US Politics - Wealth Distribution

[Jade]

I did say nominal corporate taxes (which is true). And the fact of the matter is that many self-employed folks and small businesses in the US are heavily hit by those high nominal tax rates. For the megacorporations who can afford armies of expensive accountants, it's less of an issue. So just because the average is lower (due to tax incentives created by the US government, usually for the express purpose they're taken for), does not mean that some companies are not paying those high nominal rates (and, like I said, it's usually small, local businesses that are).

As an aside, the difference between the nominal tax rates and the actual amount paid in taxes represents direct efforts by the US government to interfere with the economy (as those deductions are all incentives created by the government itself).

[jfrazierjr]

The issue isn't how rich you can get, but how you can get rich. There are those silly enough to try and preserve morality in a time of every-man-for-himself, and a lot of times, in a capitalistic environment, there's no place for morals. Recent example - the Government was shut down for... who cares, it plastered the news annoyingly enough already. The morality comment comes in that the Congress GYM remained open, while the national headstart program did not... While this doesn't directly relate to income :: morality, its a great example of how morals mean little to capitalism. Quite frankly I'm surprised religious institutions are still tax-exempt.

As a point of order, there's nothing Capitalist at all to the way the US government runs. And US politics is definitely not a free market. (That should be obvious just by the fact that 25% of US Citizens are neither Republican nor Democrat, and yet not one of the 500+ Representatives in the House is Independent/Third Party.)

true, but there is a different tail in the Senate. Bernie Sanders(Caucuses with D) was a Congressman, but is not a Senator. Former Senator Joe Lieberman was a D, but switched to Independent when he lost his primary in 2006(and subsequently won the race) I believe there are one or two others. For all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is a Libertarian(his son Rand is more half Rep/half Lib IMHO) in all but name only(ran as such in one election). Likewise, there are a few others who lean much closer to Libertarian viewpoints on both the Dem and Rep side, but they almost always pick whichever they are closest in view point to get "party" money as third parties rarely have a large bank roll.

[jfrazierjr]

Also, PLEASE remember that this study is talking about wealth and not income. As Jade alluded to, if two people make 30K a year, one spends 33k(via credit), while the other saves 10K, in 10 years, the former will be at least 30K in the hole, while the latter would be 100K in the positive. The fundamental issue here is that many people lack a fundamental understanding of delayed gratification.

Don't get me wrong, there are.. perhaps 5-10% of the population who are poor due to circumstances for which they had zero control(such as huge unavoidable medical bills from diseases such as cancer, etc) and those people deserve and need our help. My issue is with the other 50% who made STUPID decisions(and continue to do so!!!!) and moan and complain and expect handouts. If you bring home 2000 a month after taxes(single income), then you have ZERO business having a house that costs 1000 a month(you are over extended).

[wolph42]

Ont the subject of the 50% 'stupid' people. Don't you ask yourself WHY this happens? It can obviously have a myriad of reasons but should the government not take responsibility and educate the people? It may sound belligerent but as you state there IS an issue and simply stating 'it's your own stupid fault' is not gonna help the situation. It's basically the same issue with the increasing obesitas in the west, yon can argue that everyone has the 'freedom' to put in their mouths what they want and thus their own responsibility, but the overall effect is STILL an increasing overall obesitas among the population. Although (actually not an) entirely different subject here too you can ask the government to interfere...you could eg (not sure this is the same in the US but it is inEurope) like with smoking, ban smoking commercials. The same can be done with (fast) food and with some thought creating debts.

Pls don't forget that about 90% of the people on this forum (the educated) make only a very small percentage of the entire populace. Most people simply do not realise that, smoking or eating a snack or having a house cost of 1000 with a net income of 2000 do not realise that that is a bad thing... Well the smoking probly is by now, but that took a LONG time to sink in!

[CoveredInFish]

Evil me ... but an educated population was always dangerous to the ruling class. I fear - I hope its otherwise - this has not changed today.

[wolph42]

Evil me ... but an educated population was always dangerous to the ruling class. I fear - I hope its otherwise - this has not changed today.

Do you mean that the ruling class is educated and that's dangerous or that the educated people are a danger to the ruling class?

[CoveredInFish]

I meant: that educated people are a danger to the ruling class. Or at least if education of the people is in the best interest of the ruling class.

Lets say there was a government, they did some stupid things. Maybe facepalm style. You think, whow, they totally botched this, no way they'll get re-elected. But then there is the election campaign. They appeal to the masses. They tell them the stuff they want to hear. The past years are forgotten (well, they dont appear in mainstream TV or the tabloids), only the vague promises they make. Voila. Reelection.

While this is my point of view on the parliamentary elections for the german Bundestag I guess its pretty common to "us educated people".

I admit ... this might just be being a part of a political minority. Maybe the stuff that is important to me is not important to most of the people. But then ... I have to believe that what I consider important is important to may people.

[metatheurgist]

Not to mention all those "stupid" people doing jobs that don't pay enough to cover the basic costs of living or interns working for free. Morons.

[Jade]

Jfrazierjr: So, less than 1% of our elected representatives is supposed to be adequate to cover a range of political affiliations held by 25% of our citizenry?

Other folks: Remember, education doesn't mean people will make good political choices. Confirmation bias (which I've already brought up once) is a very real thing, and very powerful politically.

Here's a kicker: According to a study done in California, the more educated you are (in general terms), the more likely you are to misunderstand basic facts that might relate to your political choices: http://www.economist.com/node/18563612? ... /te/rss/pe

Thus Ms Nalder found that the best-educated (those with more than a master's degree) were most likely to answer incorrectly that Proposition 13 applies only to residential property. Those with the least education (high-school dropouts) were most likely to get it right. Similarly, those who were already of voting age when Proposition 13 passed were most likely to answer incorrectly and the youngest correctly. The same pattern held for income, with wealthier respondents being more likely to be misinformed. Perhaps most intriguingly, the largest group among homeowners (who directly benefit from Proposition 13) were misinformed, whereas the largest group of renters (who do not benefit) answered correctly.

These results are puzzling and troubling. As Ms Nalder suggests, perception (as opposed to knowledge) of issues such as Proposition 13 appears to have more to do with “self-interest and a potential blindness to issues outside of one's own experience” than with the content of the legislation. This would explain why those respondents who were “non-citizens” or “registered elsewhere” (probably recent arrivals) were more likely to give the correct answer than voters who are registered where they live.

[CoveredInFish]

the more educated you are (in general terms), the more likely you are to misunderstand basic facts that might relate to your political choices

Interesting read.

[wolph42]

the more educated you are (in general terms), the more likely you are to misunderstand basic facts that might relate to your political choices

Interesting read.

+1

[aliasmask]

the more educated you are (in general terms), the more likely you are to misunderstand basic facts that might relate to your political choices

Interesting read.

I'm a horrible test taker because I'm always second guessing my answers. My first impression is usually the correct one, but then I over think it. So, I totally believe the above and it probably extends to more than just politics.

I absorb things better when it's told to me or done with pictures over the written word. In class, I usually just listened unless there was something specific to memorize and I often interrupted to ask a pertinent question to help my understanding. I was a good/bad student. I didn't do much homework, but I absorbed and understood the material pretty well from lectures. I see books more as reference material than a teaching tool.

[Jade]

I'm a horrible test taker because I'm always second guessing my answers. My first impression is usually the correct one, but then I over think it. So, I totally believe the above and it probably extends to more than just politics.

Quite probably, and, indeed, I've seen lots of evidence (some in the form of scientific literature) indicating that bias colours our decisions and perceptions in just about everything, even things which we expect (or those which we absolutely require) to be bias-free.

[Xaelvaen]

Truthfully, as far as education, I feel privileged to have attended a school in which the staff understood one must learn how to learn, before one is bombarded with useless information. With the free access to information, memorizing fact is a waste of time and capacity. The true approach to a higher state of learning and education is the ability to find out information quickly and easily, not holding in your head like a lifelong Jeopardy game. The strange side-effect to this approach is that the things you learn stay with you, even if you never intended them to. So the statement about education adversely affecting intelligent political selection... again does not come as a surprise.

Its hilarious actually - I learn the best when I'm reading it in a very matter-of-fact tone with no 'voice' to the literature. Throughout highschool, I would attend the first day of class to get my text books, spend most of the class periods all year long reading the book verbatim, front to back, and doing pretty much every assignment inside them, just in case the teacher ever decided to have them do the work. And if not, who cares? I was getting much more education than the prattling twits standing at the chalkboard could fuse into my brain by listening to their anecdotes interwoven with their attempts to teach youths.

Halfway through the year, as I would quickly bypass the teachers because of all their useless group assignments (which just slowed me down), I just stopped paying attention until they'd go off curriculum and discuss something new. Its not that the teachers were horrible, because they really tried to connect to all the different ways people learned - it just served me no purpose. Its our inability, as educated youths, to choose the type of learning we employ best and really be able to focus on it.

I was lucky in that my style of learning comes from just reading and absorbing. I can only imagine what its like for those who need to learn hands-on within the poorly underfunded public education systems. I had relatives in schools that couldn't afford field trips to local plays or parks, and literally spent every day in a class room with no funding for projects.

So, just from my very narrow existence (which is far from world-scoping), I've seen how the education system could fail to educate about many things; diet, politics, morality, relationships; the list is endless.

However, and this is a very strong point - keep the government out of the decision making process, period. The government can educate all they are willing to invest, I'm fine with that. I've never smoked, I don't drink (except very casually), never touched drugs (except as prescribed) - quite frankly, I'm an Insurance Salesman's dream client. That being said, I don't care if others smoke as long as its not in my face. I don't care if they drink as long as I'm not getting plowed off the road by them. Drugs? Legalize them all, destroy the industry, and in fact, give them out for free to let the people O.D. as soon as possible and get off the streets. If there's no cash in drugs, you get rid of the crime revolving around them as well. But in no way, is it a mass of people elected by people I don't even know, who are allowed to tell me what size drink I can buy, what stores can make their profit in my city, or whether or not other people can smoke/drink/do drugs responsibly. When I heard about the soda-size ban... I just couldn't believe the nation had come to that, and I wonder, honestly wonder, what our founding fathers are doing in what Hell or Heaven they attend... So ridiculous, I'm ending the post here.

[jfrazierjr]

Ont the subject of the 50% 'stupid' people. Don't you ask yourself WHY this happens?

Of course, but unfortunately, it's not something i can directly change. I can indirectly change things via voting for people who will(or who I believe at any rate) limit government, but that's about it.

It can obviously have a myriad of reasons but should the government not take responsibility and educate the people?

Well, if the government DID, then yea.. but at least here such advice would be "do as I say, not as I do" even if that were the message. Unfortunately, the message(well.. my perception of the message anyway) is "let's buy more votes by giving people more free stuff!"

It may sound belligerent but as you state there IS an issue and simply stating 'it's your own stupid fault' is not gonna help the situation.

You are absolutely right, but I learned a long time ago that people have to be willing to learn and some just are not(or at least it takes them a really long time). I have a fair share of history with family members who are drug users. My cousin was shot and paralyzed from the waist down. Did he learn? No... he keep using/dealing and got himself killed. Now.. I love him as a family member, but he was a stupid person who ultimately reaped the consequences of his own choices. It's a shame, but saying that he was an innocent victim would be a lie. I have far more sympathy/empathy for those who truly are innocent victims of violence.

As I noted previously, there is a small percentage of the population who are totally incapable of taking care of themselves and I have no problem with some government help(along with private charities.), but as noted, there are tons of people who just continue to make poor decisions over and over again, and functionally, they should be made to deal with the consequences of their poor choices.