Rich Getting Richer, ever wonder why?

Ace,

My question wasn't about college leavers or people needing to make a start.

My question was about the reason the top 1%'s position has done so much better than the top 50%'s position in recent years ... why is that top 1% now accelerating away? It isn't the speed, it's the acceleration. This is since Reagan.

It has nothing to do with apprenticeships and colleges. You are just avoiding the questions raised by the data.

 

It is being widely reported based on an article by Zachary Goldfarb in the Washington Post that banks are doing better under the Obama's years in office than they did in the years Bush was in office:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...amas/2011/10/25/gIQAKPIosM_story.html?hpid=z1

There are some issues with the comparison but one thing is clear, 2009 - 2010 was an exceptional time period for bank profits. The combination of bailouts and access to capital at virtually zero cost is good for the banking business - they make money while taking no risks. Our government did this favor to big banks with virtually no conditions that they make capital available to the businesses that would spur economic growth or to help homeowners under water in their mortgages. I can not emphasize enough, that if at least government would cut taxes you put money in the hands of people rather than in the hands of big government and big business. Government is inefficient with our tax dollars and this is why so many do not support higher taxes. And it is rigged games like this that is at the root of some getting richer at the expense of others - government needs to get out of the game of picking winners and losers!

 

It is not a regulation issue. It is a government using tax dollars to subsidize selected industry at the expense of others issue. Banks benefited by making risky sub-prime loans, packaging those loans for sale on the secondary market, the bailout, and by being able to access capital at artificially low interest rates thank to the Federal Reserve. In a free market system appropriate risk gets priced into what happens and failed practices actually hurt profits.

Again, you and I see this different. I see the murky middle, neither free market or centralized control. You seem to think more of the murky middle is all that is needed. We either need to treat banks like independent businesses or treat them like utilities (gas, electric companies)/government agencies in my opinion.

 

Left or Right, conservative or liberal, it is about being "all in". Anything less isn't satisfying.

 

My understanding is that, in a poorly regulated system, financial services companies packaged risky products and sold them as AAA investments. We all caught a cold as a result .. not just the USA. Deregulation would just make matters worse.

The way I see regulation is to set rules about this sort of thing and to hold anyone who breaks those rules to account - withdrawing their licence to trade if necessary.

I also think that actual banking businesses need to be separated from the risky financial services businesses (so they don't gamble with our money).

I don't see how regulation offers a safety net. Not true regulation, anyway. I do realise that, in the States, regulation has been used to create monopolies and hamper new entrants rather than work on behalf of the consumer (otherwise, how the hell do your telecomms companies get away with the crap they sell at the prices they charge?).

 

Why are the rich getting richer? Because money is something you can pass down from generation to generation. I read somewhere that the top 10 richest families, including the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Waltons, Morgans and Fords could pay for the debt of every American and still have billions left over.

 

and yet you probably don't support the estate tax or raising the capital gains taxes

 

No, I don't support the death tax because it hurts people who are land rich and cash poor. I'm supposed to sell half of my family's ranch because my corrupt government wants it? I don't think so. My only other option is to put the largest portion of the ranch into a land trust. But then I won't be able to sell any parcels in the future should I need additional monies for annual property tax.

 

If I give you a large cash gift, you have to report it on your taxes.

Why should a large cash gift go untaxed just because the person receiving the gift is "willed" it? How have they earned that money?

 

How did I earn it? By working the ranch for over 30 years. But we have wealthy neighbors who have attorneys that are looking into a course of action that will keep the government's hands off my property and out of my business.

 

Once again, your anecdotal personal story doesn't apply to everyone.

What have Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian done to inherit their parents' money?

 

There's been a huge amount of new wealth created in the past 30 years but it's lovely and quaint of you to believe that all the wealth in the hands of the wealthy is just the same old money being passed down from father to son. I can see why you'd be inclined to believe that.

 

A gift should be free, period. If a person owns something free and clear they should be able to transfer their property to whom ever they choose without the dirty, corporate-owned government sticking their corrupt fingers in it. Hopefully by the time my parents pass on the death tax will be long gone.

 

So what stop a company from giving their CEO an annual salary of $1, but then giving them a 'gift' of $10 million every year? Should that then be tax free?

And the money earned (and taxed) by one person doesn't mean it should never be taxed again.

 

So who or what, in your opinion, is behind the government's decisions to subsidize these selected industries? Are they picking names out a hat?

Hardly.

The fault doesn't lie with either the Government and FedRev or the banks and corporations - They are all culpable.

The government should be regulating business and financial practices as part of their responsibility to the American people. It would be great if it wasn't necessary but the past 10 years have proven that these entities are incapable or unwilling to regulate themselves.

The government resists enacting any regulation because it is not in the best interest of Business that they do so. And business is paying well for that resistance.

Banks didn't benefit from the sub-prime loan fiasco and subsequent bailout because government was being naive, or foolish, or frightened by the prospect of a greater collapse, or feeling just plain generous. Again, the banks and financial institutions who benefited were promised such preferential treatment when they made their campaign donations.

If you've got two tigers in your bedroom, killing one will not stop the other from biting you.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 4:51 AM ---

Even if a portion of that tax might go to funding for children's cancer research? Or should this or any meaningful research just wait for you and others like you to donate voluntarily?

Corporate-owned government? Are you sure you're not a OWS supporter? Did you know that, above all else, this is probably the biggest issue being addressed by the movement?

Not to bring OWS in again, but I couldn't resist.

 

i've mentioned this before, but still...in tocqueville's democracy in america, which in cliff notes form is a conservative reference point (seemingly they almost never actually read it) the argument about inheritance tax is that it is the single most important piece of democratic law in the united states because it prevents the formation of an economic aristocracy. obviously to a significant extent that's long since been shot to hell--but still it amuses me to find conservatives who are all markety market freedom blah blah blah advocating a legal change the outcome of which would be to even further polarize wealth.