DCUM Class warfare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NPR did a great story on the wealth of white families vs. black families. (The typical white family has 20 times the wealth of the median black family. That's the largest gap in 25 years.)

OP claims that 90% of the wealthy worked hard for their $$, but there are subtle ways in which the wealthy (frequently white) have an advantage:

"Study after study shows that white families are more likely than blacks and Hispanics to enjoy certain economic advantages — even when their incomes are similar. Often it's the subtle things: help from Mom and Dad with a down payment on a home or college tuition, or a tax break on money passed from one generation to the next."

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/15/140428359/making-it-in-the-u-s-more-than-just-hard-work

(And for what it's worth, I'm white and relatively privileged, but at least I can admit the existence of the privileged.)

So now you want racial taxation? Take from white families and give to blacks?

Not PP, but really? Your idea of adding to the discourse was to contribute that ridiculous piece of bigoted idiocy? Thanks so much, Fox News is that way -->

1st PP, I hear you -- acknowledging the existence of cultural capital (as Bourdieu called it) is the first step to realizing we don't live in a true meritocracy. The next step is figuring out how to even the playing field so that those born less "lucky" can still achieve equal success with equal effort. Not through the impoverished ideas of idiots like the PP who responded to you, but through education (and cultural education), and through programs that identify the markers of success and develop them in lower class people to give them a chance to fulfill their potential.

[Anonymous]

Wow, OP. Many folks have to make choices based on the cards available and they are choosing between 2s, 3s and 4s, not jacks, queens, and kings. We live in NW DC and have a comfortable HHI. But I am neither blind nor stupid to know that many of the people who work on or in our home put in long, hard hours for far less than what we bring in at the end of the week. Some of them have basic literacy, others were professionals in their home countries - all of them deserve my respect. I doubt the professionals "chose" to become house painters, but they have to support families here and back home and do not necessarily have the luxury of time to master English, etc.

FWIW, compensation has become quite skewed in this country. Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living over the last three decades. Just because you or your DH have jobs that have not yet been hit, don't assume you are immune from the various economic bubbles. Ask the RIFed lawyers around town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well I keep hearing how the rich create jobs and we've gotta be really nice to them so they'll create jobs. Now with unemployment over 9%, the rich aren't keeping their end of the bargain, now are they?

Hilarious. You heard President Obama say that right before he raised taxes on "the rich." You're going to blame the typical DC lawyer/accountant (aka Obama rich) for the country's unemployment? I'd laugh more but I'm 4 hours into my billable day and have 8 hours left to go.

He didn't raise taxes on the rich. He's talked about it, but it hasn't happened yet. The highest earners are currently paying the lowest income tax rate in decades, and have been since the early 00s. I'd say they've been shirking their job-making duty.

Right, and do you know when the nation's unemployment was the lowest? You really need to get your "facts" from more than one op ed you read.

Lowest recent unemployment rate was 3.8% in April 2000, before the Bush tax cuts (39.6 vs. 35) and even before Bush's election. Going back further, we get 3.4% in 1969, when the top marginal rate was 75.25%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please OP people with money often make snide comments about folks who don't have money. Not all. But enough.

This. We are in the top 4% of earners, still get snide comments about our spending (or lack of spending) choices.

There's also a perception that the rich get taxed less (true if the income is from interest/dividends and not through pay roll), that their companies get breaks (true), that companies got money from the governemtn and spent it on luxuries (true).

Its the "I worked hard for my money, and therefore you didn't" attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The poor and working class have had war declared on them for years in this country, so give me a fucking break. Just like we should feel SO bad about returning the highest bracket to the same level it was a decade ago. Give me a goddamn break! Sorry we refuse to swallow after you've stuck us in the can.

Thank you - great post!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poor and working class have had war declared on them for years in this country, so give me a fucking break. Just like we should feel SO bad about returning the highest bracket to the same level it was a decade ago. Give me a goddamn break! Sorry we refuse to swallow after you've stuck us in the can.

Thank you - great post!

And so useful and informative!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those poor rich people, constantly so put upon!

Here's a few things:
1) It's easier to be irresponsible on HHI or $250k than $150k, and much easier than $75k.
2) The rich don't deserve one bit of fellatio for being rich. It's not like they're creating jobs.
3) Some poor people and people in trouble are where they are because they're dumbasses, either in school, or through a string of bad decisions.

ahem:
I created a nanny job.
Thank you very much.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The power of the internet:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

Please try again.

I didn’t say you were wrong; I expressed skepticism. I figured the best support would be something like what you cited; my response is below.

Meahwhile…what about everything else I had to say? Will the WSJ support your “liberal” views on all of that too?

To the WSJ piece:

WSJ wrote:1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

The richest 1% are billionaires. Nine percent of $1 billion is $90 million. That’s a real hardscrabble youth.

WSJ wrote:2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

What? They credited primarily themselves for their success? I guess I’m wrong then.

Self-report problems aside, again note that even a small portion of numbers that big is a huge leg up. You inherit $1 million and turn it into $20 million, and you’re self-made?

WSJ wrote:3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Getting better here, but we’re still only talking about direct inherited money, and I’m not seeing support for what you said. You said, “The vast majority…of wealthy and high income people in this country start off with very little and WORK hard.” I don’t see “very little,” especially as you haven’t addressed all of the factors in upbringing.

Here’s the class warfare I see: rich and comfortable people feeling guilty about letting the poor suffer and generally fearful of losing all of their important stuff attacking poor people to feel better about the whole situation.

As I said, most people with high incomes do have to work hard, and chose to put themselves in that situation. That doesn’t mean that everyone has had equal access to that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Lowest recent unemployment rate was 3.8% in April 2000, before the Bush tax cuts (39.6 vs. 35) and even before Bush's election. Going back further, we get 3.4% in 1969, when the top marginal rate was 75.25%.

Yes, back in the day the tax rate was insanely high and intended to nab the Rockefeller wealthy (who could otherwise find tax loopholes to pay nothing). During the depression the tax rate was 80% for incomes over $5,000,000. People love to cite the higher tax rates as relevant to the "Obama rich" earning more than $250,000. The "rich" today should be considered the Buffet-type rich, not today's "working wealthy" folks.

[Anonymous]

Just remember that death is the great leveler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those poor rich people, constantly so put upon!

Here's a few things:
1) It's easier to be irresponsible on HHI or $250k than $150k, and much easier than $75k.
2) The rich don't deserve one bit of fellatio for being rich. It's not like they're creating jobs.
3) Some poor people and people in trouble are where they are because they're dumbasses, either in school, or through a string of bad decisions.

ahem:
I created a nanny job.
Thank you very much.

by creating a baby?

What about the 10 other baby makers on welfare?

truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those poor rich people, constantly so put upon!

Here's a few things:
1) It's easier to be irresponsible on HHI or $250k than $150k, and much easier than $75k.
2) The rich don't deserve one bit of fellatio for being rich. It's not like they're creating jobs.
3) Some poor people and people in trouble are where they are because they're dumbasses, either in school, or through a string of bad decisions.

Who creates jobs?

Well I keep hearing how the rich create jobs and we've gotta be really nice to them so they'll create jobs. Now with unemployment over 9%, the rich aren't keeping their end of the bargain, now are they?

So wait you want them to also create jobs and then pay more taxes to fund large government?

Well, they can do either one of the two, unless they really like having large numbers of people unemployed and in grinding poverty.

Right now, they're doing neither.

I do, of course, conflate the ability of a $200k lawyer, $150k plumbing company owner, $1.5M hedge-fund trader, and $20M tech CEO to create jobs when I lump them all in as "the rich."

[Anonymous]

I think many people feel that the tax laws and the mechanisms that set the salaries of top corporate executives are set up in an unfair way, so as to make the wealthy get wealthier. For example, the salary of top executives is set by their peers, not really by the market. In other countries, the salaries of top executives is much lower and more of the wealth is distributed to all the employees in the country. The wealthy pay congress to make the tax laws favorable to them. Yes, there is class warfare. It is those with access to power making war on the common folk and stealing (yes stealing) a disproportionate amount of the wealth this country generates. Yes, there should be more money for people that work hard and have natural gifts. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is advocating communism. But why should congress pass laws so that Warren Buffet pays less taxes in percent than his secretary? This is congress making class warefare on the middle class. Our nation was not like this in the 1950s. We should return to a more equitable distribution of wealth and stop this class warfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lowest recent unemployment rate was 3.8% in April 2000, before the Bush tax cuts (39.6 vs. 35) and even before Bush's election. Going back further, we get 3.4% in 1969, when the top marginal rate was 75.25%.

Yes, back in the day the tax rate was insanely high and intended to nab the Rockefeller wealthy (who could otherwise find tax loopholes to pay nothing). During the depression the tax rate was 80% for incomes over $5,000,000. People love to cite the higher tax rates as relevant to the "Obama rich" earning more than $250,000. The "rich" today should be considered the Buffet-type rich, not today's "working wealthy" folks.

Wait, there's traction to the idea that the $250k lawyer to the $20M hedge funder are in the same bucket of "rich"? Now that's just the crazy talking.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The power of the internet:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

Please try again.

I didn’t say you were wrong; I expressed skepticism. I figured the best support would be something like what you cited; my response is below.

Meahwhile…what about everything else I had to say? Will the WSJ support your “liberal” views on all of that too?

To the WSJ piece:

WSJ wrote:1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

The richest 1% are billionaires. Nine percent of $1 billion is $90 million. That’s a real hardscrabble youth.

WSJ wrote:2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

What? They credited primarily themselves for their success? I guess I’m wrong then.

Self-report problems aside, again note that even a small portion of numbers that big is a huge leg up. You inherit $1 million and turn it into $20 million, and you’re self-made?

WSJ wrote:3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Getting better here, but we’re still only talking about direct inherited money, and I’m not seeing support for what you said. You said, “The vast majority…of wealthy and high income people in this country start off with very little and WORK hard.” I don’t see “very little,” especially as you haven’t addressed all of the factors in upbringing.

Here’s the class warfare I see: rich and comfortable people feeling guilty about letting the poor suffer and generally fearful of losing all of their important stuff attacking poor people to feel better about the whole situation.

As I said, most people with high incomes do have to work hard, and chose to put themselves in that situation. That doesn’t mean that everyone has had equal access to that choice.

OP here. Yes I'm a social liberal. I support a multicultural society with rights and choices etc. I do not consider myself a conservative. HOWEVER, we worked so damn hard to be here, missed out on fun in college to go to the library and study and do it again for our advanced degrees. Toiled the first few years out of school working long hard hours. Oh and my parents, working class stiffs in a shitty state that is losing residents. I support them now, pay their car note, pay for trips to see their grandkids, pay house note, pay for them to come on family vacations with us, buy gifts for our kids and label it from them. So if you want the "rich" to pay more at least acknowledge that they are paying most of the taxes in this country and more importantly to me the District.