HOW DO YOU BREAK DOWN $13.5 TRILLION TOTAL U.S. INCOME...FAIRLY?

[Nasty Jack]

Okay, so I'm a Democratic Socialist who believes in spreading the wealth. Apparently I and that philosophy have failed miserably when a man can work for the U.S. Senate, earn only $360 a week, and is homeless. We're not in a 3rd -world country and this is taking place on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, a symbol of equality for all. So much for symbols and so much for the founders of this country who couldn't possibly have imagined this would happen. Why is it the norm to neglect others on your way to being successful and wealthy? So here's my solution to the whole mess. Total annual U.S. income is around $13.5 trillion. There are 116.7 million households in this country. If my math is correct, that is $114,000 for each family. I can hear the mansion and yacht folks screaming now but I can also see the smiles on those kids' faces who haven't eaten in a couple of days.

http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com/

[guillaumeb]

1. But we have to reward the job creators.

Like the Walton heirs who are worth more than the combined wealth of the bottom 40% of Americans.

Plus how would the rich capitalists buy politicians with only $114,000 a year?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. GDP is not income.

[Yupster]

3. Would you like each household to get 114,000

whether anyone in the family worked or not?

If that happened we would quickly starve to death as most everyone would decide not to work.

[hedgehog]

7. Many people build their lives around work - I think they'd still work

Others may work if they get better working conditions.

[Yupster]

9. This is the communist dream that I believed in when I went to college in the late 70's

Capitalist Man only works for his own benefit, but Communist Man is more evolved and works for the benefit of all mankind.

In practicality, Communist Man is yet to evolve and that's when the bayonets come out forcing people to work so the nation doesn't starve.

Even if you're right and many people would continue to work just because they like to, a death spiral results. Those workers feel like saps as they see non-workers get the same as they do. Each year more and more workers quit until the people starve and the bayonets are needed to force people to work. At that point, the productive workers will leave the country in disgust.

That spawned the debate of the 1920's of whether you can have communism in one nation or does it have to be worldwide? The point being can you have a true communist economy if the productive people have anywhere to run to? Stalin won the debate saying yes, you can as long as you keep those workers from leaving and use force to make them work.

Alas, rather than the state withering away to die, the state becomes a tyrant. As the Soviet saying went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

It's a good dream though. I had the same one 40 years ago when The USSR looked so string and the US looked so weak. It's only once I went into the job market that I understood how impractical it was.

Maybe someday.

[Psephos]

13. Your wise post reminds me of an old saying.

In theory, there's no divide between theory and practice.

In practice, there is.

[BainsBane]

14. It communist societies, everyone works

There is no such thing as sitting around collecting a salary. Everyone works and receives enough to get by, medical care, housing, and adequate but not generous food supplies. That's it. The lifestyle is far less than $114k.

I don't know about the pretending to work. I don't think that's how it goes in Cuba. Certainly all societies have a lot of work to be done, but the emphasis isn't on efficiency as it is under capitalism.

At any rate, people here aren't imagining a communist system. They are imagining comfort and privilege that they don't have to work for. It's self-indulgent and there is nothing principled about it.

[Abouttime]

12. Estate tax

Redistribution could easily be implemented through a very high estate tax, say 80-90%, and a once a decade wealth tax of 15%. This would transform our economy within a generation.
The rich could easily give up 15% of their assets once a decade, it wouldn't hurt them anymore than a small correction in the stock markets. The estate tax is a no-brainer, once you die you have no use for wealth, the wealth in estates should be used for the good of the whole society not for the lucky few who won the genetic lottery.

[Nasty Jack]

10. Pessimism

Fortunately, everyone isn't the pessimist you are.

[Initech]

4. $13.1 trillion to the military industrial complex, $.4 trillion to everyone else.

That's the way we currently do it.

[DFW]

5. A version of forced asset redistribution was tried around 80 years ago where I live

It was called Enteignung. The seized wealth was redistributed by and for--surprise!--the redistributors. The redistributors turned out to have a somewhat less-than-benevolent agenda, It did not turn out well.

[newthinking]

6. The best method seems to be very progressive taxation and estate tax.

of course it will take a lot more suffering for the little guy before we ever move back to those levels.

[hedgehog]

8. I'd throw in a raise for Social Security as well.

[Zippyjuan]

11. why does anybody need that much money?

lol at $114,000. I'd settle for five figures well under that. Why does anybody need that much money, let alone millions of dollars? You see these 3,000 square foot houses and people with two cars. You can only drive one car at a time. Taxes for the wealthy are a joke. People are going hungry in America, but people sip their wine and ignore it. Something has to change but politicians have no will to do it. At least over here. Communism did not die. Look at Cuba, now with their tourism. Russia was actually better off with Communism than now. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The beat goes on.

[BainsBane]

15. They don't

In fact, that qualifies as more than the upper 20 percent of household income in the US. It is, in terms of wealth distribution, upper-middle class.



http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2014/10/02/incomes-are-much-lower-than-you-think/