3 ms·

The problem is not wealth inequality. The problem is lack of wealth. Even if you taxed every last billionaire in this country at 100% and stole every single a

The problem is not wealth inequality. The problem is lack of wealth. Even if you taxed every last billionaire in this country at 100% and stole every single asset from them, it still wouldn't get you anywhere: 2.7 trillion/ 300 million = roughly 8000$ per head, after that you'd get only tiny fraction, you couldn't squeeze any more out of them because they don't have it. Even those at the 1% mark may struggle to afford a home because if you're earning that income, it means your paying through the nose on housing: 1.5M or more for a mediocre housing. It's time we faced facts. We're not nearly as wealthy as we think we are. and it's time we started asking why? this question isn't easily answered and has many many many reasons, many due to economics and our lack of understanding of economics.

burlesona 8y ago
The reason I don't agree with this is how much prices move to the margins. Look at real estate, cities that have a small fraction of super wealthy workers (SF, NYC, DC) have markets where the prices are determined by what the super-wealthy can afford to pay, and effectively it's a form of wealth extraction where long-term local landowners, most of whom are already relatively wealthy, extract value from the businesses that are making some people super-wealthy by refusing to allow new development to keep up with demand. The losers in this scheme are literally everyone else, paying a steeper and steeper cut of their income just to keep their job. Also, no offense intended, but saying that $8000 per head would not make a difference sounds out of touch to me. If you have a family of four and your household income is $30k, $8000 could be life-changing. I agree with your broader point though that cash redistribution is not a real solution. What I would argue is that we need to be thinking about how to systematically reduce cost of living / increase quality of life, and ideally how to do this at a cost somewhere below $8k a head :)
- megaman8 8y ago
  but that's one time transfer because there's nothing left to transfer. So, you really have to divide that by 20 or more years. so 500$ per head per year, really isn't that much.
devit 8y ago
Where do you get the 2.7 trillion figure? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States, total household wealth is $54 trillion, or 180k$ per head. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189 https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-fam... gives $48k average income. So if all wealth and income were redistributed, you'd end up with 180k$ wealth and $48k income, which is enough to buy an apartment and live well at least outside the most expensive cities.
- danielvf 8y ago
  The GP said take money from “every billionaire”, not from every person in the US. One surprising thing about America is that there is a very large, almost invisible class of small businesses owners, good sales people, old farmers and random professionals that have in aggregate quite a bit of wealth. More than 4% of the US population are millionaires.
  - malandrew 8y ago
    Yup. A lot of the reason the middle class is shrinking is because many of them have joined the ranks of upper middle class.
    - malandrew 8y ago
      Here's some data to support this: http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/ http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-sh... People want to believe things are getting worse, but they are actually getting better. What's changed is that negativity in journalism has increased.
purplezooey 8y ago
It would help a great deal if we stopped putting up so many hard right wing people, though, for say, a decade or so.
meteor333 8y ago
That's a wrong interpretation of this article IMO. When anytime income inequality is brought up, the point is not that we need to distribute the income equally, the point is that economy is primarily working for top 1% and not the bottom 99%. This means we need to find a solution so that it works for both classes. The incomes are NOT rising for bottom 99% in fact they are going down and that's a problem.

burlesona 8y ago

The reason I don't agree with this is how much prices move to the margins. Look at real estate, cities that have a small fraction of super wealthy workers (SF, NYC, DC) have markets where the prices are determined by what the super-wealthy can afford to pay, and effectively it's a form of wealth extraction where long-term local landowners, most of whom are already relatively wealthy, extract value from the businesses that are making some people super-wealthy by refusing to allow new development to keep up with demand. The losers in this scheme are literally everyone else, paying a steeper and steeper cut of their income just to keep their job. Also, no offense intended, but saying that $8000 per head would not make a difference sounds out of touch to me. If you have a family of four and your household income is $30k, $8000 could be life-changing. I agree with your broader point though that cash redistribution is not a real solution. What I would argue is that we need to be thinking about how to systematically reduce cost of living / increase quality of life, and ideally how to do this at a cost somewhere below $8k a head :)

megaman8 8y ago
but that's one time transfer because there's nothing left to transfer. So, you really have to divide that by 20 or more years. so 500$ per head per year, really isn't that much.

devit 8y ago

Where do you get the 2.7 trillion figure? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States, total household wealth is $54 trillion, or 180k$ per head. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189 https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-fam... gives $48k average income. So if all wealth and income were redistributed, you'd end up with 180k$ wealth and $48k income, which is enough to buy an apartment and live well at least outside the most expensive cities.

danielvf 8y ago
The GP said take money from “every billionaire”, not from every person in the US. One surprising thing about America is that there is a very large, almost invisible class of small businesses owners, good sales people, old farmers and random professionals that have in aggregate quite a bit of wealth. More than 4% of the US population are millionaires.
- malandrew 8y ago
  Yup. A lot of the reason the middle class is shrinking is because many of them have joined the ranks of upper middle class.
  - malandrew 8y ago
    Here's some data to support this: http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/ http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-sh... People want to believe things are getting worse, but they are actually getting better. What's changed is that negativity in journalism has increased.

purplezooey 8y ago

It would help a great deal if we stopped putting up so many hard right wing people, though, for say, a decade or so.

meteor333 8y ago

That's a wrong interpretation of this article IMO. When anytime income inequality is brought up, the point is not that we need to distribute the income equally, the point is that economy is primarily working for top 1% and not the bottom 99%. This means we need to find a solution so that it works for both classes. The incomes are NOT rising for bottom 99% in fact they are going down and that's a problem.