4 ms·

Not sure what your sarcasm is supposed to mean. The middle class _do_ have most of the money, and raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy wouldn’t make a meaningful

Not sure what your sarcasm is supposed to mean. The middle class _do_ have most of the money, and raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy wouldn’t make a meaningful difference in revenue.

hobs 6y ago
>A September 2017 study by the Federal Reserve reported that the top 1% owned 38.5% of the country's wealth in 2016. According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021. If we hit over 50% as predicted (and the last 12 months have been very beneficial to the upper classes), no, the middle class doesn't have the majority of the money. >CBO Chart, U.S. Holdings of Family Wealth 1989 to 2013. The top 10% of families held 76% of the wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of families held 1%. Inequality worsened from 1989 to 2013.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- umanwizard 6y ago
  People with a net worth of 1M are definitely (upper-) middle class, unless we’re using that term in two totally different ways. I’d be curious what fraction of the total wealth is held by them as opposed to by the super-rich.
  - viridian 6y ago
    Where do you live that a net worth of 1MM is just upper middle class?
    - umanwizard 6y ago
      The USA. People with 1MM in net worth typically have professional-class jobs like doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc., and still need to work for a living.
    - svrb 6y ago
      Anywhere where returns on $1 million is not enough to indefinitely sustain a lifestyle significantly above poverty level, so... anywhere in the US. Someone who is obligated to work to sustain their lifestyle is middle-class.
Pfhreak 6y ago
A wealth tax would raise tens or hundreds of billions a year, which is a pretty meaningful amount of revenue...
- umanwizard 6y ago
  > which is a pretty meaningful amount of revenue... It really isn’t. The US federal budget is trillions of dollars.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I disagree. In both relative and absolute terms an increase of tens or hundreds of billions of meaningful. That could provide free education, health care, subsidized housing, improved transit, high speed rail, or any number of tangible and meaningful benefits. Whole integer percent increases in tax revenue are absolutely meaningful as well. Even if the integer is a small integer.
yourapostasy 6y ago
Please qualify the scoping or share the basis for your assertion "The middle class _do_ have most of the money...", as this pie chart [1] shows US middle class net worth is about 4%, not what I interpret as "most of the money". Either your scoping of your assertion is for a different nation (in which case it isn't pertain to this discussion thread of a US-centric news story), the scoping of the "most of the money" term is different than what I use, our scoping of "middle" is different, or there is something else I'm misunderstanding about your assertion. I don't consider the bottom 95% of households as "middle", and you'd have to get there to even approach rough parity with the remaining 5%, and by then that 95% is not much of a "middle" any longer, so I'm not clear what you consider "middle". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

Not sure what your sarcasm is supposed to mean. The middle class _do_ have most of the money, and raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy wouldn’t make a meaningful difference in revenue.

hobs 6y ago

>A September 2017 study by the Federal Reserve reported that the top 1% owned 38.5% of the country's wealth in 2016. According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021. If we hit over 50% as predicted (and the last 12 months have been very beneficial to the upper classes), no, the middle class doesn't have the majority of the money. >CBO Chart, U.S. Holdings of Family Wealth 1989 to 2013. The top 10% of families held 76% of the wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of families held 1%. Inequality worsened from 1989 to 2013.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

umanwizard 6y ago
People with a net worth of 1M are definitely (upper-) middle class, unless we’re using that term in two totally different ways. I’d be curious what fraction of the total wealth is held by them as opposed to by the super-rich.
- viridian 6y ago
  Where do you live that a net worth of 1MM is just upper middle class?
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    The USA. People with 1MM in net worth typically have professional-class jobs like doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc., and still need to work for a living.
  - svrb 6y ago
    Anywhere where returns on $1 million is not enough to indefinitely sustain a lifestyle significantly above poverty level, so... anywhere in the US. Someone who is obligated to work to sustain their lifestyle is middle-class.

Pfhreak 6y ago

A wealth tax would raise tens or hundreds of billions a year, which is a pretty meaningful amount of revenue...

umanwizard 6y ago
> which is a pretty meaningful amount of revenue... It really isn’t. The US federal budget is trillions of dollars.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I disagree. In both relative and absolute terms an increase of tens or hundreds of billions of meaningful. That could provide free education, health care, subsidized housing, improved transit, high speed rail, or any number of tangible and meaningful benefits. Whole integer percent increases in tax revenue are absolutely meaningful as well. Even if the integer is a small integer.

yourapostasy 6y ago

Please qualify the scoping or share the basis for your assertion "The middle class _do_ have most of the money...", as this pie chart [1] shows US middle class net worth is about 4%, not what I interpret as "most of the money". Either your scoping of your assertion is for a different nation (in which case it isn't pertain to this discussion thread of a US-centric news story), the scoping of the "most of the money" term is different than what I use, our scoping of "middle" is different, or there is something else I'm misunderstanding about your assertion. I don't consider the bottom 95% of households as "middle", and you'd have to get there to even approach rough parity with the remaining 5%, and by then that 95% is not much of a "middle" any longer, so I'm not clear what you consider "middle". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...