[3aidlillahi]

We do not believe that all rich people stole their wealth off the backs of the lower class.

Not all; just most.

[nobodypanic]

In America we do not hate the rich.
We do not believe that all rich people stole their wealth off the backs of the lower class.

speak for yourself schyster.

i personally look forward to the day the rich are dragged kicking and screaming down the street to answer for their crimes against the people.

[Snowrunner]

Additonally, income disparity is greater in the US:

True - and so what? You have a problem with that?
In America we do not hate the rich.
We do not believe that all rich people stole their wealth off the backs of the lower class.

That's the problem in the US though, isn't it? The logic seems to be that the Rich are Rich because they are Rich and if you would only try hard enough you could be Rich too.

That's why the US is teetering on the border of catastrophic meltdown right now because the rich DO get their money from the ones that aren't rich. Let me use a hated word here: Wealth Transfer.

Money, at it's basic, is a measurement of output, mostly work. May Rich people though don't WORK for their Riches they "invest" and feed like leeches off of the work of other people, removing the riches from the lower "classes" and into their own coffers.

For the longest time this was simply masked by easily making credit available and when that wasn't enough by selling the masses essentially into slavery by borrowing from foreign countries (only, this time the rich got caught in this as well).

I hope you enjoyed that house of cards, it's falling down right now.

[Snowrunner]

Given that we have a lower tax rate, the US worker keeps more. In the end, we end up paying for the same necessities, just in different ways: us through high medical and social costs; they through taxes.

Oh, be careful about the tax rate though. Most of the world has a "top down" approach to taxes, meaning I pay one lump sum and then I am done.

I grew up in Germany and lived in the US for a while and the truth (for me anyway) was that even though my "take home" pay was slightly more (only a few percent) the disposable income at the end of the month was actually less in the US.

Why you ask? Because I was nickled and dimed to death, in Germany you essentially pay once, then you're done (Canada is pretty much the same way), in the US every level of Government has the ability to hold out their own hand.

My favourite example was the local 7-11 a can of coke had four different taxes on it: Federal, State, County and City, the total came up to almost 25%.

Things like the CIA factbook don't quite capture this, they tend to only look at the Federal taxation level, in the case of Germany that's probably accurate, in the case of the US it's probably deeply flawed and depends on where in the country you live.

[Sixstrings]

cube wrote:

Rank Order - GDP - per capita (PPP)
10 - United States - $ 45,800
29 - United Kingdom - $ 35,000
30 - Germany - $ 34,100
36 - France - $ 32,600

Ok I'll admit it, my numbers were sloppy. Maybe I'll go start a hedge fund.

I had more trouble than you pulling up current average income and worldwide income disparity data. I had some old numbers for the US average wage.

Here's a progression I just found:
Area 2006r 2005r 2004r 2003 2002 2001
United States $41,991 $40,172 $38,810 $37,169 $36,150 $35,582
http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-wage.htm

So, incomes have been rising in the US. But I contend that income disparity has been rising as well.

Notice how the last couple years of rising income disparity look an awful lot like the graph around 1928. We all know where that got us.

To get a better idea of the real average US wage, I'd like to see a figure that excludes the top 1%. If the top 1% were excluded, that would give a more accurate average wage. The richer the super rich get, the more the average number is misleadingly skewed.

[ReverseEngineer]

In America we do not hate the rich.
We do not believe that all rich people stole their wealth off the backs of the lower class.

Speak for yourself. As an American, I can say I believe 100% in the truth of both those statements Anyone who does not believe this is Un-American.

Reverse Engineer

[Tyler_JC]

Something to note.

The bottom 90% of the population still got a 10% increase in real income between 1976 and 2006.

Would you have preferred that they get no raise?

The choice was not necessarily between a 10% raise for the working class and, say, a 20% raise.

If we had attempted to take more from the rich and give more to the poor, we may have end up with far less national wealth. (In fact, the tax burden is already shifting more and more towards the upper class)

A raise is still a raise.

The question is whether or not you value absolute wealth or relative wealth.

In absolute terms, we are all better off. In relative terms, the working class got screwed over.

[cube]

Something to note.

The bottom 90% of the population still got a 10% increase in real income between 1976 and 2006.

Would you have preferred that they get no raise?

The choice was not necessarily between a 10% raise for the working class and, say, a 20% raise.

If we had attempted to take more from the rich and give more to the poor, we may have end up with far less national wealth.
....

Suppose I'm a wealthy capitalist who owns 9 widget factories. My plan is to open up another factory which will create jobs but more importantly more $$$ for myself.
However the sinister Liberals come into power and decided to raise taxes on the rich. The horrors! I can no longer open up a 10th factory because I now have to pay extra taxes. Where will this tax money go....To give a welfare check to the poor?
This action does NOT create wealth. It destroys wealth.
//
Lets give the story a twist.
Suppose instead of investing my money, I wanted to use it for personal consumption....maybe I'll buy a $100Million yacht.
Same thing. Jobs are being created. Imagine all the ship builders who will be employed for the next 7 years to create my super yacht.
But if taxes are raised on the rich and I can't buy a yacht then jobs will be lost.
Again society's wealth is being destroyed.
//
Income redistribution programs that take money from the rich and gives to the poor, ONLY helps the poor. It does not help society as a whole.
IMHO one of the big reasons why the USA became the world economic superpower was because we had lower taxes and less social welfare.

[Snowrunner]

If we had attempted to take more from the rich and give more to the poor, we may have end up with far less national wealth.

"National Wealth"? The US has trillions of debt, the private people, states etc. have trillions of debt as well. You call that wealth being over your head in debt?

Maybe you should rephrase that: "If we had attempted to take more from the rich and give more to the poor, we may have ended up with far less imagined national wealth."

[Byron100]

Something to note.

The bottom 90% of the population still got a 10% increase in real income between 1976 and 2006.

Would you have preferred that they get no raise?

The choice was not necessarily between a 10% raise for the working class and, say, a 20% raise.

If we had attempted to take more from the rich and give more to the poor, we may have end up with far less national wealth. (In fact, the tax burden is already shifting more and more towards the upper class)

A raise is still a raise.

The question is whether or not you value absolute wealth or relative wealth.

In absolute terms, we are all better off. In relative terms, the working class got screwed over.

Excellent point there. Except I'd like to add that it's *relative* wealth is what counts, not absolute wealth. If someone made $50,000 a year in a world where a few folks make $2,000,000 a year, he's still going to feel poor, regardless of how much $50 k buys. Now, if that person made $25,000 a year, with the top income earners only bringing down a $100,000 a year, he's going to feel a whole heck of a lot wealthier than the person in the first scenario.

Don't know about many of you, but I'd rather have less money and live in a world of equality rather than have a bit more and live in a world of vastly richer people.

In the end, it's all relative.

And please, PLEASE don't give me this tripe about the rich being able to open up the 11th factory and enabling more people to make more money - that's infinite growth on a finite planet, and guess what? It does not work! Guess used to it!

And yes, I also look forward to the day when the rich are dragged down the street kicking and screaming...LOL.

And perhaps someday, people will implement such radical ideas as democratically run workplaces and citizen-owned corporations, as well as the elimination of all debt, both public and private.

[Nickel]

When comparing the savings and spending of Europeans vs. Americans, one must remember that on average, Europeans simply earn more money.

Totally False

You're comparing oranges to his apples. He's talking about the average wage. You're talking about GDP/population. Your point does not actually negate his... if there's more money in the US, it doesn't necessarily mean more affluence per person. If more of that money stays in very few hands, that means LESS affluence per person, generally. Your figures don't necessarily conflict with his at all; they certainly don't disprove them. You need to look up the average WAGE in the US, not the PPP figures. They're not the same thing.

[Nickel]

Living standards in the United States are much higher than they are in Germany. This is partly do to the fact that Germans are saving a big chunk of their incomes instead of spending it

Tyler, "savings" qualify as "standard of living"; not just TV sets and SUVs and shiny things that make your homies jealous.

[Nickel]

If we had attempted to take more from the rich and give more to the poor, we may have end up with far less national wealth.

Why? If their average income were only 150% the average instead of 232%, wouldn't that have been enough? I thought "a raise is still a raise". Why is 10% good enough for the poor, but an extra 50% or something isn't good enough for the rich and they'd all supposedly hold their breath till the economy turned blue? And if that's true, why didn't they do it to see to it the poor only got 5%, and they got something more like 300%? None of this makes sense. They were simply allowed to walk off with as much as they could carry without blushing. In other countries, it isn't like that -- or nowhere near so bad. It did NOT have to be this way.

[Byron100]

Some excellent points, Nickel. Thank you.

It doesn't have to be this way - it really doesn't. There's no reason why we can't temper the earnings of the upper classes in order to provide more for everyone else.

Why should someone who lives in New York City make only $7.50 an hour at CVS, while you have the "banksters" on Wall Street pulling down millions at the expense of every 401-k holder in the US?

I really think that believers of the capitalist model need to get their heads out of the sands of denial and come to grips with the fact that it has *failed* - utterly and miserably. Infinite growth on a finite world just doesn't correlate with reality , and neither does being uber-wealthy at the expense of the many.

Think about it for a moment - when you have lots and lots of have-nots, and a few haves, guess what's gonna happen. Athens in flames is an excellent preview...and yes, my friends, there is a riot coming to a neighborhood near you.

[Nickel]

Capitalism needs to be seen as a tool, not a model. As a model for a society, it's been a failure, especially lately when the restraints have been removed from it. The pundits of twenty years ago were wrong; greed is NOT good. By definition, greed means enriching oneself, perforce, by impoverishing others. Capitalism is an excellent set of tools and processes for conducting the growth of wealth, but that's it. Other tools, other methods, are necessary to see to it that the wealth generated by a society is more equitably put to use for the greater good. I believe the coming crisis will set us further along down that road.

[Sixstrings]

Suppose instead of investing my money, I wanted to use it for personal consumption....maybe I'll buy a $100Million yacht. Same thing. Jobs are being created. Imagine all the ship builders who will be employed for the next 7 years to create my super yacht.

You are correct, insofar as the money is spent domestically. But a lot of wealth is perpetually tied up in stocks and commodities, contributing to asset bubbles that wreck us all when they burst. The lower classes actually spend most of their income, contributing to the economy. I submit that advanced financial instruments and asset bubbles aren't much contribution in the end.

Also, I think it's safe to say the super rich consume a large amount of imported goods. French wine, versus Napa Valley. Italian or Norwegian furniture vs. domestic furniture. Spending on imports doesn't help our domestic economy so much.

To a large extent, the rich and super rich also have what is in effect a micro economy exclusive to themselves. The high priced mansions, Manhattan apartments, antiques and such are purchased from other wealthy people. So you are largely correct, if money is spent HERE then it does benefit working people.

BUT, the current income disparity remains an issue. The rise of the super rich has evidently created jobs, but of what quality? In 1992, department store type retail jobs paid $10 an hour in my area. The commission jobs actually paid around $15. In 2008, these same jobs are STILL paying around $10 an hour.

We're talking 16 years here, and no wage increases in these jobs. Even worse, the rise of Big Box stores has largely eliminated the retail commission jobs. I believe this is a fundamental problem in our economy. We have what amounts to serfdom -- we don't have a working class anymore, we have the working poor.

Now, you may not give a flip about the working poor. But consider this. When you eat out a restaurant, would you rather have the cook who makes your food feel good about his work and paid a livable wage, or do you prefer him disgruntled? I can tell you, it's the disgruntled who do unfortunate things to your food.

And when the day comes for you to live in assisted living, do you really want a $10 per hour CNA caring for you? There was an article recently about CNA's abusing their elderly patients in a disgusting way. These are low class folks, to be sure. But when you pay low class wages, that's what you get -- low class service in return.

Perhaps it would benefit everyone if the working class had a reason to take pride in their work.

[Quinny]

Portugal - Mediterranean ? When did it move?

Glad you appreciated the link. It is an eyeopener to just look at some hard numbers now and then. Personally, I was surprised how much a debtor nation Spain is, second only to the US. You'll also notice Greece is towards the bottom too.
I guess this means we could look to Spain as a flashpoint for TSHTF in Europe.. that deficit for their size is out of sight.

The whole Mediterranean has a lot of problems. There's Spain, of course, but also Portugal (my country), Italy, France, Turkey and Greece on the bottom of the list. These are also the countries that are closer to Northern Africa; if, due to Peak Oil or Climate Change, there is a wave of refugees coming from the Africa of the Middle East, these will be the more heavily pressured countries.

As for where the money will come from, finance is not a zero-sum game. But there have to be limits somewhere. We do have to start paying back our debts, but not so quickly and violently that will stall the economy further and bankrupt the whole thing. The system can't be stopped, and even reducing pace is very painful.

[CarlosFerreira]

Portugal - Mediterranean ? When did it move?

Glad you appreciated the link. It is an eyeopener to just look at some hard numbers now and then. Personally, I was surprised how much a debtor nation Spain is, second only to the US. You'll also notice Greece is towards the bottom too. I guess this means we could look to Spain as a flashpoint for TSHTF in Europe.. that deficit for their size is out of sight.

The whole Mediterranean has a lot of problems. There's Spain, of course, but also Portugal (my country), Italy, France, Turkey and Greece on the bottom of the list. These are also the countries that are closer to Northern Africa; if, due to Peak Oil or Climate Change, there is a wave of refugees coming from the Africa of the Middle East, these will be the more heavily pressured countries.
As for where the money will come from, finance is not a zero-sum game. But there have to be limits somewhere. We do have to start paying back our debts, but not so quickly and violently that will stall the economy further and bankrupt the whole thing. The system can't be stopped, and even reducing pace is very painful.

Yes, I know it's not a geographical fact, but it's a matter of identity. Southern Portugal is very close to the Med. Here's something from Wikipedia:

Andorra, Jordan, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia and the Vatican City, although they do not border the sea, are often considered Mediterranean countries in a wider sense due to their Mediterranean climate, fauna and flora, and/or their cultural affinity with other Mediterranean countries.

But I stand corrected, of course.

[Quinny]

It's just I don't particularly like the med, I'm a keen diver and snorkeller and the meds been southern europes toilet for hundreds of years!

Portugal however is beautiful! and despite the antics of one of my best friends wife - portugeuse women are also very beautiful!

[CarlosFerreira]

It's just I don't particularly like the med, I'm a keen diver and snorkeller and the meds been southern europes toilet for hundreds of years!
Portugal however is beautiful! and despite the antics of one of my best friends wife - portugeuse women are also very beautiful!

It's all because of the beautiful women, of course: we spend so time chasing them, we can't be bothered not to dump all the waste in the sea. And we get heavily indebted in order to keep on chasing them.