A Cheap, Race-Neutral Way to Close the Racial Wealth Gap

[NWRatCon]

"As of 2015, the median white young adult had a net worth of $46,000"

How do you think that white young adult came to have that net worth?

What you are proposing is for one man to have to work to accumulate his net worth while the other his net worth is gifted to him.

How would anybody be OK with that?

I'm not sure you have provided any clarity for your concept. Are you in the right thread?

 

[Mason66]

I'm not sure you have provided any clarity for your concept. Are you in the right thread?

Did you not understand what I typed?

 

[Craig234]

What do you mean by the word "funneled"?

Do you think white people are standing around doing nothing while money just flows to them?

Please explain your use of this word.

I'll give you a very simple example.

Before Reagan, there was an economic system in the US. It had a level of wealth inequality that was far below the previous highs just before the Great Depression. Everyone got a share as the economy grew, which was proportional to that distribution of wealth. The US was the world's largest creditor, never having a very large peacetime deficit. That system worked.

In the 1970's, led by Nixon's politics, wealth in the US decided to get politically active like never before. It had always been a balance between the power of money in the private sector, versus the elected government representing the people, but they decided to see how their money could be used to get control of government also. They began to spend massively on how to get political power.

And that involved things like creating 'alternative narratives' to persuade the American people to support THEM. The trickle-down "theory" is probably just the most infamous example - 'give the rich your money as the best way for YOU to get more'. Phrases like "job creator" to praise unlimited wealth for the rich replaced phrases like "robber baron" to criticize it. Big propaganda machines were created, systemic changes were made.

And Reagan did the deed. He halved the top tax rate. Suddenly the rich were getting a LOT richer, and all the money they got, was borrowed and added to our public debt. Policies were changed so that the richest got a bigger and bigger share. CEO to worker pay ration increased by 1,000 percent since 1950. Effectively all economic growth went to the top 1%. As the economy doubled in size and more - all the doubling to the top 1%.

And the rich turned around, and in a cycle of plutocracy, used some of that increasing wealth to pay for yet more control of the political system and propagandizing of the public.

Rule changes, such as the simple examples I gave of Reagan halving the top tax rate, or Bush further slashing taxes on the rich, or trump further slashing taxes on the rich, all borrowed so our debt is now well over $20 trillion, or the CEO pay explosion, are the sort of think I mean by 'designed the system to funnel money to the rich'. The system is set up to guarantee that.

But any rule changes to have wealth not all go the rich - that's terrible!

 

[NWRatCon]

When you die are you going to leave your assets to your family or will you leave them to the government or how will you do that?

It is my fervent hope that when I die my assets will cover my funeral expenses. In the meantime, I intend to use my not inconsiderable assets to do good for my family and others in the world. But, I do not want the thread to be yanked off course. This concept is about how we enter the world, not how we leave it. (I, personally, am a proponent of nearly confiscatory inheritance taxes, but that is not this thread.)

 

[NWRatCon]

Did you not understand what I typed?

Did you?

 

[Torus34]

The proposed program is one of many that may have some benefit. It suffers, along with many others, from being purely imaginary. Given the polarization which exists and will continue to exist in the United States of America for a considerable time to come, the proposal will not come to pass.

Regards to all. Stay safe 'n well.

Sent from my old PC, using a cheap keyboard.

 

[AmNat]

The $ would be held in escrow, according to the article.

And when would they get access to the escrow account?

Compared to the $23 Trillion + funds missing from Pentagon coffers, this proposal would be pocket change, and spent on a much more worthy cause, especially if you buy into all that crapola in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the USC.

I don't recall anything in the DoI about subsidizing bars, casinos, and sports car manufacturers.

 

[Craig234]

For Mason:

 

[Craig234]

For Mason:

 

[NWRatCon]

For Mason:

I think, Craig, you're doing a good job of explaining why such a program is needed. Unfortunately, you're explaining it to people who don't/won't want to understand that.

 

[whpl50]

A Cheap, Race-Neutral Way to Close the Racial Wealth Gap (Atlantic).

Money will not change the way people act, will only make them more of what they really are. How about social programs to help black families stay together and try and reduce the 74% fatherless home rate.

 

[aociswundumho]

I think, Craig, you're doing a good job of explaining why such a program is needed. Unfortunately, you're explaining it to people who don't/won't want to understand that.

The problem is neither you nor Craig understand that a person who gets wealthy in the market doesn't make anyone else poorer. Like virtually all leftists, you both believe in the fixed pie fallacy.

 

[gdgyva]

I think, Craig, you're doing a good job of explaining why such a program is needed. Unfortunately, you're explaining it to people who don't/won't want to understand that.

omg not THESE charts again

how many times do you all have to be told why these numbers are like this?

dozens....hundreds?

what happened in the middle to late 1970's....hmmmmm....let's see.....wait.....personal computers and automation

i ran an office with 23 people back in 1978 using 23 column ledger pads....5 years later, everyone in my office had pc's and was using Lotus 123 (one of the first spreadsheets) and we also went down to 13 people

10 people....boom....gone....because automation and computers made them obsolete....where do you think all those profits went from those 10 people? some went into paying for the hardware and software upgrades, and a LOT of it went into managements pockets for having the foresight to make the adjustments

and we have been trending that way ever since.....less people doing more work, but at higher wages, means more money for the owners/management of the companies which is why the 1% have been gaining as much as they have over that timespan

and the next 20% have also gained a lot, because they gained with the market....

and the rest....well, if you make 500 week and spend every nickel, you will NEVER get ahead....period

 

[Chomsky]

That's a lot harder than it sounds. Centuries of discrimination aren't erased in their effects by non-discrimination.

Agreed. I just didn't agree with the OP proposal as to how to handle it.

 

[NWRatCon]

Agreed. I just didn't agree with the OP proposal as to how to handle it.

I'm curious, my friend. Why?

 

[Chomsky]

I'm curious, my friend. Why?

Personal ideology. I believe the crux of the matter is equality of opportunity. That's my over-riding point - "opportunity".

But I'm also very much against giving benefits or programs that only apply to specific segments of citizens. That goes even more-so with segregating Americans by race. It's also the reason I don't believe in means tested social programs. If something is worth doing, do it for everyone equally.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think there are two aspects to correcting the persistent skew of the wealth gap. Raising the floor, and fixing the ceiling. This proposal is not a panacea. It addresses only one aspect of the disparity, but it's an important one. I am not one who, for a moment, believes that any one program is going to "fix" discrimination and disparity in America. There are too many parts and too many causes. The wealth gap itself is only one aspect of it, but it is an important one. (Significantly, though, as I have argued before, we need to reshape our entire perception of "the economy" and our metrics for "measuring" it.)

The racial wealth gap is both a symptom and cause of racial disparity. A symptom, in that it is the denouement of a centuries long pattern of discriminatory activities - legal, economic, and social; and a cause, because it cements in place those patterns, making efforts to eradicate them ephemeral. Slavery was ended in the United States only after a protracted, bloody war, but that hardly ended discrimination, or erased the effects of that bondage on millions of new citizens. For a hundred years thereafter, Jim Crow laws - enacted in the North as well as the South - perpetuated de jure discrimination. Although those laws were eliminated by a successive series of cases and legislative acts by 1968, the attitudes that created and sustained them persist in society. Those are manifested most starkly in the economy. We won't eliminate that disparity until we address it directly.

 

[NWRatCon]

Personal ideology. I believe the crux of the matter is equality of opportunity. That's my over-riding point - "opportunity".

But I'm also very much against giving benefits or programs that only apply to specific segments of citizens. That goes even more-so with segregating Americans by race. It's also the reason I don't believe in means tested social programs. If something is worth doing, do it for everyone equally.

I knew there had to be something we disagreed on.

I completely agree with your sentiments regarding equal opportunity, which is the crux of this program. Where we disagree is on the issue of "means testing". I think that goes to the issue of the economic "floor". While I agree, fundamentally, that "If something is worth doing, do it for everyone equally", I don't think that necessarily applies to social support programs, so here we have a philosophical disagreement.

All programs, indeed all laws, are by their very nature discriminatory. They create a divide between those within and without the law. (A law against speeding applies to all drivers, but only affects those who exceed the limit.) They are all lines. It is the nature of the beast. It is, indeed, what a law is. Now, it is incumbent upon us to draw those lines rationally and fairly. "Fair," however, can mean something different in different circumstances. It may be "fair" to give all citizens a citizen's stipend - or a UBI - equally. But is it equally meaningful and rational? Bill Gates could receive a $12,000.00 payment from the United States Government and not notice it, but my unemployed neighbor would eagerly await a $500 stipend to get this month's groceries and pay a car payment. Is it rational to take and devote taxes to benefit Bill Gates and my neighbor equally, when only one of them "needs" it to stave off starvation?

 

[Chomsky]

I knew there had to be something we disagreed on.

Hey, I don't even agree with my wife a lot of the time. How am I suppose to agree with anonymous strangers on the internet? :2razz:

I completely agree with your sentiments regarding equal opportunity, which is the crux of this program. Where we disagree is on the issue of "means testing". I think that goes to the issue of the economic "floor". While I agree, fundamentally, that "If something is worth doing, do it for everyone equally", I don't think that necessarily applies to social support programs, so here we have a philosophical disagreement.

All programs, indeed all laws, are by their very nature discriminatory. They create a divide between those within and without the law. (A law against speeding applies to all drivers, but only affects those who exceed the limit.) They are all lines. It is the nature of the beast. It is, indeed, what a law is. Now, it is incumbent upon us to draw those lines rationally and fairly. "Fair," however, can mean something different in different circumstances. It may be "fair" to give all citizens a citizen's stipend - or a UBI - equally. But is it equally meaningful and rational? Bill Gates could receive a $12,000.00 payment from the United States Government and not notice it, but my unemployed neighbor would eagerly await a $500 stipend to get this month's groceries and pay a car payment. Is it rational to take and devote taxes to benefit Bill Gates and my neighbor equally, when only one of them "needs" it to stave off starvation?

See, I really don't agree on this in practice. I think means testing only discourages self improvement. It's why I'm for a UBI + National healthcare. Do those two, and you can dump most of our social-programs.

I really detest picking specific groups in society to provide benefits. Who cares what the money means to Gates? He's an America just like us, so I'd like to see the basic minimum floor applied to all. Just like with Medicare & Social Security, there's no requirement to take the money. But it's there - for everybody.

It probably sounds Utopian, but I see it as egalitarian.

 

[NWRatCon]

Hey, I don't even agree with my wife a lot of the time. How am I suppose to agree with anonymous strangers on the internet? :2razz:

See, I really don't agree on this in practice. I think means testing only discourages self improvement. It's why I'm for a UBI + National healthcare. Do those two, and you can dump most of our social-programs.

I really detest picking specific groups in society to provide benefits. Who cares what the money means to Gates? He's an America just like us, so I'd like to see the basic minimum floor applied to all. Just like with Medicare & Social Security, there's no requirement to take the money. But it's there - for everybody.

It probably sounds Utopian, but I see it as egalitarian.

So, you would support a baby bond system if it was not means tested? (Equal opportunity-wise) That's a genuine question.

I see this issue more holistically, I think. Social security programs (not, literally, just "Social Security") are, in my estimation, insurance products. Everyone pays into it, to support the pool, but only those with need get payouts. I like graduated scales. It is only one aspect of the role of government, but I firmly believe that the United States was founded, in part, on protection and fostering of the "general welfare". Social programs that protect the most vulnerable of us are central to this tenet. There may well be better programs to achieve the result, but I think this kind of thinking needs to have a wider distribution for discussion.

 

[NWRatCon]

No equity=no equality.

 

[NWRatCon]

Land and the roots of African-American poverty. I wish every white American, especially every conservative, could read this - be forced to - to drill it into their extremely thick skulls, that this is it. This is one of the many, many parts of just how unjust our history has been, and how it still persists.

 

[iguanaman]

A policy specifically designed to advance one race is not "race neutral".

The bond is based on the wealth of the parents not their race. It would benefit poor whites as much as poor blacks.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Just what we need, an incentive for poor people to have more children.

Who's going to manage the investment of the money, the SSA? What a hoot!

 

[AmNat]

The bond is based on the wealth of the parents not their race. It would benefit poor whites as much as poor blacks.

And yet the people who came up with it explicitly tell us it's to help blacks.

I believe that's what's known as "disparate impact" discrimination.