Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?

by Justitia Themis 82 Replies latest social current

• 

  james_woods

  I didnt confuse it. I know FICA is payroll taxes and I am not refering to federal/state withholdings. Those taxes are regressive as are state sales taxes.....It is good that you avoided those isuese by trying to tell me something I knew.

  Then what did you mention $107,000 for?

  I mean, if left to their own devices will the top 1% accrue more or less of the nation's wealth?

  Yes, but everyone would have relatively more than they have now. The bottom 10% here has far more than the bottom 99% of Somalia.
• 

  JonathanH

  Again, that's not what I asked, james woods. It's not whether or not new wealth would be generated, it's whether or not a greater or lesser % of the wealth would pool up at the top. Which would naturally happen, and is this a good or bad thing, and why?
• 

  james_woods

  I said yes - meaning the top would have more.

  I also said it was a good thing, meaning that everybody would have more.

  This is what happened during the first 225 years of U.S. history.
• 

  JonathanH

  Do you think this upward flow of % of wealth would ever stop, or if it would ever be unhealthy? If for example the top 1% controlled 99% of the nation's wealth? Could that theoretically happen, and would it be economically healthy if it did happen?
• 

  JonathanH

  And technically your statement "the top would have more, everybody would have more" cannot be true if talking about %s, because that is zero sum. Remember, we are talking about % of existing wealth, not generation of new wealth.

  Edit: I'll be back in a bit, I've got to go to class. I'l just leave with the question "Is it possible for an unhealthy distribution of wealth to exist? And could that distribution happen through pure capitalism?"
• 

  james_woods

  And technically your statement "the top would have more, everybody would have more" cannot be true if talking about %s, because that is zero sum.

  Wrong. Zero Sum would have it that the lower classes could only have more if the upper classes had less. This is what wealth redistribution theory is based on - the poor can only have more if it is taken away from the wealthy.

  Real world economic growth means that everybody has more because the sum of wealth keeps growing. Regardless of the percentages, everybody today has more than they had in 2000 B.C.
• 

  NewChapter

  And yet, in practice, the more the top has the less the bottom has. It doesn't appear to be a bottomless pit. So will there be a point where it would be right to say---hey, you've taken it all and we can't even play anymore? That is what is happening. And it's not like they took it honestly either. We bailed them out. The game is rigged. When will it be enough? If the top 1%'s wealth had no bearing on the quality of life for those on the lower end, this would not be an issue. But that's not how it is working out. The top have the money, they are sitting on it or sending it overseas. And they are taking more through subsidies---in effect they are saying to us----it's socialist to offer health care and food for the poor. It's evil for government to feed the poor. That's not government's role. But it is perfectly moral to deny the poor and subsidize big oil and bail out the banks. And all we ask in return for our bailouts and susidies is that you deny the poor. That's all. Is it too much to ask? We don't have enough yet.

  NC
• 

  james_woods

  And yet, in practice, the more the top has the less the bottom has.

  I don't think you can prove this in the case of the United States.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  And yet, in practice, the more the top has the less the bottom has.

  There is no evidence to support this. The bottom is wealthier today than it has ever been in history.
• 

  JonathanH

  You continue to dodge my question. Could the top 1% control 99% of the nation's wealth, and would that be considered economically healthy? Is there anything that would stop the flow of money upwards?