economically secure.  

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

It's quite large by any standard.  I wouldn't at all go so far as to say that those in that position do not feel economically secure, presuming investments are solid and they're not overextended (which, if not ok, should eliminate them from the discussion, presumably).  

But those making $1m+ now haven't been doing so for their entire careers, or more likely for even the better chunk of it.  The average age of your garden-variety millionaire is actually over 60 (interestingly the average age of those worth more than $25m is 65, and most are still working).  I suppose if you ask they'll say they're quite comfortable.  But for some of the (relatively) younger crowd there's always that next rung, that next deal, the apartment on the higher floor or on the park.  There's always someone or something that pushes the bar higher.  And for the older crowd there's the question of supporting that pre-60 lifestyle further into retirement and down to their children and grandchildren, and/or into a legacy contribution somewhere.  Some of those caught in the middle are by many reports at least unsure of their future, wondering whether to eke out a few more years as a partner somewhere while looking over their shoulder at Washington.  And while I very much doubt these ever-increasing crowds are losing sleep over their status, I strongly suspect they're as watchful over their assets as someone making ten or twenty times less.

But this all started with "luxury".  If you're looking up at seven figures, I'm sure it is.  If you're looking down from that perch, it's not hard to see how they may perceive it as comfort.  Because when they look up, and they most assuredly can for quite a bit, THAT'S "luxury".  And here we're merely talking about income levels and not net worth, when we start counting millionaires by the millions.  And on the ridiculous cycle of subjectivity goes.

keep on digging that hole Mr. Clueless.

the conversation has nothing to do with relative luxury. if a rich person (yes, 2 mil is rich) is looking at those even more wealthy than they are with avarice, then someone has a bit of a problem.

ctrzaska said:

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

May want to read my last sentence again there, Robin Hood, and refrain from putting words neither stated nor implied in my mouth.  And as carefully as I chose my words, this time since nuance clearly isn't your strong suit.

puhleeze. because I stretched and said "getting by"?

You are trying to tell us that 2 mil a year is just "ok", essentially.

Whatever. That post gets my vote as Clueless of the Year.

No.  And I'm telling you nothing of the sort.  But please, don't bother... it's clearly too far over your stratified head, and I've lost most interest.

The $1.5m a year crowd just breathed a HUGE sign of relief, though.

Carry on, and have fun storming the castle.

hahahaha. you called me stratified? and what are you, exactly? 

what does that even mean - "stratified head"? That I recognize that stratification exists?

dude, you're not covering yourself in glory here.

PVW said:

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

What needs to change is the mentality.

'You've got to free your mind instead".

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

PVW said:

And this illustrates the depth of the problem. If I'm reading your post correctly, despite their large income (and it is very large, in comparison to most Americans), they still feel their economic position to be somewhat precarious.

So we are in an economy where inequalities of income and wealth are at near historic levels, yet even those who are supposedly benefitting from this state of affairs do not feel economically secure.  

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

It's quite large by any standard.  I wouldn't at all go so far as to say that those in that position do not feel economically secure, presuming investments are solid and they're not overextended (which, if not ok, should eliminate them from the discussion, presumably).  

But those making $1m+ now haven't been doing so for their entire careers, or more likely for even the better chunk of it.  The average age of your garden-variety millionaire is actually over 60 (interestingly the average age of those worth more than $25m is 65, and most are still working).  I suppose if you ask they'll say they're quite comfortable.  But for some of the (relatively) younger crowd there's always that next rung, that next deal, the apartment on the higher floor or on the park.  There's always someone or something that pushes the bar higher.  And for the older crowd there's the question of supporting that pre-60 lifestyle further into retirement and down to their children and grandchildren, and/or into a legacy contribution somewhere.  Some of those caught in the middle are by many reports at least unsure of their future, wondering whether to eke out a few more years as a partner somewhere while looking over their shoulder at Washington.  And while I very much doubt these ever-increasing crowds are losing sleep over their status, I strongly suspect they're as watchful over their assets as someone making ten or twenty times less.

But this all started with "luxury".  If you're looking up at seven figures, I'm sure it is.  If you're looking down from that perch, it's not hard to see how they may perceive it as comfort.  Because when they look up, and they most assuredly can for quite a bit, THAT'S "luxury".  And here we're merely talking about income levels and not net worth, when we start counting millionaires by the millions.  And on the ridiculous cycle of subjectivity goes.

keep on digging that hole Mr. Clueless.

the conversation has nothing to do with relative luxury. if a rich person (yes, 2 mil is rich) is looking at those even more wealthy than they are with avarice, then someone has a bit of a problem.

Avarice??  You just making it up as you go along now?  There's no class on this planet, besides those rarified few in the stratosphere, that hasn't sought something that others with more wealth have.  None.  If you think otherwise, you're more ideologically myopic than I thought possible, and simply fooling yourself.

And the conversation has everything to do with relative luxury, sillyboy.  EVERYTHING.

Tom_Reingold said:

The argument that we might as well go all the way is just stupid. The argument that we can't find or agree on the right level of taxation is, too, because the implication is that we shouldn't bother trying.

It seems to me -- and I'm just one person -- that once you make over about $500,000 a year, you have everything you need plus everything most people would want. You can have two or three homes, go on fancy vacations, send your kids to any college. Beyond that level of income, it is all super luxurious. What principle is violated if the marginal tax rate is 90% at drummerboy's proposed income level of $2M? What kind of life does a $2M/year household have?

That's mighty big of you to decide what others need. 

ctrzaska said:

Higher taxes may actually work as an incentive to earn more.  Or leave.  Though a 90% marginal tax rate is just silly talk.  

I think its more likely that higher taxes actually work as an incentive to avoid taxes.  

Springsteen is going on tour again.  Is he giving up 90% of the huge sum he is getting? Is he dividing the take equally with everyone working on the tour? 

bramzzoinks said:

Springsteen is going on tour again.  Is he giving up 90% of the huge sum he is getting? Is he dividing the take equally with everyone working on the tour? 

How would any of us know? Ask him.

terp said:

ctrzaska said:

Higher taxes may actually work as an incentive to earn more.  Or leave.  Though a 90% marginal tax rate is just silly talk.  

I think its more likely that higher taxes actually work as an incentive to avoid taxes.  

Probably so.

ctrzaska said:

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

PVW said:

And this illustrates the depth of the problem. If I'm reading your post correctly, despite their large income (and it is very large, in comparison to most Americans), they still feel their economic position to be somewhat precarious.

So we are in an economy where inequalities of income and wealth are at near historic levels, yet even those who are supposedly benefitting from this state of affairs do not feel economically secure.  

What I take from this is that not only is this state of affairs bad news for everyone NOT making $2m a year, but even for the wealthy, it's not really working so well. Something needs to change.

It's quite large by any standard.  I wouldn't at all go so far as to say that those in that position do not feel economically secure, presuming investments are solid and they're not overextended (which, if not ok, should eliminate them from the discussion, presumably).  

But those making $1m+ now haven't been doing so for their entire careers, or more likely for even the better chunk of it.  The average age of your garden-variety millionaire is actually over 60 (interestingly the average age of those worth more than $25m is 65, and most are still working).  I suppose if you ask they'll say they're quite comfortable.  But for some of the (relatively) younger crowd there's always that next rung, that next deal, the apartment on the higher floor or on the park.  There's always someone or something that pushes the bar higher.  And for the older crowd there's the question of supporting that pre-60 lifestyle further into retirement and down to their children and grandchildren, and/or into a legacy contribution somewhere.  Some of those caught in the middle are by many reports at least unsure of their future, wondering whether to eke out a few more years as a partner somewhere while looking over their shoulder at Washington.  And while I very much doubt these ever-increasing crowds are losing sleep over their status, I strongly suspect they're as watchful over their assets as someone making ten or twenty times less.

But this all started with "luxury".  If you're looking up at seven figures, I'm sure it is.  If you're looking down from that perch, it's not hard to see how they may perceive it as comfort.  Because when they look up, and they most assuredly can for quite a bit, THAT'S "luxury".  And here we're merely talking about income levels and not net worth, when we start counting millionaires by the millions.  And on the ridiculous cycle of subjectivity goes.

keep on digging that hole Mr. Clueless.

the conversation has nothing to do with relative luxury. if a rich person (yes, 2 mil is rich) is looking at those even more wealthy than they are with avarice, then someone has a bit of a problem.

Avarice??  You just making it up as you go along now?  There's no class on this planet, besides those rarified few in the stratosphere, that hasn't sought something that others with more wealth have.  None.  If you think otherwise, you're more ideologically myopic than I thought possible, and simply fooling yourself.

And the conversation has everything to do with relative luxury, sillyboy.  EVERYTHING.

You are apparently the only person here who is concerned with relative luxury dear boy. And it's totally a diversion. What does relative luxury have to do with Tom's OP?

Ask Tom.  He brought it up.

bramzzoinks said:

Springsteen is going on tour again.  Is he giving up 90% of the huge sum he is getting? Is he dividing the take equally with everyone working on the tour? 

Get help.  Seriously.

@ctrzaska, let me apologize sincerely for the tone I took with you. I respect you, and if I read something you write that seems outlandish, it's probably because I'm not understanding you. I suspect you're unlikely to write something outlandish.

But I feel that while these questions are difficult to answer, they are worthy of consideration. I do realize that one person's luxury is another person's necessity. Still, there should be a sense of standards. Yes, they vary from region to region, but questions that are hard to answer are not necessarily questions we should avoid.

With wealth disparity increasing sharply, opportunities for advancement are disappearing for many. You can either say the US economy is (or ought to be) one of opportunity for most people or that there should be no limit on how wealthy the wealthiest can get. I don't see how you can say both.

At a certain point, we need to define a point above which it's nearly impossible to exceed. At least, on the way there, society at large ought to benefit from your tremendous success. Defining that point is hard, as you point out. But it's not a crazy goal.

Tom_Reingold said:

@ctrzaska, let me apologize sincerely for the tone I took with you. I respect you, and if I read something you write that seems outlandish, it's probably because I'm not understanding you. I suspect you're unlikely to write something outlandish.

But I feel that while these questions are difficult to answer, they are worthy of consideration. I do realize that one person's luxury is another person's necessity. Still, there should be a sense of standards. Yes, they vary from region to region, but questions that are hard to answer are not necessarily questions we should avoid.

With wealth disparity increasing sharply, opportunities for advancement are disappearing for many. You can either say the US economy is (or ought to be) one of opportunity for most people or that there should be no limit on how wealthy the wealthiest can get. I don't see how you can say both.

At a certain point, we need to define a point above which it's nearly impossible to exceed. At least, on the way there, society at large ought to benefit from your tremendous success. Defining that point is hard, as you point out. But it's not a crazy goal.

Why do we need to have a standard over which people shouldn't exceed?  You realize that the economy is not a zero sum game.  Limited opportunity may be an issue, but I don't see any evidence this issue is caused by some that are admittedly extremely wealthy. 

If there are people that can buy 10 yachts a day, I don't see how this affects me at all.  I'm totally fine with that.   Now, if you draw a line between that wealth and limited opportunity in the economy I'd be willing to look at it.  

@terp, nearly all new income is going to the top 0.1% in the last few decades. It is at everyone else's expense, demonstrably.

The macro economy is not a zero sum game, but a household's income is. When you say it's not a zero sum game, are you implying that everyone else's wealth becomes a benefit to everyone else? That's what the Republicans want us to believe, but again, demonstrably, it's untrue.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin and Kansas have followed the Republican shtick, and it has not worked out so well. States are good research labs except that the people are the lab rats.

We have history. History has shown (me, anyway) that taxing high wealth is good for the economy. And yet, the wealthy get to stay wealthy. Wow, imagine that.

Here's how that Gov. defines "wealthy":

During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html

And that reminds me that we don't have to have just one line which defines wealthy. We can have many tax brackets.

Those words are not Mark Dayton's; they come from Occupy Democrats. Dayton, a member of an extended family with a net worth of $1.6 billion, may define "wealthy" differently.

And in case anyone considers this relevant, the median household income in Minnesota is about $62,000.