How much wealth is too much?

[OneGrassRoot]

In focusing on the United States specifically, Americans -- including many who consider themselves progressives -- largely have the view that wealth accumulation should not be limited, so long as it is done legally and so long as you do your part as a taxpayer (obviously the left and right disagree in this regard).

When I bring up the topic of what I view as obscene wealth, I'm quickly labeled a socialist and other "ists" by those with conservative viewpoints. Even within progressive circles, I've been surprised by how strongly many feel that wealth SHOULD NOT be limited; again, as long as they are "taxed fairly" and adhere to paying those taxes, many seem to feel that limiting wealth is sacrilegious or something.

Discussion is squelched because I don't have all the answers. That's another interesting trend regarding any intelligent discussion these days: Unless you have ALL of the answers, you're demeaned for even bringing up the problem for discussion. Geesh, until we bring problems to light and raise awareness and engage the masses, genuine long-term solutions which benefit the many won't manifest. That's why I'm a huge supporter of Occupy; they're/we're raising awareness. That's Step #1.

Back to the extreme inequality...

I realize life will never be fair or equal. Most of us are working for equal opportunities, so that the playing field CAN be more level and fair, however. Even if opportunity was equal, there are myriad reasons why one's socioeconomic outcome will differ from person to person.

I'll also acknowledge the obvious that when you try to discuss solutions to many of our societal problems, it is complicated, especially for such a huge citizenry. There's also the "slippery slope" argument (if you limit wealth or any freedoms, where does it end?.) None of these things are easy, but that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and succumb to apathy and despair.

Of course, there's the ever popular right-wing question, "If you limit income, what gives people the incentive to work or do better?"

In my opinion, even asking that question speaks to someone's character. If money and profit are the sole motivators for working, then I think that's a pathetic commentary on our society. It's called wanting to be a productive member of society and not wanting a handout but instead wanting to earn one's way and contribute if able (and wanting to help cover those who aren't able). I have come to the conclusion that, in many cases though not all, the people who assume others DO want handouts are that way because they're inclined to be one of those people, if given half the chance. Most of those people are upper middle class on up as far as income level, btw.

Someone on DU recently asked something to the effect, "How much money can someone be worth in order for DUers not to hate them for being rich?"

To me, it's about our priorities as a society. And it isn't a matter (for most of us) of "hating the rich"; it's fighting against an existing system that creates extreme inequality and opportunity, and working toward a more just, equitable system.

I'm hoping others will chime in regarding ways wealth hoarding has been discouraged in the past with various taxes and laws (if that's ever been the case). One thing I would like to see implemented, in my dream world, is a ratio for internal pay equity in companies. The CEO and other execs can't make "x" amount more than the lowest paid worker, for example. I know that gets complicated because of stock options and earnings beyond salaried compensation. Here is a good article regarding this topic: Put a Cap On CEO Pay

If we can't yet determine exactly how the wealth divide can be corrected, can we at least have a discussion about obscene wealth -- what we feel is obscene (it's probably subjective) -- and whether or not we feel that should be encouraged or allowed when there is such economic inequality in this country?

















PLEASE VISIT CAFEPRESS STORE for gifts and clothing with this message.

[SomethingFishy]

1. Nothing to add but a huge K&R!

[ret5hd]

2. rAmen!

[tosh]

3. Yep, huge K&R.

[Rex]

4. To me the question is NOT how much is too much.

It is, 'how did they GET it, in the first place.' I don't care how rich someone is, as long as they didn't STEAL it to get there! As long as they are moral and have some kind of ethics, which we don't see anymore. Don't enforce standards...end up with a really lame economy imo.

[OneGrassRoot]

6. Really?

Your viewpoint is probably the majority viewpoint, Rex. And without a doubt HOW they got it is incredibly important.

But there are so many ways to LEGALLY accumulate wealth (Paris Hilton, Kardashians, etc.) in our capitalism-run-amok system that, for me, that's not the only factor involved.

How would one end up with a lame economy if someone's wealth is limited to x times that of the average salary of the persons in their employ, for example?

I think people making gazillions is obscene. I really do. And I don't care if it's Limbaugh or Oprah. When one person, or family, holds that much wealth (and thus power, given our system), that's simply unacceptable.

But I realize I'm in the minority regarding how I see this, and in an even smaller minority by bringing it out into the open for discussion.

I don't think there's anything disturbing or disconcerting about having a discussion about what is obscene wealth, and how can it be limited.

[U4ikLefty]

11. I agree, since money = power in this system we must regulate such

things or we will continue to be at the whims of the 1%.

They hold too much power in our current system.

[Rex]

29. Well Paris started off rich and Kardashian made money off of

a lot of people that are into reality shows far too much imo. Our system is a plutocracy, we will probably never get back to well regulated capitalism.

[The Straight Story]

7. Perhaps instead, how little it too little? (nt)

[Huey P. Long]

5. Huey Long answers-

“Share the Wealth”: Huey Long Talks to the Nation

Huey Long: Now in the third year of his administration, we find more of our people unemployed than at any other time. We find our houses empty and our people hungry, many of them half-clothed and many of them not clothed at all.

Mr. Hopkins announced twenty-two millions on the dole, a new high-water mark in that particular sum, a few weeks ago. We find not only the people going further into debt, but that the United States is going further into debt. The states are going further into debt, and the cities and towns are even going into bankruptcy. The condition has become deplorable. Instead of his promises, the only remedy that Mr. Roosevelt has prescribed is to borrow more money if he can and to go further into debt. The last move was to borrow $5 billion more on which we must pay interest for the balance of our lifetimes, and probably during the lifetime of our children. And with it all, there stalks a slimy specter of want, hunger, destitution, and pestilence, all because of the fact that in the land of too much and of too much to wear, our president has failed in his promise to have these necessities of life distributed into the hands of the people who have need of them.

Now, my friends, you have heard me read how a great New York newspaper, after investigations, declared that all I have said about the bad distribution of this nation’s wealth is true. But we have been about our work to correct this situation. That is why the Share Our Wealth societies are forming in every nook and corner of America. They’re meeting tonight. Soon there will be Share Our Wealth societies for everyone to meet. They have a great work to perform.


Here is what we stand for in a nutshell:

Number one, we propose that every family in America should at least own a homestead equal in value to not less than one third the average family wealth. The average family wealth of America, at normal values, is approximately $16,000. So our first proposition means that every family will have a home and the comforts of a home up to a value of not less than around $5,000 or a little more than that.

Number two, we propose that no family shall own more than three hundred times the average family wealth, which means that no family shall possess more than a wealth of approximately $5 million—none to own less than $5,000, none to own more than $5 million. We think that’s too much to allow them to own, but at least it’s extremely conservative.

Number three, we propose that every family shall have an income equal to at least one third of the average family income in America. If all were allowed to work, there’d be an income of from $5,000 to $10,000 per family. We propose that one third would be the minimum. We propose that no family will have an earning of less than around $2,000 to $2,500 and that none will have more than three hundred times the average less the ordinary income taxes, which means that a million dollars would be the limit on the highest income.

We also propose to give the old-age pensions to the old people, not by taxing them or their children, but by levying the taxes upon the excess fortunes to whittle them down, and on the excess incomes and excess inheritances, so that the people who reach the age of sixty can be retired from the active labor of life and given an opportunity to have surcease and ease for the balance of the life that they have on earth.

We also propose the care for the veterans, including the cash payment of the soldiers' bonus. We likewise propose that there should be an education for every youth in this land and that no youth would be dependent upon the financial means of his parents in order to have a college education.

audio-
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5109/

===

Adjust for inflation.

[OneGrassRoot]

8. Wow, thanks to Huey Long!

Both of you!

:yourock:

:hi:

[Huey P. Long]

17. Here is the full version in text form-

The full text of this speech, as printed in Long's official Share Our Wealth pamphlet (see right), appears below.

http://www.hueylong.com/programs/share-our-wealth-speech.php

---

Its lengthy, but certainly worth a read if interested in the subject and history.

[jwirr]

14. I have been speaking of this but did not know it was Huey Long who

said it. Wonder what the numbers would be now? I love this but it would be fought by every idiot in the country as socialism. We will have to be a lot poorer before this nation agrees to anything like that. It has my vote.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. I don't understand why there isn't at least more discussion....

of EXTREME wealth, and instead people fight vehemently against limiting wealth, even with disgusting examples like Limbaugh.

I don't admire greed or gluttony, and that's exactly what that is. That is NOT success in my book.

[jwirr]

20. Especially since the numbers from Huey Long back in the 30s would

be much higher now. I assume that the reason no one wants to talk about it is that if would be real change and people are afraid of change. Plus most of us have unreal expectations. - ie. I am going to win the lottery tomorrow and I do not want to give it all away. Many of us will not win anything and we will be worse off if we do not start talking about real change.

[stillwaiting]

25. More people need to learn the lessons of the game Monopoly.

At some point if you don't start over, the game just ends. No one has any money except for one player.

A lot of brainwashed persons will continue to defend the right of the monopolists/capitalists to consolidate more and more of the wealth/income pie in this country even as their own game gets closer and closer to the end.

They are a sad lot. Easily swayed because they just can NOT allow themselves to identify with those they consider "losers", i.e. the poor. At this point if you don't get that we're going to have to MAKE them give us more money (via wages/benefits/social safety nets, etc.) I'd say your logical and critical thinking skills have been blinded by your ideology.

[Locrian]

9. I dont know...

I'd rather ensure at first that everyone has health care, housing and food - along with basic "happiness".
In order words, I find obscene wealth in a world where people are starving and unable to get basic health care to be morally bankrupt.

So I would at first progressively tax, enact labor laws so that it's a cost to people making tons of $$. A limit or whatever can come later.


(edit, yeah ... what Huey said above ... says it much better).

[OneGrassRoot]

10. Thank you. That's a good way to approach it...

Huey P. Long's link above does that.

I do think bringing the extreme inequality into sharp contrast, as is done in the graphics, can help open dialogue and help identify our priorities as a nation.

It's too easy to take the approach that any discussion of limiting anything is un-American in some way.

:hi:

[Viva_Daddy]

12. Here is the metaphor I would use to answer your question...

"When you can't stop stuffing your face with food when you can see people around you starving to death."

This represents the height of egoism/Ayn Rand "Virtue of Selfishness" type of individualism that causes some people to feel cut off from their surroundings, which include other people and the environment.

Could it be that money/wealth is, for some people, just as addictive as heroin/cocaine?

[OneGrassRoot]

13. We are a nation of excess and addiction. Great point.

And new addictions are discovered each day.

It's like we're addicted to being addicted. Out of control in many ways. Coming together regarding priorities feels very important.

(I am not making light of addiction issues at all, btw.)

[sam11111]

18. More than the middle class (average)

More , and they have power over you.

Total wealth in the US
(Divide by 300 million folks X four to get wealth per family)

Estimates range:

46 trillion Mother Jones magazine

156 T. FedReserve site

295 T. Discvry Channel Nov 13 '11 "what's Amer Worth?"

"Tilt the wealth table and the rich will rob the middle into poverty"...which we are in the middle of this very second.

[Huey P. Long]

16. Haha, funny you should use that one. Huey Long also used it...

See my sig. link to watch him in action. This is a fantastic clip. Short and piercing!
I'm going to call this clip a 'must watch'.

Huey Long: Share the Wealth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k&feature=related
--
December 1934. Huey Long speaks passionately about income inequality and the wealthy in the United States.

[Cleita]

19. Interesting question and how do we set a ceiling on wealth?

What if super rich people were required to give their excess wealth to relatives once they reached the agreed upon ceiling of wealth. This would perhaps be more acceptable to rich people, keeping it in the family so to speak. Of course when those relatives reach their ceiling, then they would be required to give it to relatives and maybe by this time friends if you run out of relatives. It seems like a sort of strange trickle down way of doing things but it could spread the wealth in another way than just taxes.

This is an idea ruminating around my head without much research to figure out if it's been done in the past or how it worked if done, so feel free to tear this apart and show me the error of my ways.

[OneGrassRoot]

21. Several things about what you wrote...

Just my opinion, of course. :)

Approaching anything as far as keeping it in the "family" is part of the problem, as I see it. Many right-wing, Ayn Rand types approach life this way, with disdain for the community and society at large.

The "common good" is a dirty phrase to them. That, to me, is problematic at its foundation. It promotes selfishness and greed, and taking from others with the excuse of protesting your own rather than thinking of what's best for society.

Granted, we're all that way to a certain extent, but doing it with wealth is the epitome of family hoarding and greed.

Plus, it may encourage crazy people to have more and more kids, while I personally think just the opposite should happen. LOL

You may want to read Huey Long's links to Huey Long above. I'm going to read more later. Very interesting!

:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

27. Ooops, too late to edit -- *protecting* your own, not protesting. :) n/t

[treestar]

24. If there is a way to track down how they got it, the excess

could be applied to the problem caused, for example, pollution. Get rich in the oil industry, the excess is used to find alternative energy or figure out how to deal with pollution.

Others' excess could go to healthcare and education.

[treestar]

22. I agree that if they think nobody will work without having

to do so to survive - that's how they are. How do they explain rich people doing anything? Why did Jackie O go into the publishing business then? People work for many reasons.

[WildNovember]

23. I actually *do* hate Rush Limbaugh, though. But I take your point.

[me b zola]

26. It really is about what we value

I have been on a personal crusade to confront and challenge the paradigm with people in my life. I have found that this manifests in conversations most often by people buying into the need to obsess over the little guy down the street who may--or may not--be "cheating the system" or not contributing as much sweat or taxes as the obsessor.

With people who generally vote dem it is an easier conversation to have. But conservatives, particularly the 28%ers, at their core only see wealth as the outcome of a life well lived. Their brains cannot wrap around the idea that people not striving for super wealth but instead a vocation or creativity are essential to a healthy society.


Recommended for a superb post :thumbsup:

[bigmonkey]

28. I've been thinking of a definition of "enough"

If the income from your investments equals the median income, isn't that an important threshold? Don't you have "enough" at that point, if you get the median income without working? Just a thought.