American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Tres3 made the following comment: ". The rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy. ".

I stated that there is a lot of research that disputes his assertion.

Then people told me I was bashing my country, ill-informed about history, etc.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439734]Well I see you are back US bashing and singing the praises of Europe.

Would you happen to have any of that "tremendous amount of research" laying around to prove your point.
[/QUOTE]First of all, I am not bashing my country. I stand up for my country when South Americans, Europeans, or USA Citizens bash my country. I get in trouble for saying that the USA Is largely responsible for post World War II world prosperity and the tremendous expansion of human rights, democratic elections, and, yes, peace. Despite all the noise (the free press is a great thing but it lacks historical perspective), the period from 1945 to the present has been an historically unprecedented period of relative peace in the world, with a tremendous expansion of world prosperity and freedom (the the unfortunate exception of much of Africa, where the USA has not been much involved). During this period, the you. S,. Has been recognized as the leader, by foes and friends alike. My message of the USA contribution to the world is not popular, but it can be documented in terms of war deaths per year, wealth, spread of democracy, and population growth. The USA is the most successful and helpful country in the history of the world. No other country comes close. So call me a USA basher now.

But my country of which I am so proud, as a veteran, is not perfect. Vietnam was a huge mistake, but perhaps understandable. Iraq was an unforgivable disaster, not so much from the Iraqi point of view (they have had their chance for freedom now) but from the cost to the USA in lives and treasure and from the world-wide opprobrium that followed an unprovoked invasion. Reliable world surveys now indicate that the USA is perceived as the main threat to world peace even though the USA has saved their butts in the past. This world-wide perception, however faulty, threatens to throw the world out of its geopolitical orbit where the USA is the leader. That threatens world peace, with Chinese and Russian authoritarianism on the rise, and with pesky countries like Iran and North Korea capable of great turmoil if there is not a unified response to their threats. That's my point of view: Not exactly a USA basher.

Now onto social mobility: The 2012 Pew Economic Mobility study of income in the USA documents that 43% of children in the bottom quintile stay there as adults, and that 40% of children in the highest quintile stay there as adults. Only 4% of those in the lowest quintile make it to the top, and only 8% of those in the highest quintile end up on the bottom. If you are born into the top 20%, you have a 63% chance of staying above the average. If you are born into the lowest 20%, the odds are 2:1 that you will stay below the average.

Using parallel analyses of quintiles, Pew also found that social mobility in terms of income was substantially greater than the USA in Germany, France, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, while about the same in Britain.

In a different study, M. Jantti found that 42% of people in the lowest quintile remained there, but that only 25% of people in Denmark and only 30% of people in Britain remained there.

Studies by Raj Chatty and colleagues are often cited by so-called conservative pundits because they found little change in social mobility (as measured by income) from 1972 to the 2000's. However, these studies simply confirm that there is limited social mobility in the USA The most that can be made of these studies is that perhaps things are not getting worse. Chatty et al actually stated that the "enduring problem" of social immobility is made worse because the gaps between the quintiles are getting wider and wider on an absolute basis. In other words, as is well documented in a host of studies, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting relatively poorer (the gaps are expanding).

Right-leaning commentators also cite a Garrett / USA Treasury study indicating that less than half of people in the top 1% of income in one year remain there the next year. Supposedly this supports the idea of mobility. Far from it. The data actually indicate that the vast majority of them remain in the top 10%. Once you got it, you keep it. And you keep others out.

So far the discussion has been based on income inequality. But the more important issue is wealth inequality. While income is correlated with wealth, the relationship is not linear. Depending on the study, up to 40% of Americans have negative wealth: they owe more than they are worth. At the other end of the scale, there is a huge industry devoted to helping rich people avoid disclosure of their total wealth. Income is easier to study than wealth because everyone has to file a 1040 every year but they never have to file a wealth statement until they die. Estates notoriously under-estimate total wealth because of trusts, offshore accounts, tangible assets such as gold, art, jewelry, anticipated royalties, undervalued real estate, especially foreign real estate, and other assets, etc. The only being who can estimate a rich person's true wealth is a dedicated divorce lawyer, and the lawyer always finds a lot more than anyone else.

What we do know is that the gaps between the rich and the poor are vastly greater when you think about wealth than about income. So while a poor boy or girl might become an orthopedist or a comedian with a large relative income, it is unlikely that the income will make up for generations of family wealth carefully squirreled away by squads of lawyers and accountants. The biggest scam in tax law is that a person does not have to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains. The business can keep appreciating for 50 years and there is no capital gains tax. However, the owners can live high on the hog by borrowing against their tax-free assets. Here I am not even talking about the unfair break that people get on realized cap gains or qualified dividends (for some reason the orthopedist and the janitor have to pay a much higher rate of taxes than the stock-holder who sits on his butt).

In comes T. Picketty with the most thorough analysis of wealth in the world since Adam Smith. Picketty's main focus is wealth, not income. Wealth is so much more important for the lives of real people. Using the best available data, Picketty in Capital in the 21st Century shows that the gaps between the rich and the poor have regressed to the levels of the 1890's in the United States. And he shows that things are getting progressively worse, primarily because of tax policy that systematically favors the rich while the middle class (like me) pay beyond our means (for me more than 30% in all taxes after all deductions and exemptions I could squeeze out). What percentage did Romney pay again? Yes, the rich pay a lot of taxes. The Wall Street Journal and Forbes keep reminding us of that. But the gap between the social classes in America keep getting wider and wider, and mobility between classes keeps getting less and less.

For many years people on the right have been shouting that we should forget about how much wealth the rich are accumulating because all boats are rising. But all boats are not rising at the same rate, not even close. Social immobility and inequality actually hurt the economy because the consumer is the engine of the economy in the USA.

And, yes, wealth mobility, as analyzed by Picketty, is less in the USA than in Britain or almost all of northern Europe. Is it USA bashing to face an unpleasant and ugly truth that goes against the American ideal? Or is better to cling to the false myth?

I agree with Picketty's analysis, but I do not agree with his recommendations to tax wealth directly. Just for the record.

To Dccpa You say you cite research, but you don't. Your website does not provide a whif of data, method, or provenance. [URL]http://www.consumerismcommentary.com[/URL]. -their-wealth /.

Doggboy: read Capital in the 21st Century and Income Inequality by Gornick and Jantti. Yes, Britain is thought of as a society based on class. That's accurate history. But the USA has surpassed it.

The super-rich systematically remain super-rich through social events (including conference, charities, vacations, entertainment, parties), intermarriage (well-documented through research), education at elite institutions (even more well-documented), and political action. Through the magic of paid advertising, including talk radio which is paid advertising, they can appeal to religious sentiment, loss of working class jobs to automation and low-income countries, anger at people who apparently get something for nothing, and scientific ignorance. So global warming is not happening, and if it is happening it isn't made by people, and even if there is made people there is nothing we can do about it (Mario Rubio's position. You won't find him agreeing with those scientists). Dinosaurs lived along with Adam and Eve. The polls showing Obama is going to win have got to be wrong. The rest of the industrialized world really hasn't proven that government-sponsored health care is efficacious and cost-effective. The stimulus after 9/11 had no effect (that goes against the entire consensus of economists not directly on the payroll of foundations funded and controlled by the rich). Peer-reviewed social science simply has to be wrong if it threatens the American myth of social and economic mobility.

It's not stupidity. People are plenty smart. It is poor education. It is gullibility to slick advertising that cleverly appeals to the uneducated corners in the souls of people.

If is is America-bashing to say that there is a lack of social mobility, is it America-bashing to say there is too much government debt? - too much illegal immigration? - too much taxes on the middle class? - too much distrust and disunity between the red states and the blue states? -too little support for veterans? - Gridlock in representative government? Why is one criticism America-bashing but the others just have to do with facing the unpleasant truth?

The United States has faced bigger problems in the past, and I personally think we will work through this period of anger and division in the future. But I don't see how we can work through the problems until we face the truth. The USA has less social mobility than much of northern Europe. It is a fact.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439833] Studies by Raj Chatty and colleagues are often cited by so-called conservative pundits because they found little change in social mobility (as measured by income) from 1972 to the 2000's. However, these studies simply confirm that there is limited social mobility in the USA The most that can be made of these studies is that perhaps things are not getting worse. Chatty et al actually stated that the "enduring problem" of social immobility is made worse because the gaps between the quintiles are getting wider and wider on an absolute basis. In other words, as is well documented in a host of studies, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting relatively poorer (the gaps are expanding).[/QUOTE]You want to know why?

1. Technology. While it created jobs for smart people and educated people, it has adversely affected wages and salaries for others. So should we do away with technologic innovations? No way, our lives are much better for them.

2. Globalization. Manufacturing has shifted to Asia and other places from the USA. Should we fight globalization, maybe charge high import duties and have government subsidize domestic loss-making corporations? Again, I'd say no way. Some say the great depression resulted from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and similar legislation in other countries, which jacked up import duties and reduced trade. Life is much better for the poor and middle class as a result of low priced shoes, clothing, and consumer goods. The rich would have no problem buying new shoes or big screen televisions regardless. I also perhaps have more sympathy for the person in Vietnam or Bangladesh or China getting by on a few dollars a day than you do, and would rather he didn't lose his job.

3. Education. This is the way to counteract the effects of "1" and "2" above. The education system works very well for some children. But for many it really sucks. The USA comes in DEAD LAST in standardized mathematics test for OECD countries. How can we complete and have good-paying jobs when we can't add?

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439833]
So far the discussion has been based on income inequality. But the more important issue is wealth inequality. While income is correlated with wealth, the relationship is not linear. Depending on the study, up to 40% of Americans have negative wealth: they owe more than they are worth. [/QUOTE]This is a travesty. One of the big reasons is that people are encouraged to borrow instead of save. You get a tax deduction for mortgage interest, you pay tax on interest income. Government encourages people to borrow money to buy homes they can't afford. A large part of the population, instead of sacking away money in proper retirement plans, expects it can rely on Social Security, which is a giant, generational Ponzi scheme. Medical costs suck up 17% of GDP, and are on the way to 20% of GDP, soaking up money that could otherwise be used for savings. As the Reverend of the Church of B.S. has pointed out here countless times, you have a society that encourages consumerism and consumption and debt over savings. Paul Krugman, Esten and other pseudo-Keynesians think this is great, and maybe it is during a depression. But you can't do it perpetually and avoid bankruptcy, regardless of whether you're an individual, corporation or government.

As to the rest of your post, you're under a lot of misconceptions. You listen to what the press says about Romney without ever looking at his tax return. Yeah, the guy used to work for private equity and took advantage of every loophole in the book, loopholes like carried interest which should be eliminated. But he also gave a hell of a lot to charity which the Democrat leaning press conveniently decided to add back to his income before calculating a tax rate. He's not representative. The tax system at the federal level in the USA is the most progressive in the developed world. The top 1% pay 36% of the income taxes although they receive 19% of the income.

Then there's the 40% death tax. Look at the % of households in the USA worth over $100 million. It's a lot lower than Canada, and certain countries in Western Europe, largely because of the death tax which make wealth more difficult to accumulate over generations. Yeah, there's a ridiculous amount of work spent on trusts and other mechanisms to avoid the death tax. By some estimates the costs to the economy, including the legal and accounting costs, exceed the money raised.

Picketty made some major busts in his assumptions and calculations, which were pointed out by the Financial Times (which is not like the WSJ BTW, its editorial page is more left leaning) and various academics. Many of his conclusions are dubious.

So Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Page and Brin, Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Harold Hamm and a host of others created great wealth. And we're all better off for it. What you and others fail to realize is that most wealth remains as capital, providing the investment and savings that fuel economic growth, instead of being spent on yachts, mansions, etc.

I'll close with a link to something by Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder, which actually did appear as an op-ed in the WSJ, which looks at inequality in blue states versus red states. Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats. And the reverse sinks ships:

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/articles/stephen-moore-and-richard-vedder-liberal-blue-states-have-greater-income-inequality-than-conservative-red-states-1401923793[/URL]

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439833]
To Dccpa You say you cite research, but you don't. Your website does not provide a whif of data, method, or provenance. [URL]http://www.consumerismcommentary.com[/URL]. -their-wealth /.

[/QUOTE]Do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself or does it just come natural for you?

I didn't say I cited research, I linked an article that provided statistics. Of course you didn't like the statistics so you ignore them. Then you foolishly linked an article that disproves what you stated.

"Even the only one individual of twenty who inherited all his wealth was a business owner. ".

Think about what you said and what that line indicates. I am done with you as it is obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.

Picketty demolished.

[URL]http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/28/statistics_arent_enough_to_discredit_pikettys_failed_blood-soaked_ideas_101082.ht[/URL]

Don B..

For the buffoon who said ideologues crack him up.

[URL]http://drhurd.com/46373/[/URL]

Don B.

Don, Your link appears to be broken. This should work:

[URL]http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/28/statistics_arent_enough_to_discredit_pikettys_failed_blood-soaked_ideas_101082.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439847]Don, Your link appears to be broken. This should work:

[URL]http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/28/statistics_arent_enough_to_discredit_pikettys_failed_blood-soaked_ideas_101082.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Tiny, it seems that you are a big enough person to acknowledge social immobility because you make a list of reasons for social immobility. I agree with several of your reasons because there is solid empirical evidence for much of what you say. However, the author of realclearmarkets thinks that you are a collectivist:

"The very idea of thinking about equality or inequality of wealth is a collectivist notion. " That makes Paul Ryan and many others collectivists also.

But who is the authoritarian? The author is literally telling people not to think about something because, to do so, makes you part of a bloodthirsty clique. Do you really want to associate yourself with the idea that thinking about certain things is bad? Do you really want to ignore data because the data measure things that the author says should not even be thought about? Thought control: do you really want to associate yourself with it?

Name-calling ("fool" indeed) and rage substitute for reason and empiricism. The author of realclearmarkets proves my point about the closing of so many minds to data that might challenge rage-filled beliefs. The author of realclearmarkets clearly does not refute Picketty. He doesn't even try.

Check out new book "Room to Grow" by conservatives Wehner and Levin. This is another example of conservatives finally admitting that social / economic immobility is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

OK, that's it for me. I have to go back to work, so you are cordially invited to have the last word. I'll check back in a few months.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439837]

I'll close with a link to something by Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder, which actually did appear as an op-ed in the WSJ, which looks at inequality in blue states versus red states. Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats. And the reverse sinks ships:

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/articles/stephen-moore-and-richard-vedder-liberal-blue-states-have-greater-income-inequality-than-conservative-red-states-1401923793[/URL][/QUOTE]Sorry I did not respond to this. I tried to look at it, but the link required me to buy a subscription to the WSJ so I could only read the first few lines.

I'm not surprised that blue states have more income inequality than red states. My thesis is that there is social immobility, and these people seem to be saying that there is immobility in the entire country, but that it is worse in blue states. So I take this as support for my thesis.

By the way, I pay $30 per month for Investors Business Daily which writes anti-Obama and anti-liberal editorials every single day, usually on the front page where you might expect news. I don't agree with much they say, but I try to understand their point of view. I also read the WSJ when I go to Panera's on U. S. trips. On long-distance car trips I listen to right-wing talk radio - amazing how they can take a fact, blow it way out of proportion, then play the victim, and then kindle the rage and paranoia. They would make old Joe Goebbels proud: It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.

Now I am truly gone, so do your best to call me names and point out my moral and intellectual degradation. I am thinking about things I should not be thinking about - so says your reference.
But just take a chance and read something evidence-based, something that is out of your little orbit once in a while.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439860]


Now I am truly gone, so do your best to call me names and point out my moral and intellectual degradation. I am thinking about things I should not be thinking about - so says your reference.
But just take a chance and read something evidence-based, something that is out of your little orbit once in a while.[/QUOTE]Tatu Hei, thanks for your posts.

Once again, the usual suspects respond to post like yours with nothing but name calling and presenting nonsense like the realclearmarkets article which as you point out does nothing to refute Piketty and indeed doesn't try.

I don't see much in the way of reasoned responses to the issue at hand backed up by credible data.

[QUOTE=RockinBob;439862]

I don't see much in the way of reasoned responses to the issue at hand backed up by credible data.[/QUOTE]Piketty's data wasn't credible. Apparently you didn't read my post, the long one. But if you want something more reasoned and more credible and heavy on data, including a link to Excel tables, see this:

[URL]http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/[/URL]

In case you don't want to subscribe for your eight free articles a month, here's the introduction to this very long piece:

[I]Professor Thomas Pikettys Capital in the 21st Century has data on wealth inequality at its core. His data collection has been universally praised. Prof Piketty says he has collected, as complete and consistent a set of historical sources as possible in order to study the dynamics of income and wealth distribution over the long run

However, when writing an article on the distribution of wealth in the UK, I noticed a serious discrepancy between the contemporary concentration of wealth described in Capital in the 21st Century and that reported in the official UK statistics. Professor Piketty cited a figure showing the top 10 per cent of British people held 71 per cent of total national wealth. The Office for National Statistics latest Wealth and Assets Survey put the figure at only 44 per cent.

This is a material difference and it prompted me to go back through Pikettys sources. I discovered that his estimates of wealth inequality the centrepiece of Capital in the 21st Century are undercut by a series of problems and errors. Some issues concern sourcing and definitional problems. Some numbers appear simply to be constructed out of thin air.

When I have tried to correct for these apparent errors, a rather different picture of wealth inequality appeared (the spreadsheets underpinning my analysis can be foundhere).

Two of Capital in the 21st Centurys central findings that wealth inequality has begun to rise over the past 30 years and that the US obviously has a more unequal distribution of wealth than Europe no longer seem to hold. Without these results, it would be impossible to claim, as Piketty does in his conclusion, that the central contradiction of capitalism is the tendency for wealth to become more concentrated in the hands of the already rich and the reason why wealth today is not as unequally distributed as in the past is simply that not enough time has passed since 1945.

This long post will outline the classes of data problems I have found in Chapter 10 of Pikettys book, which deals with the inequality of capital ownership. I will then show why these problems matter for each one of the four countries prof Piketty studies France, Sweden, UK and the US.

[B]Finally, I will put all the revised data together to show that, based on the sources Piketty cites, the conclusions that (a) wealth inequality rose after 1980 and (b) wealth inequality in the US is larger than in Europe no longer seem to hold.[/B][/I]

Piketty was provided a copy of this piece and given an opportunity to respond before publication. His response was extremely weak:

[URL]http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/piketty-response-to-ft-data-concerns/[/URL]

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439859] This is another example of conservatives finally admitting that social / economic immobility is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE]I already admitted it, as you noted. And have in the past pointed out solutions that might actually work, instead of the left's standard prescription of fucking business owners and distributing more welfare checks.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439867]Piketty's data wasn't credible. Apparently you didn't read my post, the long one. But if you want something more reasoned and more credible and heavy on data, including a link to Excel tables, see this:

Piketty was provided a copy of this piece and given an opportunity to respond before publication. His response was extremely weak:

[/QUOTE]Tiny 12, thanks for the response. I know that there was criticism of Piketty in the FT, and that he answered his critics.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/thomas-piketty-response_n_5412036.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-piketty/response-to-financial-times_b_5412853.html[/URL]

My take is that the data in general support his thesis, but that there was some question about interpretation of economic data in the case of Great Britain. I can't join you in saying his data wasn't credible and his response weak.

At least the FT more or less stuck with the issues. Some links have been posted here to bullshit articles like the one where the Ayn Rand fan writes "But some of life's losers don't see it that way. Festering with hatred for those who succeed, they prefer universal misery, including their own, to permitting anyone to excel. ".

Frankly, I really don't want to get into the discussion. If I did, the first thing I would do would be to actually read Piketty's book and see for myself what he has to say, rather than read someone else's take on it, be it Paul Krugman or the WSJ.

And again, as for solutions, the problems are complex. The status quo comes about as the sum total of all individual actions, individual situations, and you cannot just snap your fingers and change things just like that. And you will never change the fact that some people are going to be rich and some people poor, a lot more in the second category. It has been that way for all recorded history, at least in the Western world, and probably everywhere.

I agree, the solution is not to fuck businessmen or hand out welfare checks. But there has to be a more level playing field.

There sure are some idiotic policies coming out of Washington and Brussels, a lot of corruption. The government these days does not exist to provide for the general welfare, but looks out only for the interests of The Money. There are better ways of doing things. Exactly what, I don't know. The Founding Fathers but their faith in democracy and a system of checks and balances, but the general population are idiots and the corruption extends to all branches of government.

As far as democrats and republicans, I am reminded of what Waylon Jennings said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."

Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, the result is always the same.

Bob, we agree there's a problem. If I were the omnipotent dictator of the USA, despite my Libertarian instincts, I'd try to solve it like Singapore. That is, I'd force people to save prodigiously. They could use their savings for retirement, medical care, education, and housing. And I'd improve the education system without spending an arm and a leg.

Piketty believes that if business owners and investors can achieve returns greater than the rate of growth of the economy, that's evil, and should be corrected. Being French, his solution is French, high wealth and income taxes. Taking away huge amounts of capital from those who use it most efficiently is unfair, as pointed out in Don's link. And just as importantly, it's unwise and a recipe for economic decline. To me this is obvious. Someone has a business that's growing 20% or 30% a year out of profits, generating jobs. So you create an extortionate tax on his assets and income so he can't grow faster than average wages or nominal GDP? It's crazy.

Republican House of Representative Majority Leader Eric Canter gets SLAUGHTERED in his own primary. Somebody finally pays the price for the most useless Congress of all time.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439879]Republican House of Representative Majority Leader Eric Canter gets SLAUGHTERED in his own primary. Somebody finally pays the price for the most useless Congress of all time.[/QUOTE]Yep, the Tea Party candidate won. Glad to see you're finally coming around EAP.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439880]Yep, the Tea Party candidate won. Glad to see you're finally coming around EAP.[/QUOTE]The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439881]The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.[/QUOTE]Kuchel was a Progressive Republican and Senate Minority Whip. Kuchel was also my hometown hero. He lost the Senate primary to a Conservative Republican named Max Rafferty. I realized you could not be a Progressive and a Republican so I became a Democrat when it was time to register. Leon Panetta who was on Kuchel's staff also made the same decision. Panetta is now a Democrat who served the Country under both Clinton and Obama. Fifty years later there are no Republicans holding statewide offices in California. Republicans need to build a bigger tent.

[URL]http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-kuchel-strong-defense-and-civil-rights/[/URL]

[QUOTE=RockinBob;439870]As far as democrats and republicans, I am reminded of what Waylon Jennings said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."
[/QUOTE]Yeah, you could probably say that about Hillary Clinton and Eric Cantor. They both have strong ties to Wall Street and lobbyists. Woe be it that people like David Brat come along. The main issue Brat campaigned on was crony capitalism, the favors that Wall Street banks and certain other big corporations have gotten from politicians. And he beat Cantor. That just sucks. After all, pork is the grease that lubricates the wheels of politics. Without the lobbyists and the investment bankers, nothing would get done in Washington and we'd all be screwed.

[QUOTE=RockinBob;439870]Tiny 12, thanks for the response. I know that there was criticism of Piketty in the FT, and that he answered his critics.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/thomas-piketty-response_n_5412036.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-piketty/response-to-financial-times_b_5412853.html[/URL]

My take is that the data in general support his thesis, but that there was some question about interpretation of economic data in the case of Great Britain. I can't join you in saying his data wasn't credible and his response weak.

At least the FT more or less stuck with the issues. Some links have been posted here to bullshit articles like the one where the Ayn Rand fan writes "But some of life's losers don't see it that way. Festering with hatred for those who succeed, they prefer universal misery, including their own, to permitting anyone to excel. ".

Frankly, I really don't want to get into the discussion. If I did, the first thing I would do would be to actually read Piketty's book and see for myself what he has to say, rather than read someone else's take on it, be it Paul Krugman or the WSJ.

And again, as for solutions, the problems are complex. The status quo comes about as the sum total of all individual actions, individual situations, and you cannot just snap your fingers and change things just like that. And you will never change the fact that some people are going to be rich and some people poor, a lot more in the second category. It has been that way for all recorded history, at least in the Western world, and probably everywhere.

I agree, the solution is not to fuck businessmen or hand out welfare checks. But there has to be a more level playing field.

There sure are some idiotic policies coming out of Washington and Brussels, a lot of corruption. The government these days does not exist to provide for the general welfare, but looks out only for the interests of The Money. There are better ways of doing things. Exactly what, I don't know. The Founding Fathers but their faith in democracy and a system of checks and balances, but the general population are idiots and the corruption extends to all branches of government.

As far as democrats and republicans, I am reminded of what Waylon Jennings said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."

Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, the result is always the same.[/QUOTE]Not only is your opinion based on a false premise but you can't even get a quote right. It was George Wallace not Waylon Jennings.

Don B..

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439884]Kuchel was a Progressive Republican and Senate Minority Whip. Kuchel was also my hometown hero. He lost the Senate primary to a Conservative Republican named Max Rafferty. I realized you could not be a Progressive and a Republican so I became a Democrat when it was time to register. Leon Panetta who was on Kuchel's staff also made the same decision. Panetta is now a Democrat who served the Country under both Clinton and Obama. Fifty years later there are no Republicans holding statewide offices in California. Republicans need to build a bigger tent.

[URL]http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-kuchel-strong-defense-and-civil-rights/[/URL][/QUOTE]BBS would that be the People's Republic of California whose current state deficit is greater than most countries, whose legal population is moving east in droves as well as businesses?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439887]BBS would that be the People's Republic of California whose current state deficit is greater than most countries, whose legal population is moving east in droves as well as businesses?[/QUOTE]More flat out lies from Jackson's fascist fan boys. The fact is that California has a $3. 8 Billion USD projected budget SURPLUS for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics[/URL]

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439890]More flat out lies from Jackson's fascist fan boys. The fact is that California has a $3. 8 Billion USD projected budget SURPLUS for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics[/URL][/QUOTE]Please define fascist.

Don B.

When Obama was re-elected, there was a sobering & somber hiatus from AP rightwingers. Stunned into silence, they came back with claims of voter fraud, voter stupidity and versions of of how democracy is suppose to work. Some even claim that all is lost and the end of America is in sight. Now, surprised that their limbs are still moving and emboldened by memories of the 2010 mid term elections, they are once again thinking and claiming that their turn has come. Come on, be real. I predict for 2014, the status quo will prevail in Congress.

I thought immigration reform would a big issue in this year's politics and elections. But it seems that the Democrats are going to leave it for Hilary Clinton to use for winning the 2016 presidency. So get ready to be slap again. But you have more than 2 years to duck!

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/12/the-real-divide-in-the-gop-over-immigration/?hpid=z3[/URL]

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439890]More flat out lies from Jackson's fascist fan boys. The fact is that California has a $3. 8 Billion USD projected budget SURPLUS for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics[/URL][/QUOTE]I guess the next thing you will be telling us is the United States does not have a deficit!

Welcome to reality, read the link and tell me California has a surplus and not a deficit and a very big one.

[URL]http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/05/08/california-cash-deficit-10-billion-what-surplus-what-balanced-budget/[/URL]

[QUOTE=DonB;439886]Not only is your opinion based on a false premise but you can't even get a quote right. It was George Wallace not Waylon Jennings.

Don B..[/QUOTE]I stand corrected, it was George Wallace.

I just happened to remember an article about Waylon Jennings, here's the quote.

As we headed west on I-70, Waylon turned to me, grinned and said, "Man, what are you doing working for these assholes?

"Huh? We don't want the Republicans to take over the country again, do we?

"Son, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the lot of them. " Jennings was right, naturally. But I'm a slow learner and it took me another decade to figure that one out on my own.

Aside from that, what opinion, what false premise??

I don't recall which crusty old west Texas sheriff said it about politicians:

"Hell son, a politician is just a cut above a child molester".

Nuf said.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439896]I guess the next thing you will be telling us is the United States does not have a deficit!

Welcome to reality, read the link and tell me California has a surplus and not a deficit and a very big one.

[URL]http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/05/08/california-cash-deficit-10-billion-what-surplus-what-balanced-budget/[/URL][/QUOTE]Except for a few minor exceptions like North Dakota (which is too small to matter in national statistics) almost all new job growth in the USA in the private sector in the last 2 years has been in Texas and California. There seems to be a whole cottage industry of bloggers telling us that the California model needs to fail. The logic is simple. If taxes matter then high tax states should not be successful.

Despite the taxes, rich people seem to want to live in California. New businesses like private space exploration (SpaceX) and electric vehicles (Tesla) have located in California. Of course, California has a large share of the Internet and Gaming industries. Foreign Direct Investment especially from Asia tends to land in California for geographic reasons. China has done 220 deals in California compared to 70 deals in Texas over the last decade. The enrollment in the University of California is 30% Asian. The University of Southern California has the highest enrollment of Chinese nationals in the country.

These new businesses tend to have high revenue per employee which is causing income inequality problems in California. Facebook is a successful new company but it still only employs 2000 people. The Toyota marketing division moving from California to Texas is 2000 people alone. BTW, Rick Perry was in California this week trying to get Tesla to relocate. Let's see if he is successful.

California versus Texas is a good healthy rivalry. Competition makes you better.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439887]BBS would that be the People's Republic of California whose current state deficit is greater than most countries, whose legal population is moving east in droves as well as businesses?[/QUOTE]

I was riding in an airport shuttle in Vientiane, and I ask the friendly Laotian face, "what's going on?" He reply, "you from LA?" And I ask, "how you know?" He said, "you speak California English." and then sang.

Welcome to Hotel California.
Such a lovely place(such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of the year(any time of the year) you can find it here

Aaah man, California! Mucho gusto! Hollywood, Susalito, Santa Barbara, La Jolla, Napa Valley, Rose Parade, Disneyland, surf, porn, bulgogi & bimbimbab, mariachi, in & out, Santa Anita, oh, I better quit before I spasz out.

Homeowners have been able to refinance their mortgages to take advantage of low interest rates. It seems fair students should be able to refinance their student loans as well. This would benefit nearly 40 million individuals with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt.

Millionaires and billionaires who benefit from lower capital gains taxes often end up with effective tax rates around 15%, a lower rate than many in the middle class. It seems fair to end this unnecessary and wasteful special treatment, and introduce a minimum tax rate that corresponds to their high incomes (for example, 30%).

These two elements were in the bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.) that was voted on last week. The tax revenue would offset the lower interest payments the government would receive on student loans, so the bill would not increase the deficit. This should have been a no-brainer. Not just from a moral perspective but an economic one as well. Unlike the income of the ultra-wealthy, the savings that students would realize would almost entirely be re-circulated back into the economy.

Unfortunately, the bill was blocked with 56 votes in favor and 38 against. 60 votes were needed to move it forward. Aside from the three Republicans who supported Warren, the GOP showed who they really work for.

In Student Debt Fight, Billionaires Win
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/06/11/in-student-debt-fight-billionaires-win/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;439923]Homeowners have been able to refinance their mortgages to take advantage of low interest rates. It seems fair students should be able to refinance their student loans as well. This would benefit nearly 40 million individuals with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt.

Millionaires and billionaires who benefit from lower capital gains taxes often end up with effective tax rates around 15%, a lower rate than many in the middle class. It seems fair to end this unnecessary and wasteful special treatment, and introduce a minimum tax rate that corresponds to their high incomes (for example, 30%).

These two elements were in the bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.) that was voted on last week. The tax revenue would offset the lower interest payments the government would receive on student loans, so the bill would not increase the deficit. This should have been a no-brainer. Not just from a moral perspective but an economic one as well. Unlike the income of the ultra-wealthy, the savings that students would realize would almost entirely be re-circulated back into the economy.

Unfortunately, the bill was blocked with 56 votes in favor and 38 against. 60 votes were needed to move it forward. Aside from the three Republicans who supported Warren, the GOP showed who they really work for.

In Student Debt Fight, Billionaires Win
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/06/11/in-student-debt-fight-billionaires-win/[/URL][/QUOTE]Classic Esten. Classic Democrat deception.

Obama raised the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 23.8% and re-implemented the Pease amendment. The end result, if someone sells out and generates a lot of income from capital gains, he'll be paying 23% federal tax, not 15%. Add state income taxes and the rate would be as high as 34.4% (California).

Government needs to wise up about the way it promotes education. Easy money provided by student loans causes some people to go to college who would be better off doing something else. The easy money also caused universities to jack up tuition rates to ridiculous levels. And then there are certain "for profit" institutions that scam students and the government out of billions of dollars a year for worthless educations.

College graduates make more money than others. So this is a subsidy for the middle class, upper middle class and wealthy. Which is the way the Democrat party operates. Don't target help towards people who really need it. Instead pass out free money that will get more votes. And, most importantly, use every opportunity to play the class envy card and blame it all on the rich, because that gets votes too. Warren knew the bill wouldn't pass. If she wanted to do something constructive she would have compromised and come up with something that 3 more Republicans would have voted for.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439693]I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.

Tres3.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/13/money_buys_happiness_three_quick_lessons_about_life_satisfaction_in_america.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439925]Obama raised the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 23.8% and re-implemented the Pease amendment. The end result, if someone sells out and generates a lot of income from capital gains, he'll be paying 23% federal tax, not 15%. Add state income taxes and the rate would be as high as 34.4% (California).[/QUOTE]Yes capital gains rates recently went up a few percent. Thanks for the reminder. While I overlooked that, it really doesn't change the argument one bit. State income tax is also as low as 0%, but has nothing to do with the argument or Elizabeth Warren's bill.

I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%. And I'm sure most students would say it's unfair they cannot refinance their loans while homeowners can.

Tiny apparantly fails to appreciate the economic benefit of redistributive bills like Warren's. While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments. Isn't it interesting that after Obama raised taxes for high incomes just a few percent, both the deficit and the unemployment rate have come down? Funny how that works, huh. We need more of that, and millionaires and billionaires should be paying at least a 39.6% rate, not 23%.

Tiny is a classic Wall Street shill, trying to portray the top 1% as overtaxed, while the truth is the top 1% keep amassing a greater and greater portion of the American economic pie. Some estimates put their share at 40% of all wealth, and that number keeps growing.

Wealth Inequality Is MUCH Worse Than You Realize
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;439932]
Tiny apparantly fails to appreciate the economic benefit of redistributive bills like Warren's. While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments. Isn't it interesting that after Obama raised taxes for high incomes just a few percent, both the deficit and the unemployment rate have come down? Funny how that works, huh. We need more of that, and millionaires and billionaires should be paying at least a 39.6% rate, not 23%.
[/QUOTE]So the 1 million jobs created by the evil fracking industry and the great wealth created from the jobs, royalties, product sales, etc. , has nothing to do with the deficit falling? And the increased capital gains from the government propping up the stock market has nothing to do the decreased deficit?

The fact that the unemployment rate falls as benefits expire has nothing to do with the unemployment rate falling? Extend unemployment benefits to 5 years and you will be back to over 10% unemployment within 1 quarter. Labor participation rate is at a 40 year low, but unemployment is falling?

Pesky facts.

[QUOTE=Esten;439932]Yes capital gains rates recently went up a few percent. Thanks for the reminder. While I overlooked that, it really doesn't change the argument one bit. [/QUOTE]0.238/0.15 - 1 = 59%. The federal rate on long term capital gains went up 59%, from 15% to 23.8%.

[QUOTE=Esten;439932] I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%.[/QUOTE]Billionaires pay 43.4% federal tax on all their income except long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Add state income tax and the rate is as high as 54% (California). With Tres' post (above) in mind, I'm assuming that billionaires make so much money their marginal rates about equal their effective rates.

[QUOTE=Esten;439932] Tiny is a classic Wall Street shill[/QUOTE]You're the one that defended the Obama / Bush bale out of Wall Street, not me. Your party (Democrat) has been bought off by Wall Street, not mine (Libertarian).

[QUOTE=Esten;439932] trying to portray the top 1% as overtaxed, while the truth is the top 1% keep amassing a greater and greater portion of the American economic pie. [/QUOTE]The top 1% receives 18.7% of income but pays 37% of federal income taxes:

[URL]http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-where-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html[/URL]

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. Please note this uses data before Obama increased taxes on the top 5% of taxpayers. The contrast would be even more stark now:

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;439932]Wealth Inequality Is MUCH Worse Than You Realize
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3[/URL] [/QUOTE]The level of wealth held by the poor and middle class is a very real problem. Instead of obsessing on screwing the 1%, Democrats should be thinking about how to get people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to save and invest. And how to improve the economy in ways that will create more jobs and increase wages.

[QUOTE=Esten;439932]While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments.[/QUOTE]

Do you even see the irony? You highlight wealth inequality. But you seem to want people to spend all their disposable income, so they have no wealth, thinking that consumption is the only thing that drives the economy. If most of income goes towards consumption and paying taxes, then we won't have sufficient after-tax profits, savings pools and equity investments to start new businesses and grow old ones. The economy will stagnate.

That may work well for Democrat party elites though. As long as people spend everything they make and depend on handouts provided by the party, that means more Democrat voters.

[QUOTE=Esten;439932]
I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%.
[/QUOTE]Once again you try to obfuscate the issue by comparing apples to oranges. You do not tell us what the MARGINAL rate is for billionaires, you only tell us the EFFECTIVE rate. At the same time you do not tell us the EFFECTIVE rate of higher earners, you only tell us the MARGINAL rate. Why do you not compare apples to apples for a change? I am not a billionaire. I am one of your "higher earners". In 2014 I had an effective rate of less than 20%, but a marginal rate of more than 40%.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;439933]So the 1 million jobs created by the evil fracking industry and the great wealth created from the jobs, royalties, product sales, etc. , has nothing to do with the deficit falling? And the increased capital gains from the government propping up the stock market has nothing to do the decreased deficit?[/QUOTE]This reminds me of the earlier discussion about the role of government and high tax rates in the post-WWII economic expansion. I never said or implied that the private sector did not play a role. Of course it played a huge role, just as it does today. But some people seem to think if I don't mention the private sector, I'm giving all the credit to the government. That's not the case. I'm simply pointing out the positive role of the government and government policy. In addition to Dccpa's misguided argument, I never called the fracking industry evil either.

My points about the post-WWII economic expansion and the situation today are the same:
(i) High tax rates on the wealthy do not interfere with economic growth;
(ii) High tax rates enable greater deficit reduction and government spending; and
(iii) Government spending stimulates the economy.

[QUOTE=Esten;439955]This reminds me of the earlier discussion about the role of government and high tax rates in the post-WWII economic expansion. I never said or implied that the private sector did not play a role. Of course it played a huge role, just as it does today. But some people seem to think if I don't mention the private sector, I'm giving all the credit to the government. That's not the case. I'm simply pointing out the positive role of the government and government policy. In addition to Dccpa's misguided argument, I never called the fracking industry evil either.

My points about the post-WWII economic expansion and the situation today are the same:
(i) High tax rates on the wealthy do not interfere with economic growth;
(ii) High tax rates enable greater deficit reduction and government spending; and
(iii) Government spending stimulates the economy.[/QUOTE]You call my facts a misguided argument and then you list 3 Keynsian fallacies.

The post WW2 growth was due to pent up demand. During the war, there wasn't much to buy as factories were diverted to the war effort. Everyone was buying war bonds. Once the war was over, the pent up demand drove growth for several years. Come on Esten, you can do better than that.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;439958]You call my facts a misguided argument and then you list 3 Keynsian fallacies.

The post WW2 growth was due to pent up demand. During the war, there wasn't much to buy as factories were diverted to the war effort. Everyone was buying war bonds. Once the war was over, the pent up demand drove growth for several years. Come on Esten, you can do better than that.[/QUOTE]Esten maintains that economic growth and employment participation are most strongly correlated with tax rates on the top 1% or 2% of the population. If you point out factors that actually are correlated with economic growth and employment, like growth of the energy sector, wars, interest rates, and unemployment benefits, he tells you you're misguided.

Does Esten actually believe this? Does he actually believe government can take enough away from 1% or 2% of the population to pay for universal health care, unlimited unemployment benefits, unfunded social security, a balanced budget, etc.? My guess is no. He just realizes it's a good argument for Democrats to get votes from LIV's.

Throughout the developed world, you will find a strong, long-term correlation between government expenditures as a % of GDP and the rate of growth of GDP. Long term, higher government expenditures correlate with lower economic growth and higher unemployment rates. In the USA, the size of government has grown dramatically since World War II, and the GDP growth rate has dropped accordingly. There were other factors at play too. The tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was not one of them.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439934]0.238/0.15 - 1 = 59%. The federal rate on long term capital gains went up 59%, from 15% to 23.8%.[/QUOTE]LOL! Calculations like this just show how desperate you are to attempt to show how highly taxed the rich are. That 23.8% is still lower than what many other people pay (whether marginal or effective) who have lower incomes. Why should the very rich be allowed such tax breaks?

[QUOTE]You're the one that defended the Obama / Bush bale out of Wall Street, not me. Your party (Democrat) has been bought off by Wall Street, not mine (Libertarian).[/QUOTE]That bailout was needed just as much for Main Street as Wall Street. If Democrats have been bought off by Wall Street, why are Democrats the most likely party to regulate Wall Street and raise their taxes?

[QUOTE]The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. [/QUOTE]Except for the part where the very rich benefit from lower tax rates on financial "investments" (typically non-job creating), and end up with effective tax rates far lower than top marginal rates. Let's try a Tiny-like calculation: they pay 23.8% but should be paying at least 39.6%, so that's a 40% tax break.

[QUOTE]The level of wealth held by the poor and middle class is a very real problem. Instead of obsessing on screwing the 1%, Democrats should be thinking about how to get people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to save and invest. And how to improve the economy in ways that will create more jobs and increase wages.[/QUOTE]It's about moral and sound economic policy, not about screwing anyone. Ask rich Democrats. Your approach of "let the free market work" is no longer delivering an equitable distribution of prosperity, as evidenced by the numerous statistics on growing income and wealth inequality. I do not see any way to reverse this trend other than government intervention.

[QUOTE=Esten;439969]LOL! Calculations like this just show how desperate you are to attempt to show how highly taxed the rich are. That 23.8% is still lower than what many other people pay (whether marginal or effective) who have lower incomes. Why should the very rich be allowed such tax breaks? Except for the part where the very rich benefit from lower tax rates on financial "investments" (typically non-job creating), and end up with effective tax rates far lower than top marginal rates. Let's try a Tiny-like calculation: they pay 23.8% but should be paying at least 39.6%, so that's a 40% tax break.[/QUOTE]The very rich pay 43.4% marginal federal tax rate on all their income except long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Add state income tax and the rate is as high as 54% (California). The long term capital gains tax rate for most Americans is 0% or 15%, which is lower than 23.8% paid by the very rich. Many of the "very rich" who pay the 23.8% rate don't do it year in and year out, for example a person who sells a business he's spent a lifetime creating.

The top 1% of taxpayers receives 18.7% of income but pays 37% of federal income taxes.

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

You're saying financial investments don't create jobs? That's nuts. Take away all the depositors' money from the banks and eliminate corporate bonds and see what happens to the jobs market. The maximum marginal tax rate on interest income is 43.4% by the way, not 23.8%

Apologies to Tres, I've assumed the marginal rate = effective rate to simplify. And failed to note the maximum marginal rate on salary income is slightly less than 43.4%.

Is this beginning to sound repetitive?

[QUOTE=Esten;439969]It's about and sound economic policy, not about screwing anyone. Ask rich Democrats. Your approach of "let the free market work" is no longer delivering an equitable distribution of prosperity, as evidenced by the numerous statistics on growing income and wealth inequality. I do not see any way to reverse this trend other than government intervention.[/QUOTE]Rich Democrats like trial lawyers? Hedge fund managers who get carried interest? Wealthy farmers and alternative energy moguls who get government handouts?

There have been studies conducted by psychologists, where they test the proposition that people would prefer to have less, as long as they have more than their neighbors. That's true, people do feel that way, and it's related to the reason why the majority of Americans agree with you.