Yj - it depends on what they do *with* the wealth that they have "created" and are being compensated with. You all seem to operate under this notion that the wealthy take their money and hide it in a pillow case. <BUZZZER> Wrong. When you are talking about these people, the reason they have this much money is because they *work*, and they work their money. They take that excessively large compensation and they invest it -- they give it to companies that need funding, they create businesses, they buy lots of expensive shit that people need to make, etc. I think this is *particularly* true of the super-rich, who became super rich by working the money - and you can't work the money to make more unless you are working other people...i.e. creating jobs.

Further -- I'll bet you $1000 that if you break down these number, all these super rich are "paper rich". This isn't cash in the bank or a Scrooge McDuck pile of gold...this is paper, this is value of assetts, this is stock options, this is all play money...JUST LIKE the $1 Trillion in play money our government just started running off the presses.

So if you are finding disagreement, it is because videos like this don't even scratch teh surface of *why* the wealth gets "distributed" the way it does, and what is happening with that wealth. The *vast majority* of that wealth is "working" to create more wealth...to create more jobs...to pay more taxes, etc. That's the dirty little secret the libs don't want to talk about...which is why even teh most vehement tax-n-spend liberal doesn't *really* want to strip the wealth from the super-rich.

You can't make anything apolitical, YJ...

Sammy Haggar (via Van Halen) once had the Apolitical Blues....

That is in general quite valid, krellin.

But wouldn't the reward system work just as well with a less horrific skew?

Well I am outraged that whatever website this is has apparently ripped off this entire post from Upworthy, who themselves tend to be pretty bad about that sort of thing but whatever.

"Silly, naive, YJ."

You honestly forgot you had soylent green style Social Darwinists on this forum?

Tsk, tsk.

God dammit. This thread got hijacked by the trolls. I was looking forward to a nice intellectual discussion with YJ.

I'm really amazed by the amount of hate directed at the rich. Jealous bastards who were never able to achieve shit in their entire life, hiding their hate behind a curtain of fancy words like "wealth gap" "inequality" "income equality" etc etc. And its ironic since if one of these haters would come into contact with large sums of money, they would immediately forget all their hate, and argue against taxes on wealth etc.

So many people seem to hate capitalism now, but fail to realize that they live in a crony capitalist society. They argue against big banks and "evil bankers" but they hand out bailouts because they are "too big to fail". And the same people who give handouts to those 'too big to fail" preach small businesses. How are small businesses supposed to compete against *government granted* monopolies? They give billions of dollars in aid to starving Africans, (who would much rather work their fields than wait for a serving of rice everyday) but give their own farmers subsidies, to the point that corn is over produced.

Rent control? Who are you to infringe on the private property rights of others, by what right? You make it seem like only the tenant has rights, has obligations, what about the landowner, does he not have rights? obligations? Maybe they took a big loan from the bank to pay for the property, and needs to pay interest. Or maybe, they just simply want to charge a little extra so they can live comfortably after taking the risk and investing their life savings in such a venture.

"But if we had rent control everywhere we'd get inundated with screams about how we're violating the sanctity of the free contract, laissez-faire laissez-faire laissez-faire!"

Putins mockery of laissez-faire, which literally means let (us) do in french, proves what a control freak and bigot he is.

OK, ILN, that's not at all the point this video (or me) is trying to make.

You, and others, keep insisting that the rich play by the rules. What I'm saying is that the rules aren't very good. There is no justification for a distribution of wealth that looks like the one we have. What I'm saying is that only a flawed system could yield a result like this.

If you reject distribution of wealth as a good indicator of the success of a system, what would you propose? Because frankly, "leave it alone everything is working as designed" doesn't carry much weight unless you accept that the design is already perfect.

I reject your premise that the distribution of wealth as it exists is bad or that the system that produced it is flawed. Prove to me that the current distribution is bad.

@YJ, i am saying the system is flawed and very flawed too...And whats worse, is that people think the solution is more of whats making it flawed.

Reasonable request, Draug. That the system is flawed is not my premise. That is a conclusion drawn if you accept the premise that the distribution of wealth as it exists is bad. I'm not so sure that that's the kind of thing that can be "proven," really. It depends on your metric of success. Let me try my best though... (this is more of a thought exercise than anything else, I'm sure you'll find flaws in it)

A good system would have two goals:

1) stimulate innovation (I'll use that fairly inadequate term as a catchall for "those who create wealth") through rewarding those who do it.

2) providing sufficiently for all contributors.


If you accept that, then a system would be inadequate if either it failed to provide a reasonable lifestyle for everybody who contributed to that system, or if it failed to provide sufficient reward as to stimulate innovation.

That much, I think (probably naively, haha), most people agree with to a great extent, in general terms. So where is the "sweet spot?" Does a sweet spot exist? Most Americans seem to think so (according to the video).

So if you consider on one end the many facts about our society regarding lack of health care, education, housing, and poverty, etc. (I'm only talking about those who work or want to work full time right now, mind you), and if you consider on the other end the massive rewards the system as a rule yields to the innovators, it seems to me that the system is definitely overemphasizing goal #2 at the expense of goal #1.

----

That's my very oversimplified from the hip answer, anyways.

Do you, Draugnar, think there is a "sweet spot"? Do you think we are exactly on it right now?

"If you accept that, then a system would be inadequate if either it failed to provide a reasonable lifestyle for everybody who contributed to that system, or if it failed to provide sufficient reward as to stimulate innovation."

Therein lies the problem. I don't believe any system is obligated to provide a "reasonable lifestyle" unless that lifestyle is basic food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare (at a basic level, not breast augmentation or sex change operations). Basically, I believe everyone deserves what our prisoners are supposed to get. Beyond that is extra and *must be earched*. So the TV and eating steak and having a beer on the back porch (even having a porch) is a privilege that must be earned.

As far as sweet spots and flaws. When a sports car is perfectly tuned and runs around a track like a bat out of hell, that is the sweet spot. But when it is too hot outside or some other condition is causing an issue and it isn't performing at peek performance, that doesn't mean the entire car is flawed. Hell it doens't mean any part is flawed necessarily. It justy means the conditions aren't perfect.

Now, I watched the video. I currently reside in the top 20% (just shy of the top 11%) yet I'm not compaining that the top 1% is affecting my line. you'll note that in that video, the top 2-20% were actually lower than the sweet spot example as well.

I don't believe we can find a sweet spot because everything is a trade off. Returning to my sports car example. That car rips around the track, but only gets 10-15 MPG. We tune it down so it can pull 20 MPG consistently and it's performance drops. There is a performance sweet spot and an efficiency sweet spot, and everythign in between is subjective. Same here. There is a sweet spot for the #1 position you hold and for the #2 and everything in between is subjective.

Some good points there Draugnar. Let me be specific:

I say, "a working system should yield a reasonable lifestyle to contributing members."

You say, "everything above the very basics must be earned."

I think that those statements are not wholly incompatible. You are suggesting a merit based reward system for disposable income, and I'm inclined to support that, so here's the question: Have the wealthiest 1% "earned" multiple orders of magnitude (say 1000 to 100,000 times as much) MORE disposable income than the poorest? Are their contributions THAT much more important?

I'd say you could argue it's twice as valid. I'd say you could argue 10x as valid. Not 1,000 - 100,000 times. You say the sweet spot is subjective, and I agree that is a fair answer, but that doesn't mean you don't have to justify wherever you tune the car to. What is your justification for saying the car is optimally tuned now?

I would also argue that the very poorest full time contributors to our system do not meet your criteria for covering the very basics. Many are lacking in healthcare, education, housing, quality of food, or something even your strict definition would consider " the basics."

Education - *not* a basic beyond huh school and high school is provided gratis to the poor.
Quality of food - Food is a basic, nut steak and boneless chicken breasts are not.
Healthcare - Was provided bit the fools just didn't take advantage of it. Below 150% of the poverty level never had to pay a dime for healthcare
Housing - Inmate style is perfectly acceptable.

Are there no workhouses? Let them go there.

OK, well that addresses my last (minor) point and though I don't agree with much of that I don't think it's worth pursuing. That you consider such a subsistence lifestyle as an appropriate reward for a 40 hour work week in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world speaks for itself.

Don't you have anything at all to say to the major point? Can you justify tuning the engine to its current location?

When you have nothing to say then string together words that mean nothing like Putin does, "Soylent Green Social Darwinists." How about "Socialist Survivor Omega Man." Another four word phrase incorporating a Charlton Heston 1970's science fiction role that achieves total ambiguity. You keep reaching new heights of total nonsense Putin.

@YJ - I'm not worried about justifying it's current position. I'm a statist in that regards. It is what it is. If it changes naturally, great. If not, that is fine to. But I don't believe in *forcing* change unless minimal mileage is no longer achieved. As long as property A and property B stay within tolerances (the basic subsistence exists for all and progress is encouraged be it investment or climbing the corporate ladder) then let change occur at it's own pace. Just put conditions in place to guarantee both stay within their parameters.

But that begs the question of how we arrived at the skew we have today.

Is it not fair to assert that the trend over the last 60 or so years of lowering taxes on the super rich and deregulating the commercial sector played a huge role in the current "tune?" The distribution of wealth in America of the 1950's was not nearly so skewed as it is today. These things did not happen by accident, Draugnar - it was "forced" if you will by some very wealthy people who saw a lot of potential for further profit.

Adnthe commercial sector needs some regulation. I donm't even have a qualm with a moderate tax increase on capital gains. My only concern is rasing taxes so hi that it discourages investment.

Despite what Putin may think, the rich aren't lazy and they aren't stupid. They know that things don't provide their wealth, people do. People are an asset to be fostered and cultivated and they knwo this. If they didn't, the middle and upper middle wouldn't exist and there would be two classes: working and uberrich.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ceo-worked-way-up-from-son-of-ceo,34331/

So, you're saying you have no justification for where we are tuned right now, only that you are against artificially forcing the tune to another location, even though it would really just be returning it to a place closer to where it used to be before somebody artificially forced it here?

You guys didn't know it was that bad?

Lol... people with half a brain do, steephie.

Apparently, we can't even agree that it IS bad.

@YJ - I'm for tuning it back, but not retuning it completely to be the fuel economy version instead of the performance minded one. Like I said, increase the capital gains tax, but don't make capital gains taxes at a *higher* rate than income taxes or there is no incentive for investing.

@bo - http://tomnies.cincom.com/biography-of-thomas-m-nies/
You give one example, I give one example. Mine is a man about whom President's have spoken.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cincompr/2851041639/
http://tomnies.cincom.com/2012/04/president-ronald-reagan-speaks-about-cincom-ceo-tom-nies-1984/

Mine is a man who is in the Smithsonean Institute's Museum of American History

http://tomnies.cincom.com/2009/09/smithsonian-museum-of-american-history-interview-with-cincom-ceo-thomas-nies/

Who you got next cause I'll go to Steve Balmer, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and the richest of all Americans - Bill Gates.

Draug, my example was from The Onion. By the Rule of Teenagers Taking Over the Internet, you must respond to satire with satire.

OK Draug, that's fine. I wasn't trying to discuss specific strategies for how we'd dial it back, just trying to establish that it needs to be done. Obviously it doesn't matter how big a piece of the pie you get if you have to shrink the whole pie to get a bigger one.