Ditto!

OK, I propose that people just answer the quiz without leaving any comments, because they are liable to be divisive.

So just answer A, B, C, D, E, or F.

Anyway, the answer is F. According to the latest numbers available, for 2007, the upper 1% wealthiest Americans had a net worth approximately equal to the lowest 93% of Americans.

Also, the richest 1% of Americans own more stocks, bonds, and mutual funds than the lower 99%.
http://extremeinequality.org/?page_id=8

Beakybird

Interesting thread...

It didn't used to be like that of course. Tax rates as high as 90% on some high earners paved the way for social security, the fabulous 50's and programs like medicare and medicaid.

The founders wrote extensively about the "good of the commons" being of utmost importance. Jefferson especially disliked the notions of corporations and felt they would do society great harm if left unchecked.

So, the richest got taxed the heaviest and for a long time, things worked out pretty well. Then we get to the early 80's, deregulation, trickle down economics and the Laffer Curve foolishness and slashed tax rates. US Corporatacracy has left its ugly marks all over the world while things seem to be turning for the worse here in the US. Poverty is increasing, our personal savings rates have been very poor compared to other countries and let's not forget our debt and lack of an effective health care system.

That's a liberal, somewhat progressive viewpoint. A conservative would say that the founders never intended...not for a second...to take so much wealth from one class and redistribute it to another. People are, for the most part, where they deserve to be.

Jefferson was quite afraid of the USA becoming a class based society, not too different from the land they'd all left.

If Nigel felt compelled to relocate this discussion to the Bar, I'd buy the first round...




------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 11-30-2010).]

why are we so touchy about issues that affect us all, musicians or not. Moving it to 'the Bar' isn't going to make the issue go away. What are we so afraid of? Of being dumb enough to defend tax breaks for the Donald Trumps of the world, while families with small children go hungry and live in unheated apartments. Whatever happened to being 'my brother's keeper'. Why do we feel so compelled to defend and protect the wealth of a class we not only don't belong to, but never will belong to.

Sure, maybe the BAR is the more appropriate place for this discussion, but frankly, I'm disappointed with the eagerness with which we need to make issues that make us uncomfortable, disappear. Look, I don't know (or care) why Beakybird posted this topic, but as long as he did, I'd like to think that I have the freedom to respond to it without immediately freaking everybody out. Want to move it to the BAR where no one will see it? Go ahead. I guess 'out of sight, out of mind' works for some. But it doesn't change a thing.

A few posts ago, everyone was congratulating Scott for posting thought-provoking topics that helped members get to know one another as PEOPLE. Wow, wonder whatever happened to that concept.

chas

Hi Beakybird:

I believe the answer is 90%. Somewhere in the recent past, I've seen this number bandied about on one of the major networks.

I'm probably in the minority here because I believe each and every one of us should have the opportunity and drive to achieve wealth. (Sorry, I didn't make it yet... but I'm still trying.) Nothing wrong with being rich as long as it was achieved honestly.

As far as taxation is concerned, I believe everybody (rich, poor, middle-class, corporate and others) should pay the same low rate. Believing that some should pay more than others sounds awfully close to what Joseph Stalin believed. Paying Tax of any kind is troubling but necessary if a nation or society is to exist. Keeping the rate in check... by eliminating congressional greed is a real problem.

If you believe otherwise, that does not make you a bad person in my eyes. It only means we disagree... and that's healthy.

Dave Rice

The number is close to 93%.

Well the rate on top earners when Eisenhower was in office was 90%. Of course the rich then as they do now had access to many deductions and other accounting tricks, but they did pay a larger percentage in taxes than they do now. Eisenhower was a Republican. I haven't heard many accuse him of being a socialist, but I'm sure many would now.

The percentage of total wealth owned by the upper 1% in 2007 was 34.6%. In 1976 it was 19.9%. I have heard that 4/5 of the economic growth during the Bush years went to the upper 1%.

It sounds sensible that everyone should have to pay taxes. The fact is that the middle class and the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do. A middle class family pays a significant percentage of income in sales tax, property tax, and social security tax.

A rich family pays a paltry percentage of income on sales tax, property tax, and they only pay social security tax on the first couple hundred thousand and nothing after that. What percentage of his total income do you think Bill Gates pays in sales tax, property tax, and social security tax? I would bet that it is less than 1/10%.

So if every one paid the same percentage in income tax, that would mean that the middle class and the poor would pay an even higher percentage of their income in taxes than they do now and the rich would pay less.

I think that if 1% of Americans own more stocks, bonds, and mutual funds than the other 99% (which is the case), it's beginning to look like feudalism to me.

Also, when a lot of the wealth is concentrated in areas that aren't producing wealth for the country but sucking wealth from others - like health insurance and financial services - that's not good. These sectors of our economy are humongous. They might provide essential services, but it makes it hard for America to compete with other countries.

This topic tangentially affects all of us musicians, because when the country's wealth is concentrated in fewer hands than ever, it makes it just a little more difficult to find clients with funds to spend on the arts.

It rather amazes me that there are millions of Americans who not only support this reapportioning of wealth from the middle class and the poor (and that's what it has been - a major reapportioning. For example, in the 1970's the upper 1% made 8 times more than the average worker and now it's something like 44 times more), but they are rabid about increasing their privilege.

I brought up this topic because I find the 93% figure staggering. I think we're becoming a banana republic.

Hi Beakybird:

You bring up many valid points. From my perspective, it is flawed logic to compare income between high and low earners from the standpoint of taxation. If all the loopholes were closed or eliminated and there was only one tax... I prefer a national sales tax... then those who spend instead of saving would be paying more.

Our economic system in the U.S. is based largely now on the credit model. This must change if we are to survive. Our greedy congress allows banks (who provide them with support or kickbacks) to charge horrendous rates of interest. It is plain and simple usery.

A simple, clean flat tax system would be fair to all concerned. If individual "A" earns $10 dollars, he pays 10% (assumed rate) and that would be $1.00 The same would apply to the "millionaire." What is wrong with that if all the other junk taxes and loopholes are eliminated?

I don't believe our founding fathers ever envisioned an IRS or CPA's being required to aid one in filing a tax return.

But hey, that's just one man's opinion. Anybody got a better idea?

Dave Rice

A flat sales tax would be so unfair. Let's say you make 1 billion a year, but you spend 1 million a year. You are only paying taxes on 1/1000 of your income. The person who makes 10,000 a year is going to pay a much greater percentage of his pay in taxes no matter how frugal he is. That sounds like an extremely unfair idea.

It might be a good idea to look at other countries that are doing it right - that have high average incomes and low levels of poverty and see what they are doing right. We live in a very insular country, and I think that we have a lot to learn from other countries. For example, the US is #40 in life expectancy. Instead of screaming we're #1, we should maybe look at what those countries whose people are living longer are doing (lifestyle, health care, fighting poverty) and emulate some of their practices where they might fit into our culture and government.

Hello Again, Beakybird:

Let's consider another angle. Put a percentage on all income and ignore the national sales tax. Just don't try to sell me the idea that the poor guy should pay a different percentage. Why would we want to deprive him/her the privilege of being a first class citizen? When I get rich I will have achieved the American Dream. (It's not about to happen being a songwriter... LOL!)

I agree that we should look at what other countries are doing. Some of them are doing quite well at our expense. Some are doing well at the expense of their people. Can you give me an example of a country where taxes are less (including VAT and all that other stuff disguised as fees) 'cause I agree with you. If there is a better model, we should seriously look at it. I don't subscribe to the theory that everthing was invented in America.

I can tell you that I've travelled extensively and I'm always grateful to return home to the States. We are a resourceful people and we can do better... but there are so many people that would give an arm or leg to live here.

Thanks for this interesting post.

Dave