U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:21 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,473,101 times
Reputation: 1544

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Workaholic? View Post
Rick Santorum said this in Iowa and got lots of people angry: "I’m for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality."

What do you think? Is he right that a logical person should believe that some people should make significantly more money than others based on how society views their contribution. Should an Accountant sitting in a comfortable office make twice what someone working road construction in the rain, heat and wind makes? Many people think the road construction worker should make more money because he is working harder than the Accountant.

So... what do you think? Do you believe in income inequality?
Here's a perspective I agree with:

Dear Jamie Dimon, | The Big Picture

(partially in response to: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...on-top-1-.html )

Quote:
.....

So please, do us all a favor and come to the realization that the loathing you feel from your fellow Americans has nothing to do with your “success” or your “wealth” and it has everything to do with the fact that your wealth and success have come at a cost to the rest of us. No one wants your money or opportunities, what they want is the same chance that their parents had to attain these things for themselves. You are viewed, and rightfully so, as part of the machine that has removed this chance for many – and that is what they hate.

America hates unjustified privilege, it hates an unfair playing field and crony capitalism without the threat of bankruptcy, it hates privatized gains and socialized losses, it hates rule changes that benefit the few at the expense of the many and it hates people who have been bailed out and don’t display even the slightest bit of remorse or humbleness in the presence of so much suffering in the aftermath.

Nobody hates your right to make money, Jamie. They hate how you and certain others have made it.

Don’t be confused on this score for a moment longer.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:22 AM
 
81,987 posts, read 39,323,836 times
Reputation: 12004
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
the Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison explanation are not the main demography of the top 0.1% that are skewing the income scale.
Very likely false. The vast majority of highly successful people have had to do it "the hard way." They earned it. Even among the richest 400 Americans, over 2/3 (68.5%) are self-made.

Secrets Of The Self-Made - Forbes.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:24 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 14,649,613 times
Reputation: 5468
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Very likely false. The vast majority of highly successful people have had to do it "the hard way." They earned it. Even among the richest 400 Americans, over 2/3 (68.5%) are self-made.

Secrets Of The Self-Made - Forbes.com
Among the top 1% of wealth holders in the United States, only 9% of their net wealth was inherited.

Not that anyone wants to hear that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:29 AM
 
17,124 posts, read 11,125,706 times
Reputation: 15775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workaholic? View Post
Rick Santorum said this in Iowa and got lots of people angry: "I’m for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality."

What do you think? Is he right that a logical person should believe that some people should make significantly more money than others based on how society views their contribution. Should an Accountant sitting in a comfortable office make twice what someone working road construction in the rain, heat and wind makes? Many people think the road construction worker should make more money because he is working harder than the Accountant.

So... what do you think? Do you believe in income inequality?
Of course. We have equal OPPORTUNITY, but shouldn't have equal results.

I once worked for a woman that told a coworker and I that she would love to have our country become socialist. That way she could sit on the beach and drink cocktails, while people like us, "who love to work hard anyway", could provide for her. No lie, her exact words. How long do you think we would continue working our butts off for her? Why would I work hard to support a lazy bum?

Funny, I'm now working (hard) at a job that pays great. She's out of business and short selling her home.

Your income should reflect what an employer is willing to pay. Period.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,253 posts, read 60,807,710 times
Reputation: 73780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workaholic? View Post
Rick Santorum said this in Iowa and got lots of people angry: "I’m for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality."

What do you think? Is he right that a logical person should believe that some people should make significantly more money than others based on how society views their contribution. Should an Accountant sitting in a comfortable office make twice what someone working road construction in the rain, heat and wind makes? Many people think the road construction worker should make more money because he is working harder than the Accountant.

So... what do you think? Do you believe in income inequality?
Yes. Because what you do might be worth more to society than what someone else does.

For example, it's worth more to society to pay a basketball player a few million dollars than it is to pay a firefighter or a teacher or a doctor. THAT is what society will pay for - supporting professional athletes, actors, and singers. That is what YOU as a society have chosen.

It's all about what society chooses.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:29 AM
 
81,987 posts, read 39,323,836 times
Reputation: 12004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Among the top 1% of wealth holders in the United States, only 9% of their net wealth was inherited.

Not that anyone wants to hear that.
Exactly!

And MTAtech's post specifically cited the top 0.1% and the top 400. I rebutted with this, which is 100% correct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Very likely false. The vast majority of highly successful people have had to do it "the hard way." They earned it. Even among the richest 400 Americans, over 2/3 (68.5%) are self-made.

Secrets Of The Self-Made - Forbes.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,253 posts, read 60,807,710 times
Reputation: 73780
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Among the top 1% of wealth holders in the United States, only 9% of their net wealth was inherited.

Not that anyone wants to hear that.
Damn skippy. I didn't inherit one darn thing - except valuing education and a damn huge work ethic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:30 AM
 
17,124 posts, read 11,125,706 times
Reputation: 15775
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
My problen is with the guy that owns the factory and lives off the profit created by your brother and cousin without having to actually do anything.
What an ignorant view of the working world you have. You think a factory owner doesn't do anything? Or has done nothing?

Heaven help this country, with attitudes like this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,267,111 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Among the top 1% of wealth holders in the United States, only 9% of their net wealth was inherited.

Not that anyone wants to hear that.
The top 1% aren't the ones I'm looking at. How about the Forbes top 400?

According to the way that "self-made" is defined, Donald Trump would be considered self-made, even though he inherited hundreds of millions when his dad died.

Let's compare figures. You say 2/3 are "self-made" while my figures show 42% won the sperm lottery and were born on home plate -- inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. Unless "self-made" means they were savvy enough to decide which family to get born into, our numbers sharply disagree. Be the note how "Secrets Of The Self-Made 2009 - Forbes.com" defines "self-made". (Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune.) Donald Trump might be considered self-made, even though he inherited $400 million in 1979. (Which incidentally, would have been worth more than Trump boasts had he just invested it in mutual funds.)
Quote:
Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes' heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees.
A breakdown:
42 % Born on Home Plate: inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. This percentage is higher than that listed by Forbes for inheritors. The reason: Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune. One example is Philip Anschutz (1997 net worth: $5.2 billion) who is listed as "self-made" even though he inherited a $500-million oil and gas field.

6 % Born on Third Base: inherited substantial wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company and grew this initial fortune into membership in the Forbes 400.

7 % Born on Second Base: inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member.

14 % Born on First Base: biography indicates wealthy or upper-class background that was to our knowledge less than $1 million, or received some start-up capital from a family member. Due to the study team's conservative coding rule, it is likely that some of those listed as born on first base actually belong on second or third base.

31 % Born in the Batter's Box: individuals and families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:36 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
16,346 posts, read 11,415,718 times
Reputation: 8382
Most agree that there should be income inequality. Income should be about inputs and outputs. The difference is how much is "correct"

Agree that this is an extreme but for clarity sake:

HS dropout 15K. OK
Car Mechanic 35K. shrug OK
Mech Engineer 75K. makes perfect sense to me and most of the Car Mechanics will probably grudgingly agree.
Reasonably successful entrepeneur. 150K wish it was more.
Family Doc 180K. Still makes sense.
Cardiologist 500K. A 1%er. Less common and we wonder why everyone wants to be a specialist over a family doc but still... Makes sense.

Allan Mulally 25MM. Lets see saved a major US corporation from going barkrupt, had the balls to tell a member of congress he deserved more than a dollar a year. Went all in before a crash and was holding 4 aces when everyone thought he had a pair of 2s. Makes sense to me. WORTH EVERY NICKEL!
Eddie Lampert. 1.1 Billion. Epic fail at Sears and still made 1.1 BILLION?!??? market fail.
Paulson 5 Billion. His inputs are 142857 times what the car mechanic did? Dont think so. market fail.
OH and the last two get to use the carried interest rule to pay less taxes than the guy who saved a major corporation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top