Are Widening Income Gaps a Problem in this Country?

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Media_Truth said:

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Click to expand...

Autonomous revolution coupled with a universal basic income (UBI) will create huge wage gaps between those who rely on UBI and those who rely on the manufacturing of autonomous machines.

Media_Truth said:

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Click to expand...

When I was growing up, I was living under the belief that my family was middle class. A single earner household living in a four bedroom house on the outskirts of a middle sized town in northern Minnesota.

I held a vague notion that there were many folks who were worse off and many the were better off. I don't recall ever having gone to bed hungry. I was never in Europe on vacation with my parents. It was understood that I would attend college. It was further understood that my parents would not pay for it and that I would need to figure out how to pay for it myself out of pocket. I did so.

Is that what defines middle class today?

That aside, how will it benefit anyone of limited means to reduce the means of anyone else?

There is a widely held belief, fostered I think by the thieves who will spend it, that taking money from the rich will lift the poor from poverty.

This notion has been implemented into our culture and tax policies for many decades and the poor are still poor and the rich are getting richer. The government spending, graft and bribery increases daily and the benefits to those who need it are not getting there.

Why does the belief persist that a greater income gap between rich and poor is somehow a bad thing.

The floor stays where it is. If the ceiling is rising, that seems to be a very good thing.

Media_Truth said:

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Click to expand...

And yet, Dems promote policies which only serve to widen these gaps further. Why even ask if it's a problem, if you are not willing to be a part of the solution. :roll:

Media_Truth said:

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Click to expand...

Widening income gaps coupled with a booming population spells real change, possibly revolt in this country. We'll reach 400,000,000 people by 2039, most of whom will not earn a sufficient living. We're heading down an unsustainable path and no one appears to be doing anything about it.

When an economy is based on consumption like ours is. There has to be enough disposable income in order for consumption to take place. The more disposable income people have the better off the economy is. It's pretty simple.

I see two problems with your OP linked assertions: 1) middle class being defined by "houshold wealth" (rather than income) and 2) calling a (roughly) 50% increase in the number of those in the middle class since 1971 while the US population increased by (roughly) 33% a bad thing.

#1 above is a problem becuase two folks (households?) earning exactly the same income can be said to be in different classes based on how that income was later spent.

#2 above points out that number considered to be in the middle class has grown faster than the general population did and that folks moving out of the middle class may have either slipped into poverty or climed into greater prosperity - no distinction was drawn between good social status climbing and bad social status decline. If "the rich" own more simply because their are now more of them then that is not a bad thing.

Another odd thing is that "safety net" income is not counted - a poor household is still counted as a poor household even if their "safety net" assistance added to their earned income places them above a household with no "safety net" income.

code1211 said:

When I was growing up, I was living under the belief that my family was middle class. A single earner household living in a four bedroom house on the outskirts of a middle sized town in northern Minnesota.

I held a vague notion that there were many folks who were worse off and many the were better off. I don't recall ever having gone to bed hungry. I was never in Europe on vacation with my parents. It was understood that I would attend college. It was further understood that my parents would not pay for it and that I would need to figure out how to pay for it myself out of pocket. I did so.

Is that what defines middle class today?

That aside, how will it benefit anyone of limited means to reduce the means of anyone else?

There is a widely held belief, fostered I think by the thieves who will spend it, that taking money from the rich will lift the poor from poverty.

This notion has been implemented into our culture and tax policies for many decades and the poor are still poor and the rich are getting richer. The government spending, graft and bribery increases daily and the benefits to those who need it are not getting there.

Why does the belief persist that a greater income gap between rich and poor is somehow a bad thing.

The floor stays where it is. If the ceiling is rising, that seems to be a very good thing.

Click to expand...

Ask any peasant anywhere anytime what they think.

Greed is an addiction to nehrochemicals.

"Getting" is strongly rewarded. The member of any species with the best access to resources is the most likely to reproduce.

Unfortunately, Like all addictions, tolerance develops. So more and more is needed to get the same pleasurable sensation.

History demonstrates a clear pattern.

Those at the top, both wealth and power, take more and more, impose their will more and more.

Until this behavior makes life so untenable for the majority that they force them to stop. Often violently.

What if...? said:

Ask any peasant anywhere anytime what they think.

Greed is an addiction to nehrochemicals.

"Getting" is strongly rewarded. The member of any species with the best access to resources is the most likely to reproduce.

Unfortunately, Like all addictions, tolerance develops. So more and more is needed to get the same pleasurable sensation.

History demonstrates a clear pattern.

Those at the top, both wealth and power, take more and more, impose their will more and more.

Until this behavior makes life so untenable for the majority that they force them to stop. Often violently.

Click to expand...

at this point an education in the US labor movement is useful.

katzgar said:

When an economy is based on consumption like ours is. There has to be enough disposable income in order for consumption to take place. The more disposable income people have the better off the economy is. It's pretty simple.

Click to expand...

Unless consumer debt is used to fuel that consumption - then it is simply a time bomb set to blow up in the future.

Many make the assumption that taking money away from (richer) Peter in order to give it to (poorer) Paul (income redistribution) changes the net wealth of the nation or greatly increases the chances that Paul will become self sufficient.

There are three ways that I could increase my income: 1) static productivity and raise my hourly rate, 2) static productivity and work more hours (do more jobs) or 3) increase productivity and get more work done (do more jobs) in the same period of time. Income redistribution is simply selecting for option #1 above.

code1211 said:

When I was growing up, I was living under the belief that my family was middle class. A single earner household living in a four bedroom house on the outskirts of a middle sized town in northern Minnesota.

Click to expand...

You pose this as though it's the norm, or average. A relatively stable white Minnesota family that provided a tranquil early childhood with good Minnesota schools. You had it pretty great to be honest, not that you owe anyone for that, but it sounds pretty close to the American ideal.

That aside, how will it benefit anyone of limited means to reduce the means of anyone else?

Click to expand...

In every meaningful way imaginable. You really have to understand this, it's critical. 15M children live in U.S. poverty, and benefit from education, food, and healthcare, subsidized by others.
That's obvious how they benefit. Single mothers who didn't have a good education, caring for multiple kids. Born into poverty in a poor neighborhood with no social support. Quite different than the Minnesota-nice upbringing. But more, the middle class now is, relative to other models, subsidizing the wealthy even more. The gap is ever widening.
Don't listen to politicians, or political media, they are not neutral sources.

When you work without a union, in competition with immigrant labor or overseas India or China labor, etc., this is a great benefit to the U.S. economy...which primary benefits the wealthiest. Prices will be slightly lower for *everyone*. And yet, the jobs lost and low pay will affect a small subsection of those at lower/middle incomes disproportionately to the wealthiest. The lower/middle income bears the burden, the wealthy bear *no relatively burden at all*. Warren Buffet talking about it just yesterday (well I saw it yesterday) on Charlie Rose. Part of open trade is lower/middle class people have lives ruined...not most, but certain people, and we should use our resources to ensure they don't have to bear that burden. And not just retraining...
About 28:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uln_KsqTN3k

Buffet is happy to pay taxes, but it's an idea fostered by thieves? This is just crazy talk!

There is a widely held belief, fostered I think by the thieves who will spend it, that taking money from the rich will lift the poor from poverty.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. That's political rhetoric that's put out their to drive opinion. How else are the wealthy going to get the tax man off their back? Convince the average person it's wrong, it's bad, it hurts the nation. It doesn't. Remember many don't even pay top tax bracket code, they pay 15% long term cap gains...on hundreds of millions. 80% tax rates would be crippling perhaps, and 10% would be just as crippling. Find that balance. I can assure you I pay more taxes than I thought humanly possible as a business owner, and for all the insanity of paying that much, two things are true. First, since I pay the top tax bracket, I pay more percentage-wise in taxes than the ultra-rich(!). And despite the enormous amount I pay, I'll be honest, it has about a 1% effect on my life. All my basic needs are met, all my middle class needs are met, all my personal luxury needs are met. The rest, makes no difference in my life, as compared to what say, a better paying job for 20 middle class Americans would mean to their lives.

In the U.S. we have tuned our model to allow business a lot of freedom relative to other models, capitalism thrives, trade is relatively open, taxes are relatively low (federal income tax). This is good for the *overall economy*, and the wealthiest reap the vast majority of the rewards. We make that equitable by reinvesting that no tin the wealthiest Americans, but in the lower/middle class, broadly. Our future generation of workers will be healthier, better educated, and more "stable", how is that not a boon for he entire U.S., especially as compared to the ultra-wealthy making a few million more each?

Media_Truth said:

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Click to expand...

The real problem are the property rights of wealth. We will have to work on them. But it's too early yet.

As to the income, there are two billions of people that want desperately to get a job producing your t-shirt at five dollars a day or less. Maybe the American lower income folks should education that makes them more productive so that they attract capital instead of its going to the real poor.

The biggest problem in creating the gap, according to far left Yale Law professor Daniel Markovits comes from the wealthy being able to spend so much more on their children than others. His suggestions include elite schools -such as Yale-expanding their class sizes: instead of Yale spending say 65K a year on 1600 kids in a class, it should spend 32K a year on a class of 3200. This doubling or in some cases tripling of class sizes at top universities would start alleviating the main issue in the modern economy. The modern economy requires hi-tech informational skills for someone to be competitive. No longer can you go to high school, get a factory job that pays well enough to allow the job holder to maintain a comfortable middle class life style.

The second problem is related to this. Too many people who are unable to financially or intellectually raise children are the ones with the highest birth rates in the USA. Its obvious that people with high incomes and high skilled jobs are far less likely to produce children as early in their lives as those who are in the lower middle or lower classes. Current welfare policies have accentuated this problem.

A picture they say is worth a thousand words:

https://www.census.gov/content/cens...map.detailitem.800.high.png/1459361951239.png

and:

https://www.garynorth.com/members/images/16508a.png?cb=20170512041933

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Pozessed said:

Autonomous revolution coupled with a universal basic income (UBI) will create huge wage gaps between those who rely on UBI and those who rely on the manufacturing of autonomous machines.

Click to expand...

Though, UMI is an improvement in many respects to what we have, it isn't probably enough.

Its simple.. the higher the income inequality the bigger risk of social unrest. Now of course if the powers in charge use the police/military to keep the masses in check, then the income inequality can be quite high.

PeteEU said:

Its simple.. the higher the income inequality the bigger risk of social unrest. Now of course if the powers in charge use the police/military to keep the masses in check, then the income inequality can be quite high.

Click to expand...

lots of people complain about the growing gap but the solution from too many is too much government power which merely concentrates wealth in the hands of the government rather than with the far bigger group of those that created the wealth

the evils that come from too much government are well documented and not worth the risk IMHO

TurtleDude said:

lots of people complain about the growing gap but the solution from too many is too much government power which merely concentrates wealth in the hands of the government rather than with the far bigger group of those that created the wealththe evils that come from too much government are well documented and not worth the risk IMHO

Click to expand...

But in reality, how much "power" is absurd when over half the total Federal Spending is for medicare/aid, social security, and unemployment?
These *hurt* Americans!? It's like saying war is peace.

No, the type of government we have, the checks and balances (we apparently need more on the POTUS after Trump pushed the envelope!), the fundamental rights, etc., ensures its hard to screw it up too bad.
Our free press ensures they can't do it in the dark.
And the way we structure those programs, ensures that aside from teh obvious pork congress stuffs into things, the bulk of our programs are a boon, and threaten no one.

I agree, if our government was a third world government, authoritarian, etc., it would be terrible. But it's not.

I'd rather government spending on education, healthcare, and taking care of people who fall through the cracks, rather than a resurgence of labor unions, for example.

Mach said:

But in reality, how much "power" is absurd when over half the total Federal Spending is for medicare/aid, social security, and unemployment?
These *hurt* Americans!? It's like saying war is peace.

No, the type of government we have, the checks and balances (we apparently need more on the POTUS after Trump pushed the envelope!), the fundamental rights, etc., ensures its hard to screw it up too bad.
Our free press ensures they can't do it in the dark.
And the way we structure those programs, ensures that aside from teh obvious pork congress stuffs into things, the bulk of our programs are a boon, and threaten no one.

I agree, if our government was a third world government, authoritarian, etc., it would be terrible. But it's not.

I'd rather government spending on education, healthcare, and taking care of people who fall through the cracks, rather than a resurgence of labor unions, for example.

Click to expand...

I don't see any solution to the income gap issue though. We are creating too many people who are too reliant on the government and thus demand more and more government spending.

TurtleDude said:

I don't see any solution to the income gap issue though. We are creating too many people who are too reliant on the government and thus demand more and more government spending.

Click to expand...

Inequality - OECD

It's not a big secret, most developed nations have dramatically better income distribution. We're down there with Mexico, Chile, Turkey, and Russia.
37 countries in that list, we're number 34.

In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All - en - OECD
Inclusive Growth - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

That's just one institution.

#1 is that multinational corporations that leverage U.S. markets, education, talent, military, infrastructure, and send those jobs overseas to less developed nations for bargain basement wages, should return more of those gains to re-invest in U.S. education and job training. I mean, that's just throwing a dart at one. It will not affect the lifestyle of the ultra-rich. What real benefit do you see from +100K in a year. You add $100K to some investment spreadsheet, or better yet, your investor does. Sometimes I drop $100K in some investment opportunity that I'm hard sold on, and it flops...great investment for the nation? I don't think so.

TurtleDude said:

lots of people complain about the growing gap but the solution from too many is too much government power which merely concentrates wealth in the hands of the government rather than with the far bigger group of those that created the wealth

the evils that come from too much government are well documented and not worth the risk IMHO

Click to expand...

And evils come along with too much income inequality where the wealth is concentrated at the elite levels of society.. sound familiar? That was Trumps whole stick, which is ironic since he was born into that elite level of society. That is why Venezuela has gotten into the problems it is today where the counter reaction to abuses by the 1% was Chavez and his views.

Now how to fix it.. make the system more fair, make regulations that protect the average man instead of the corporation and rich. Make the top 1% pay their fair share of taxes at all times, and so on and so on. It does not have to be more government, but the right amount of government to protect the citizens from abuses from the 1%. When the GOP especially fights against legislation that protects consumers, then you know you have got a problem. Do you really think that corporations give a damn about the consumer? Of course not.. we saw it under the recent economic crisis. Who protected the banks? Both sides, but it was the GOP who gutted consumer protections... wonder why...

Government should be there to protect the people, not the 1% and corporations...

joG said:

The real problem are the property rights of wealth. We will have to work on them. But it's too early yet.

As to the income, there are two billions of people that want desperately to get a job producing your t-shirt at five dollars a day or less. Maybe the American lower income folks should education that makes them more productive so that they attract capital instead of its going to the real poor.

Click to expand...

The myth of equality of potential again.

Nothing but a platitude.

Can most people improve their education? Yes.

Can the majority learn and apply skills that will make them valuable enough to the ownership class for them to pay them enough to have the kind of lifestyle common before the mid seventies?

No. Creativity is NOT universal. Technological aptitude is NOT universal.

Claiming it is is either ignorant or dishonest.

Lots of good people will never be valuable to the wealthy.

Claiming they all CAN be is a lie.

Media_Truth said:

The spending of the power of the lower and middle class has been decreasing for almost 45 years. Is this a problem in the United States?

A study from the Pew Research Center in December showed that middle-class Americans are no longer in the majority. Whereas in 1971 middle class Americans totaled 80 million, and lower- and upper-income classes combined equated to 51.6 million, the 2015 data looks far different. As of last year, 120.8 million adults were in the middle class, but this figure now takes a back seat to the 121.3 million combined lower- and upper-income households. Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...every-middle-class-american-needs-to-see.aspx

The forefathers of our country warned about these inequities:

This view, what James Huston, now humorously, called. "The republican theory of wealth distribution" — would hold clear sway in America’s early years. A democratic republic, Americans agreed, must ever strive to avoid, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, the “numberless instances of wretchedness” that inevitably arise whenever some hold far more property than others. Jefferson did acknowledge, that a completely equal division of property would be “impracticable.” But he believed deeply that “enormous inequality” had left humankind with “much misery.” A republic, Jefferson would write, “cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/04/23/969608/-Founding-Fathers-and-Wealth

Click to expand...

It strikes me as self destructive that Trump wants to reverse that trend, and the democrats are fighting him tooth and claw on it. Silicon Valley, and FANG*, are the democrats biggest benefactors. Why? FANG want's cheap labor, Trump is pushing back against that. So since he's a Republican he must be hated and ignored.

You don't deserve to be middle class unless you are willing to make changes to get there. Free **** won't do it.

FANG = Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google.

The income inequality gap? To the extent that it's a problem at all it's only temporary. Through a combination of smarts and pure luck, mainly the latter, I live on the happy side of the divide. Among the advantages this gives me comes the satisfaction of knowing that my good fortune trickles down to all those people at the lower end of the scale and will lift their little boats accordingly. At some point. Eventually.

ttwtt78640 said:

Unless consumer debt is used to fuel that consumption - then it is simply a time bomb set to blow up in the future.

Many make the assumption that taking money away from (richer) Peter in order to give it to (poorer) Paul (income redistribution) changes the net wealth of the nation or greatly increases the chances that Paul will become self sufficient.

There are three ways that I could increase my income: 1) static productivity and raise my hourly rate, 2) static productivity and work more hours (do more jobs) or 3) increase productivity and get more work done (do more jobs) in the same period of time. Income redistribution is simply selecting for option #1 above.

Click to expand...

The "income redistribution" meme is a particularly toxic one.

It is also possible to address this issue with simple steeply progressive taxation.

Discouraging the taking of more leaves more for others to earn. Improves competition. Reduces the practise of using wealth to simply obtain resources solely for the purpose of denying others access in order to extract "rents".

They will never throttle themselves. Its an addiction.

They will follow the pattern of history. Taking ever more until there is so little left for everyone else they are forced to stop.

Far better to have a thousand millionaires than a single billionaire. Simple economics.