4 ms·

> We spend way too much time worrying about the wealth of a small group of people that, in the end, doesn’t add up to that large a fraction of total wealth or i

> We spend way too much time worrying about the wealth of a small group of people that, in the end, doesn’t add up to that large a fraction of total wealth or income. People focus on billionaires due to the fact that they are the most stark representation of the deeply unequal society in which they live. Wealth inequality is very real, please refer to the following: https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-inequality-in-america-facts-figures https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-ine... It's a rhetorical device > Middle class Americans make $8 trillion a year, compared to about $130 billion for America’s billionaires. So the group of people who leverage capital to sustain themselves and don't have to work have lower net income than the group of people who have to work to have a roof over their head? > $50 trillion I love how these numbers increasingly grow. First it was 36 trillion from the well-known Cato institute. Mind you, this was actually going to save money in the long term, so we have to bump up the number. The United states spend almost 2x per capita what Canada does on healthcare, so it seems pretty odd that we'd use current pricing systems to estimate the cost when the original M4A bill expressly increases leverage to negotiate. $50 trillion is a spook.

rayiner 7y ago
> People focus on billionaires due to the fact that they are the most stark representation of the deeply unequal society in which they live. Wealth inequality is very real, please refer to the following: https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-ine.. https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-ine.... It's a rhetorical device It's a rhetorical device that distracts from real problems and real solutions. Look at Warren's wealth tax proposal. It's blatantly unconstitutional and without precedent in the OECD. And what's the upshot? Just $275 billion in revenue per year. Compared to the $1 trillion or more we could raise by implementing a VAT, like every other OECD country has, or bringing payroll taxes in line with other OECD countries. Focusing on billionaires also distracts from the nature of our "deeply unequal society." Look at the U.S. income distribution: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update; https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fair-share-top-400-us-taxpayers-paid-almost-as-much-in-federal-income-taxes-in-2014-as-the-entire-bottom-50 https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fair-share-top-400-us-taxpaye.... The top 400 taxpayers earned $127 billion in 2014, let's say an even $150 billion in 2018. There were 70 million returns filed by the bottom 50%. If you took all billionaires' income and redistributed it among the bottom 50%, they'd have about $2,000 a year more, or a bit more than 10%. But look at the top 50% minus the top 1%. (Even Sanders considers the 98th percentile to be "middle class" given his tax plan wouldn't raise taxes on people with household incomes under $250,000.) They have $7 trillion in income, versus about $1.1 trillion in income for the bottom half. If you want to talk about income inequality, that's the root of it. And that's the most significant kind of income inequality in terms of impact on peoples' daily lives. Billionaires aren't the ones driving up housing prices in urban neighborhoods and driving out people of color. Billionaires also aren't the ones that would be directly affected by the increases in VAT and payroll taxes that would be required to move to a more European model of taxation and public services. If you took all personal income ($10 trillion) and divided it evenly among all filers (140 million), you get about $71,000. If you or your household make more than that, you benefit from inequality. > So the group of people who leverage capital to sustain themselves and don't have to work have lower net income than the group of people who have to work to have a roof over their head? Zuckerberg doesn't work? Buffet doesn't work? Kylie Jenner doesn't work? > I love how these numbers increasingly grow. The $50 trillion number was calculated by Warren's own experts: https://assets.ctfassets.net/4ubxbgy9463z/2Tg9oB55ICu2vtYBaKKcVr/d124e0eeb128ad3a8d8ab8a6ccae44c0/20191031_Medicare_for_All_Cost_Letter___Appendices_FINAL.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/4ubxbgy9463z/2Tg9oB55ICu2vtYBaK... (linked from: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a) Credit to Warren, her analysis doesn't assume that Medicare for All will result in massive cost savings, which I think is highly unlikely given the American political system.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > Zuckerberg doesn't work? Buffet doesn't work? Kylie Jenner doesn't work? > don't have to work One of these things is not like the other. Don't be so slippery, please.
MetalGuru 7y ago
> So the group of people who leverage capital to sustain themselves and don't have to work have lower net income than the group of people who have to work to have a roof over their head? He’s talking about the aggregate income earned by the group. So the delta in individual incomes is offset by the massive delta in group sizes.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  Huh, this is interesting. I completely missed the fact that these two groups are massively differently sized. So his 8 trillion vs 130 billion is laughable. If you define the "middle class" as roughly 50 percent of the population (this is pretty low considering how this word is actually used), then the billionaires 130 billion greatly outstrips the 8 trillion per person. There's just shy of 600 billionaires in the US vs roughly 160 million "middle class" then the per individual income is 50k vs 222k. Pretty Stark even when you completely disregard the wealth elephant in the room
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Whether you look at things per-person or per-group is a matter of adopting a punitive outlook versus a practical outlook. If your goal is punitive, sure, it's relevant that the average billionaire makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year, while the average middle class person might make $80,000. But I don't think Americans are punitive. They're not deeply troubled by the mere fact that there is someone out there with $8 billion. To the extent they care about billionaires, they're concerned about whether they're paying a fair amount to support the county that gave them so much. And from that perspective, what matters is the aggregate income of the group. And $130-150 billion just isn't much compared to the $6-7 trillion in annual government spending in the U.S. Politicians thrive by disguising the punitive outlook as a practical outlook. They point to how much money Zuckerberg or Bezos have, and quickly pivot to how they could pay for universal healthcare, universal education, etc. A necessary aspect of that strategy is keeping people ignorant of the fact that even confiscating the total income of every billionaire would only pay for say 25% of U.S. higher education spending, or 4% of U.S. health spending.

rayiner 7y ago

> People focus on billionaires due to the fact that they are the most stark representation of the deeply unequal society in which they live. Wealth inequality is very real, please refer to the following: https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-ine.. https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-ine.... It's a rhetorical device It's a rhetorical device that distracts from real problems and real solutions. Look at Warren's wealth tax proposal. It's blatantly unconstitutional and without precedent in the OECD. And what's the upshot? Just $275 billion in revenue per year. Compared to the $1 trillion or more we could raise by implementing a VAT, like every other OECD country has, or bringing payroll taxes in line with other OECD countries. Focusing on billionaires also distracts from the nature of our "deeply unequal society." Look at the U.S. income distribution: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update; https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fair-share-top-400-us-taxpayers-paid-almost-as-much-in-federal-income-taxes-in-2014-as-the-entire-bottom-50 https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fair-share-top-400-us-taxpaye.... The top 400 taxpayers earned $127 billion in 2014, let's say an even $150 billion in 2018. There were 70 million returns filed by the bottom 50%. If you took all billionaires' income and redistributed it among the bottom 50%, they'd have about $2,000 a year more, or a bit more than 10%. But look at the top 50% minus the top 1%. (Even Sanders considers the 98th percentile to be "middle class" given his tax plan wouldn't raise taxes on people with household incomes under $250,000.) They have $7 trillion in income, versus about $1.1 trillion in income for the bottom half. If you want to talk about income inequality, that's the root of it. And that's the most significant kind of income inequality in terms of impact on peoples' daily lives. Billionaires aren't the ones driving up housing prices in urban neighborhoods and driving out people of color. Billionaires also aren't the ones that would be directly affected by the increases in VAT and payroll taxes that would be required to move to a more European model of taxation and public services. If you took all personal income ($10 trillion) and divided it evenly among all filers (140 million), you get about $71,000. If you or your household make more than that, you benefit from inequality. > So the group of people who leverage capital to sustain themselves and don't have to work have lower net income than the group of people who have to work to have a roof over their head? Zuckerberg doesn't work? Buffet doesn't work? Kylie Jenner doesn't work? > I love how these numbers increasingly grow. The $50 trillion number was calculated by Warren's own experts: https://assets.ctfassets.net/4ubxbgy9463z/2Tg9oB55ICu2vtYBaKKcVr/d124e0eeb128ad3a8d8ab8a6ccae44c0/20191031_Medicare_for_All_Cost_Letter___Appendices_FINAL.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/4ubxbgy9463z/2Tg9oB55ICu2vtYBaK... (linked from: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a) Credit to Warren, her analysis doesn't assume that Medicare for All will result in massive cost savings, which I think is highly unlikely given the American political system.

ianleeclark 7y ago
> Zuckerberg doesn't work? Buffet doesn't work? Kylie Jenner doesn't work? > don't have to work One of these things is not like the other. Don't be so slippery, please.

MetalGuru 7y ago

> So the group of people who leverage capital to sustain themselves and don't have to work have lower net income than the group of people who have to work to have a roof over their head? He’s talking about the aggregate income earned by the group. So the delta in individual incomes is offset by the massive delta in group sizes.

ianleeclark 7y ago
Huh, this is interesting. I completely missed the fact that these two groups are massively differently sized. So his 8 trillion vs 130 billion is laughable. If you define the "middle class" as roughly 50 percent of the population (this is pretty low considering how this word is actually used), then the billionaires 130 billion greatly outstrips the 8 trillion per person. There's just shy of 600 billionaires in the US vs roughly 160 million "middle class" then the per individual income is 50k vs 222k. Pretty Stark even when you completely disregard the wealth elephant in the room
- rayiner 7y ago
  Whether you look at things per-person or per-group is a matter of adopting a punitive outlook versus a practical outlook. If your goal is punitive, sure, it's relevant that the average billionaire makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year, while the average middle class person might make $80,000. But I don't think Americans are punitive. They're not deeply troubled by the mere fact that there is someone out there with $8 billion. To the extent they care about billionaires, they're concerned about whether they're paying a fair amount to support the county that gave them so much. And from that perspective, what matters is the aggregate income of the group. And $130-150 billion just isn't much compared to the $6-7 trillion in annual government spending in the U.S. Politicians thrive by disguising the punitive outlook as a practical outlook. They point to how much money Zuckerberg or Bezos have, and quickly pivot to how they could pay for universal healthcare, universal education, etc. A necessary aspect of that strategy is keeping people ignorant of the fact that even confiscating the total income of every billionaire would only pay for say 25% of U.S. higher education spending, or 4% of U.S. health spending.