Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The wealthiest 0.001% of people control 3X more wealth than the bottom 50%. But there’s a catch . . .



Photo above - Al Jazeera, the middle east's pre-eminent news organization, has take the USA to task over "wealth inequality." (This photo may be an AI fake, I can't tell . . . )

Any way you look at it, the optics are bad. The top 10% of earthlings own 75% of homes, bank accounts, Teslas, etc. The average wealth of “north americans” (including you, Canada) is 340% greater than the rest of the people. See link below.

Upon reflection, this doesn’t look like a problem which higher Federal income tax rates can solve. That extra tax money is simply going to remain in America. A little will be shaved off the top by Congress and various agencies, and the rest redistributed (or spent on) deserving North Americans. That money will NOT be leaving the USA to help “the rest of the world”, like Somalia, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, or Mongolia.

Wait . . . it gets weirder. North American INCOME (paychecks) is already 300% higher than the rest of the world. We’re at the top for both savings and paychecks. How do we feel about redistributing it among ourselves now?

The Al Jazeera article doesn’t do a deep dive on things like car ownership, smartphones, and Roomba vacuums but I take on faith that we’re outperforming Mongolia on those metrics too.

I don’t want to seem churlish, but NONE of the American politicians screaming wealth inequality have any intention of helping out peanut farmers, goat herders, and subsistence fishermen in Africa. They want to redistribute our tax dollars in ways that swell the entitlement class and create loyal voters on election day. When we redistribute 300-340% among ourselves, the size of the pie doesn’t change. The only thing that happens is that somebody’s slice gets a little bigger of what is already the worlds largest pie..

This is why we have uncontrolled migration to America and Europe. Nobody aspires to be a peanut farmer or subsistence fisherman. They want iPhones, Netflix, and BMWs. Even complete regime change in the most despotic nations isn’t going to immediately usher in a golden age of prosperity and equality. Planet earth hasn’t had equality of living standards since the time of the Neanderthals. The first guy who chiseled a rock into a wheel was probably the first millionaire.

I don’t have an answer to fix the problem of global poverty. But I don’t think it will be increasing the top personal income tax rate by another 5%, or to keep expanding the national debt.

I’m just sayin’ . . .



Where in the world are wealth and income most unequal? | Business and Economy News | Al Jazeera
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Any redistribution of wealth has the potential to increase the size of the pie by expanding the consumer base and liquidating useless capital assets like ridiculously sized mansions that contribute nothing to economic growth.

You totally lost me in the second part of your piece. You are happy that the pie remains in North America but worry about foreign pie hunters? And your generalisation about what jobs immigrants will or will not do is completely unsubstantiated.
@SunshineGirl Not to mention we have years of evidence showing that large amounts of the free money oligarchs and massive corporations get goes into stock buybacks which manipulate stock market prices creating fake "wealth" out of thin air. This was illegal until Reagan came along.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@SunshineGirl are there any links to the real world which demonstrate that higher taxes result in better living standards, more jobs, or more freedom?

something other than political theories and talking points?
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@SusanInFlorida We are not talking about raising taxes. We are talking about circulating money in the economy (by putting it in more people's pockets and investing in public infrastructure which supports jobs and increases productivity) versus placing it under a metaphorical matress (in the form of savings and low marginal tax rates for the very wealthy) where it is worse than useless and encourages nothing but economic stagnation. That has been basic economic sense for centuries (see also the parable of the talents, Matthew 25, 14-30).
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Yes, when the ultra wealthy run out of shiny trinkets to buy, they begin to cannibalise the real economy.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@SunshineGirl no rational person wants to embark on billions of dollars of government construction projects just to "create jobs".

that was the approach of the soviet union and cuba
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@SusanInFlorida It was also the approach of the USA in 1933-38 as Roosevelt attempted to restore market stability and consumer demand in the aftermath of the Great Depression. And that worked pretty well.