top 1% vs bottom 50% (US wealth)

richardyu301 · Mar 3, 2006

top 1% of the families takes 1/3 of US's wealth... while the bottom 50% take only 2.5%.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114126217049687080.html?mod=economy_secondary_stories_hs

thecalip · Mar 3, 2006

why are you surprise? The rule for wealth through out the history of men kind is always 10/90. 10% of the people control 90% of the wealth.

I was surpise the top 1% only control 35%, I thought they control close to 50%

Bingoking · Mar 3, 2006

The top 1% pay 34.27% of all income taxes collected.

hans37 · Mar 3, 2006

Quote from richardyu301:

top 1% of the families takes 1/3 of US's wealth... while the bottom 50% take only 2.5%.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114126217049687080.html?mod=economy_secondary_stories_hs

Let me guess you are uniquely qualified to redistribute the wealth these families have.

btw shall I pm you my address so you can deliver that gulfstream5 formerly the property of hanoi john kerry, or maybe 100 million from G soros as obviously nobody could have made that kind of money honestly?

ktmexc20 · Mar 3, 2006

The evidence is there. Respectable sources can surely be provided, as to the diminishing of the middle class, and the spread of the extremes.

kt

hans37 · Mar 3, 2006

Quote from ktmexc20:

The evidence is there. Respectable sources can surely be provided, as to the diminishing of the middle class, and the spread of the extremes.

kt

PM me when you donate all of your assets over the federal poverty line to the homeless and then distribute your income equally to all members of ET.

Thanks I'll be waiting for your largess, supporting my next cruise.

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 3, 2006

Quote from ktmexc20:

The evidence is there. Respectable sources can surely be provided, as to the diminishing of the middle class, and the spread of the extremes.

kt

You seem to be assuming a cause and effect relationship between these two that I am not sure is warranted.

Of the two, the decline of the middle class is far more worrisome to me. No doubt there are plenty of causes, chief among them free trade, which has exposed formerly protected union jobs to low wage asian competition. I understand the concept that the country is supposed to be better off as a whole from this, but I have my doubts. Other countries certainly seem to do everything possible to preserve high paying manufacturing jobs, while we seem quite content to see them go overseas.

I am extremely suspicious of government getting involved in trying to equalize wealth distribution, for all the obvious reasons. One exception I would make is executive compensation, which has clearly gotten out of control and constitutes a market failure that justifies government regulation. If the government can tell companies what percentages of various races to hire, tell them whether or not their employees can smoke in their own offices and instruct them on relations between its male and female employees, then it can certainly restrict obscenely excessive options and bonus packages. If such compensation is required, let the company pay it with cash money so the accounting is accurate and not steal it from the shareholders with disguised compensation.

ktmexc20 · Mar 3, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
You seem to be assuming a cause and effect relationship between these two that I am not sure is warranted.

Hi AAA,
Not necessarily, no. Just the apparency in general.

Of the two, the decline of the middle class is far more worrisome to me. No doubt there are plenty of causes, chief among them free trade, which has exposed formerly protected union jobs to low wage asian competition. I understand the concept that the country is supposed to be better off as a whole from this, but I have my doubts. Other countries certainly seem to do everything possible to preserve high paying manufacturing jobs, while we seem quite content to see them go overseas.

I am extremely suspicious of government getting involved in trying to equalize wealth distribution, for all the obvious reasons. One exception I would make is executive compensation, which has clearly gotten out of control and constitutes a market failure that justifies government regulation. If the government can tell companies what percentages of various races to hire, tell them whether or not their employees can smoke in their own offices and instruct them on relations between its male and female employees, then it can certainly restrict obscenely excessive options and bonus packages. If such compensation is required, let the company pay it with cash money so the accounting is accurate and not steal it from the shareholders with disguised compensation.

Very good points, thank you.

dddooo · Mar 3, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Of the two, the decline of the middle class is far more worrisome to me. No doubt there are plenty of causes, chief among them free trade, which has exposed formerly protected union jobs to low wage asian competition. I understand the concept that the country is supposed to be better off as a whole from this, but I have my doubts. Other countries certainly seem to do everything possible to preserve high paying manufacturing jobs, while we seem quite content to see them go overseas.

Excellent points AAA. Please don't forget high paying computer, engineering, accounting, medical, R&D and scientific jobs that have nothing to do with unions and yet go overseas just as fast as manufacturing jobs.

ktmexc20 · Mar 3, 2006

Quote from dddooo:

Excellent points AAA. Please don't forget high paying computer, engineering, accounting, medical, R&D and scientific jobs that have nothing to do with unions and yet go overseas just as fast as manufacturing jobs.

I can even top that with this question:

What isn't being outsourced that can be outsourced? I'm curious to here comments on this.