1
   

Distribution of Wealth: Perception vs.Reality

 
 
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 10:09 am
At least 90 percent of the public has no perception of the reality of the actual distribution of wealth in our country.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=reccon1http://
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,205 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 10:32 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

At least 90 percent of the public has no perception of the reality of the actual distribution of wealth in our country.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=reccon1http://



Incredibly sad commentary on the economic state of things in America right now.

Even sadder...is the fact that so many people in America support this being the case rather than allow any influence of socialism to provide a check on unfettered capitalism.

Not sure how this is going to be solved...but I suspect, as I said earlier today in another thread, the upheaval truly needed to bring us back from this abyss...is going to make what happened in 18th century France look like a peaceful demonstration. "The rich" in America are as oblivious to the problems here as the French aristocracy of back then was to theirs.
Jack of Hearts
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 10:37 am
@Advocate,

They have perception alright, it's just that they aren't in a position to articulate it. It's as 90% of the public know we are at war, it's just that they can't experience it's reality.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 10:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
"Unfettered capitalism" is, in my opinion, the wrong term. "Economic scam" may be a somewhat better term. For instance, our corporate leaders have the fix in by virtue of interlocking directorships, tightly-controlled boards of directors, etc., which allow many CEO's, et al., to make more than 1,000 times the compensation of the average worker in the corporation.

We use to have an ability-to-pay income-tax system, which is what graduated rates gave us. However, through lower top rates and a plethora of loopholes, people at the top are paying about 14 percent of their income. (The average worker is paying about 20 percent.) As I recall, Romney was paying at about a 14 percent rate on "reported" income. Of course, he had a lot of money shielded through use of tax-haven countries.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 10:58 am
@Jack of Hearts,
Jack of Hearts wrote:


They have perception alright, it's just that they aren't in a position to articulate it. It's as 90% of the public know we are at war, it's just that they can't experience it's reality.



You are correct. Unfortunately, the people who know the score are either bought off or lack the courage or wherewithal to try to change things.
Jack of Hearts
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 12:11 pm
@Advocate,

Change comes slowly with these things - look how long it took to revamp healthcare in this country. People are resistant to change, especially conservatives (actually that's exactly how they're defined).
But if you look carefully, more people are getting fed; more people are buying houses; more people are going to college; and it's due in big part, with the help of the federal govt. The poor and lower classes know that the taxes they pay aren't enough to fully support the govt services that they need.






Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 12:50 pm
@Jack of Hearts,
Jack of Hearts wrote:


Change comes slowly with these things - look how long it took to revamp healthcare in this country. People are resistant to change, especially conservatives (actually that's exactly how they're defined).
But if you look carefully, more people are getting fed; more people are buying houses; more people are going to college; and it's due in big part, with the help of the federal govt. The poor and lower classes know that the taxes they pay aren't enough to fully support the govt services that they need.










I'm not sure your statement is correct if you factor in population growth. Do you know?
Jack of Hearts
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 02:37 pm
@Advocate,

Even if it is only because of population growth, it still means more people. And as the polarization of wealth continues, more will need govt assistance, thus more will realize that the govt isn't about handouts - it really is about helping people in need.
Some point to the large increase of people falling into poverty is due to govt policy, but those who have fallen see govt policy as a godsend. They never wished, wanted, nor expected to become eligible for govt assistance, and many are too proud to 'go on the dole', but they now know firsthand where their taxes went, and are relieved their children need not go hungry.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 10:47 pm
@Jack of Hearts,
Jack of Hearts wrote:


Even if it is only because of population growth, it still means more people. And as the polarization of wealth continues, more will need govt assistance, thus more will realize that the govt isn't about handouts - it really is about helping people in need.
Some point to the large increase of people falling into poverty is due to govt policy, but those who have fallen see govt policy as a godsend. They never wished, wanted, nor expected to become eligible for govt assistance, and many are too proud to 'go on the dole', but they now know firsthand where their taxes went, and are relieved their children need not go hungry.



What we now have is welfare for the rich. Money is fungible, and when congress gives the wealthy a tax break, that is, as the economists say, a tax expenditure benefiting the wealthy. The Republicans will not allow a tax increase, but absolutely love tax expenditures benefiting the wealthy.
0 Replies
 
Jack of Hearts
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2014 06:50 am
Last night on the news report - Now, there are just over 50% of Congress who are millionaires. They are expected to vote for what is best for their constituents; unfortunately, their constituents are not necessarily in their congressional district.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2014 12:27 pm
@Jack of Hearts,
Another problem is that members of congress are bought and paid for with peanuts. You can find a congressman voting for some egregious loophole worth billions for the wealthy in return for, say, a few hundred thousands in donations.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Distribution of Wealth: Perception vs.Reality
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2025 at 09:13:31