How should most people become wealthy?

[frankfrank]

I was only six numbers away from it tonight.

Me, too. I had no numbers at all, which is six numbers away from having them all correct. I don't play.

a pretty good sign you need to adjust your dogma.

I'm so sorry, but I have to tell you that there's been a bad accident with your golden retriever. My karma hit your dogma.

 

[otters]

How will that help most people to become wealthy?

IMHO, apart from first-world-implicitnesses (not entirely sure since there are many places in the USA that are quite poisened) like clean water, a healthy environment, healthy food etc., IMHO the epitome of "wealth" isn't money, or real property, or any assets; it's the access to services.

Some basic examples: When you're a fetus, proper health care for your mother is crucial, well: basically your whole life health care is crucial; achieving education is crucial (ditto); and last but not least at old age a decent geriatric care is crucial.

Access to these services should basically be granted everyone — LOL, except childless tax dodgers.

 

[bankside]

I don't disagree that what you buy with your money you earn when you are alive is yours.

What I disagree with is any kind of immutable right for others to inherit any sum or amount of wealth for which they did no more work than being born, tax-free. I don't regard that as an entitlement. I view coming into 5 million dollars because someone keeled over as no different than coming into it off a lottery ticket or getting lucky in the casino. Especially if this unfettered process results in progressively more concentrated and more entrenched wealth and income inequality for the society overall.

Would you defend this idea of inherited wealth all the way right back to a feudalism or kingship (in all but name) by a miniscule elite class which, effectively, owns everything?

I think the rights are born not by the recipient but by the benefactor. Once I've paid income tax, my obligation to society is met. If I want to buy something, or burn it in a bonfire, or give it to my kids or my neighbour or my spouse, why should the government get their hands on money where the taxes were already paid?

 

[xbuzzerx]

I think the rights are born not by the recipient but by the benefactor. Once I've paid income tax, my obligation to society is met. If I want to buy something, or burn it in a bonfire, or give it to my kids or my neighbour or my spouse, why should the government get their hands on money where the taxes were already paid?

You are not doing anything once you're dead. Wealth is simply being transferred to someone who is not you. It is therefore irrelevant if your obligation to society has been met.

If wealth is entering your bank account, that is income. And the rules people draw up to exclude only certain scenarios from that fact only ever benefit the rich and unearned income.

 

[otters]

I think the rights are born not by the recipient but by the benefactor. Once I've paid income tax, my obligation to society is met. If I want to buy something, or burn it in a bonfire, or give it to my kids or my neighbour or my spouse, why should the government get their hands on money where the taxes were already paid?

This argument doesn't work. In many jurisdictions, pensioners are annoyed that they have to pay taxes although the previous income that was the basis of the pension has been taxed already — but then, many people just have no idea that pensions are NOT a savings account………

 

[star-warrior]

Why? 10char

Why indeed.

The many mansions argument falls around where the threshold of taxation lies. For many hard working families the increase in value of their property (their only home) goes up over the years, and the value of it at the time of death contributes towards the value of the deceased's estate. If they haven't left savings when they die and the value of the property is over the taxation threshold, the beneficiaries are saddled with a huge debt, even if they're living in the same family home.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Why indeed.

The many mansions argument falls around where the threshold of taxation lies. For many hard working families the increase in value of their property (their only home) goes up over the years, and the value of it at the time of death contributes towards the value of the deceased's estate. If they haven't left savings when they die and the value of the property is over the taxation threshold, the beneficiaries are saddled with a huge debt, even if they're living in the same family home.

The U.S. federal estate tax exemption rose to $5.43 million per person in 2015.

There is no credible argument that struggling, everyday working families are being crushed under this law. It doesn't even affect the vast majority of people.

 

[bankside]

The U.S. federal estate tax exemption rose to $5.43 million per person in 2015.

There is no credible argument that struggling, everyday working families are being crushed under this law. It doesn't even affect the vast majority of people.

Okay enough about tax burdens. All those "struggling everyday working families" are supposed to be wealthy, right? HOW.

 

[opinterph]

(Paraphrased)

Most people should be ethically entitled to reach a level of wealth that allows them to be safe, secure, and well fed. They should not have to worry about their livelihood or access to proper health care. In addition, they should be able to purchase items that provide no necessary function other than to provide them pleasure, while also accumulating various other savings or investments, including real property.

Do you agree with my above paraphrase^ of your original post?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Maybe people should become wealthy through the generosity of their countrymen?

Or maybe Banky's question really is, how can people become wealthy in spite of widespread boredom and egomania?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Okay enough about tax burdens. All those "struggling everyday working families" are supposed to be wealthy, right? HOW.

In the U.S. 100% of the problem is not a lack of wealth or "not enough of it to go around and still leave tons of uber-rich people." The problem is that incomes have risen for only 10-20% of households for the last forty years while the cost of virtually everything has gone up. (In many cases, far outpacing simple inflation-- education, healthcare.) More people live in states of permanent debt or permanent dependency simply to get by on a lifestyle they could have paid for and saved on in decades past. But the discussion of the problem is always 100% backwards. Rather than talking about how wage earners should be making more, and the middle class should be making more, the discussion is entirely about the calamities that everyone believe will instantly occur if you do any of the above. If the U.S. had had half the discussion with itself about the financial repercussions of the spending on the Iraq War at the time we were funding it as we do about ANY minimum wage increase which wouldn't even put us on par for spending power with much of the rest of the first world, we'd be in a lot less debt at the moment.

Almost no one is an "honest fan" of the idea of: socialize everything everyone needs and let them continue to make pennies but enjoy "wealth" by default because all services are publicly provided without cost. People who have contributed every bit as much to the economy over the last four decades while enjoying literally none of the benefits or growth in the economy need to make more money, and the people who were already wealthy and are accruing effectively 100% of all wealth and income increases need to get less. It's really just that simple imho. And Benvolio's repeated arguments considered, it still remains totally false to believe the market will simply "naturally" correct and provide these better compensations under virtually any circumstances whatsoever other than coercion. Whether it's by policy mandate or by a vast revolution of the workforce in a new revamp of unionized, widespread labor consciousness.

 

[otters]

Okay enough about tax burdens. All those "struggling everyday working families" are supposed to be wealthy, right? HOW.

Of course, especially in the USA only a minority is actually "wealthy". And again, this has a lot to do with the aforementioned basic services (vide supra #44), or exactly: the lack of them.

Obviously, some rich countries take care of distribution of basic services, others… not so much.

Especially, when we're talking about first world countries, let's compare OECD countries. Voilá, here the Gini coefficient, after taxes and transfers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Gini_coefficient.2C_after_taxes_and_transfers

Wow, only Chile, Turkey and Mexico are ranking lower in that group than the USA…

Surprise, surprise: theses are the OECD-countries where the lack of the aforementioned basic services is even more prevalent than in the USA.

 

[otters]

Gini coefficient, after taxes and transfers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Gini_coefficient.2C_after_taxes_and_transfers

To avoid a misunderstanding of my earlier posts:
Bankside, your wish is that "most people become wealthy", am I right?
In other words, you would prefer less wealth inequality and income inequality — cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States —, wouldn't you?

According to political economy, the achievement of wealth and income equality is preferably measured by the very precise Gini coefficient, vide supra.

Hence the humble proposal: if they want that "most people become wealthy", OECD-countries shall not imitate Chile, Turkey, Mexico, … of all places, but rather imitate countries like Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Belgium, Finland, Sweden…

But it's quite a sad fact that certainly many US Americans who want to become "weathy" do not even know that these places exist where the richer people do not have to have angst that the very next moment someone will ambush them because of their affluence, isn't it?

 

[otters]

But it's quite a sad fact that certainly many US Americans who want to become "[STRIKE]weathy[/STRIKE]" do not even know that these places exist where the richer people do not have to have angst that the very next moment someone will ambush them because of their affluence, isn't it?

should read "wealthy", of course.

 

[otters]

So if you save for a new mercedes e-class every 5 years, compared to a low-end econo-car that you MUST have for work, then you're doing it right. Or rather the economy is. But if you spend the money on foreign travel, that's okay too. There's a wide range of what can be considered wealthy, I'm trying to be deliberately broad about it as long as the criteria of "getting ahead" is in there.

Actually, the given examples tell me that you're probably focussing on "individual fulfilment" persons who are childless, typically.

Let's just compare two couples, MDs/JDs/DVets/DPharms or the like, both living in nice detached houses, and having basically the same really not bad income before taxes.

The one house's garage contains:
— an Audi, a BMW, a Mercedes, and a Porsche;
the other house's garage contains:
— two humble Volkswagens.

Which one is the family having children — that will pay the other couple's pension one day?

And which one is quite certainly completely ignorant of the fact that the family nearby pays definitely more taxes and many forms of compulsory contributions?

Yes, these merely two humble Volkswagens instead of four luxury vehicles are some of the more visible quirks of an economy (taxation system) that punishes parents because it completely ignores the gain in prosperity for the childless.

 

[palemale]

People want to better themselves and their families and will work hard and make sacrifices to do so. Capitalism harnesses that drive for self interest for the ultimate benefit of all. It has raised the bulk of humanity from one room hovels, poor clothing, poor food, no medicine to the prosperity which people in industrialized countries enjoy. Even the poorest countries benefit to a degree.
Socialism/liberalism /communism pretend that people are altruistic, willing to work with the benefit going to each according to his need. Alas,it is not so.

Marx did give capitalism credit for improving the lives of masses of people. In the Communist Manifesto, he observed that capitalism saved millions of people from the idiocy of rural life.

 

[bankside]

To avoid a misunderstanding of my earlier posts:
Bankside, your wish is that "most people become wealthy", am I right?
In other words, you would prefer less wealth inequality and income inequality — cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States —, wouldn't you?

According to political economy, the achievement of wealth and income equality is preferably measured by the very precise Gini coefficient, vide supra.

Hence the humble proposal: if they want that "most people become wealthy", OECD-countries shall not imitate Chile, Turkey, Mexico, … of all places, but rather imitate countries like Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Belgium, Finland, Sweden…

But it's quite a sad fact that certainly many US Americans who want to become "weathy" do not even know that these places exist where the richer people do not have to have angst that the very next moment someone will ambush them because of their affluence, isn't it?

Equality or inequality is actually secondary to my goal that most people should be able to count on an advancing level of material prosperity, with absolute assurance that it never falls below some critical minima.

To a certain extent, inequality undermines that goal. For example, I think inequality in places like South Africa and Brazil represents a complete failure to engage huge portions of the population in the productive part of the economy. It's economic stupidity, preventing not only the poor from advancing (and again I don't just want them to 'advance' but to become wealthy), but also undermining the material prosperity of the existing upper echelons in those societies. In those places, the rich would be richer still, if the poor people spent less time being desperate and clinging to life, and more time making their economies prosperous. But they seem locked into an economic stasis where no investments are made to bring the majority of the population into the useful economy.

Remember though, inequality isn't my focus; it's that each person has an absolute amount of wealth, and that it continues to expand.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It's economic stupidity, preventing not only the poor from advancing (and again I don't just want them to 'advance' but to become wealthy), but also undermining the material prosperity of the existing upper echelons in those societies.

I agree, but I think we also have to question with the small concentration at the top of any given society if what really motivates them anymore is "more pure wealth" or the power differential that results from the size of the gap between themselves and the majority of society.

In a society where $1 could buy you any worldly thing you wanted and any elections you wished to influence, having $2 kind of loses its effective meaning or motivation, especially if it means everyone will have $1.

 

[Benvolio]

M

Equality or inequality is actually secondary to my goal that most people should be able to count on an advancing level of material prosperity, with absolute assurance that it never falls below some critical minima.

To a certain extent, inequality undermines that goal. For example, I think inequality in places like South Africa and Brazil represents a complete failure to engage huge portions of the population in the productive part of the economy. It's economic stupidity, preventing not only the poor from advancing (and again I don't just want them to 'advance' but to become wealthy), but also undermining the material prosperity of the existing upper echelons in those societies. In those places, the rich would be richer still, if the poor people spent less time being desperate and clinging to life, and more time making their economies prosperous. But they seem locked into an economic stasis where no investments are made to bring the majority of the population into the useful economy.

Remember though, inequality isn't my focus; it's that each person has an absolute amount of wealth, and that it continues to expand.

I agree that the focus should be on eliminating poverty, and you know by now what the primary cause of poverty is. If I name it, this post will be deleted. The other major cause is welfare dependency, which is why your theory is fatally defective. You liberals are eager to implement the last part of the masters prescription, ".....to each according to his need." But you loath the first part, "From each according to his ability...". I.e. Able bodied people must work or contribute.
Again, inequality is irrelevant. The poor are not caused to be poor because the rich are rich. Oprah did not become rich by hurting the poor, nor did Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, Zuckerberg of Facebook etc.
Our experience proves all too well that " safety nets" rapidly become a multi-generational way of life.

 

[bankside]

M

I agree that the focus should be on eliminating poverty, and you know by now what the primary cause of poverty is. If I name it, this post will be deleted. The other major cause is welfare dependency, which is why your theory is fatally defective. You liberals are eager to implement the last part of the masters prescription, ".....to each according to his need." But you loath the first part, "From each according to his ability...". I.e. Able bodied people must work or contribute.
Again, inequality is irrelevant. The poor are not caused to be poor because the rich are rich. Oprah did not become rich by hurting the poor, nor did Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, Zuckerberg of Facebook etc.
Our experience proves all too well that " safety nets" rapidly become a multi-generational way of life.

Are you trying to imply that the main reason Brazil has millions of poor people living in favellas is because of Mexicans immigrating to the US?