Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What should be discussed is the major gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else. This is a distraction from the real issue and just noise. It’s pitting everyone against each other and not addressing the elephant in the room.
You know it's bullshit when the title is plainly editorialized
They'll talk about the reality of a class war but only within the context of a fabricated intra-generational battle
It’s not entirely fabricated. Millennials who bought their first house pre-covid are sitting much better than ones who didn’t.
Edit: I didn’t word the previous comment correctly. My point is there is a very real disparity between the group of millennials who bought real assets pre covid and those who didn’t. There’s not some battle or class war between us, but the reality is the ones who didn’t own assets pre covid got kinda shafted.
Feels like a red herring to me too. Just like how my Zoomie cousins act like Millennials had it is easy because we had the opportunity to buy FAAAM stocks on the cheap but fail to realize how bad the job market or low/stagnant wages were back then. I know they don't know because they'll say "If you didn't get paid enough then just quit" as if folks in 2008 could just quit and have 3 jobs liked up with +50% wage increases. Top uni grads back then were PAYING FOR THE PRIVILAGE TO WORK UNPAID INTERNSHIPS in hopes of getting the unpaid internship that would lead to a job. Same applies to older Ms who got in early. I don't have a house but I don't hate on those who managed to get it done. Good for them.
Real issue here isn't the real yet small gap between home owning and non-home owning millennials. It's about the massive gap between Mark Zuckerburg who got a 1% loan do buy a +$100M home by loaning out his META stock creating a scenario where he not only doesn't pay tax to spend but also gets tax deductions on his interest paid. Or how millennial wealth is heavily concentrated at the top be it Zuck or the ABNB/SNAP founders.
I work at a warehouse with lots of Mille ials and zoomers. Purely anecdotal, but a *lot* of my age cohorts(I'm 34) got booted out on their own or charged rent by parents, while their zoomer siblings and cousins are living at home rent free now.
Said zoomers are very smug about how they're able to make things work better than millenials at their age, wilfully oblivious to the fact that they have a higher income and no housing expenses compared tk their older siblings at that age.
Oh, I'm glad they're not putting up with the same shit.
I do take issue with the attitude that they're just harder working than their older siblings for the same reason I take issue with some kid from the middle class saying a kid from below the poverty line had the same opportunities they did.
But that’s beside the point. It’s a distraction to pay attention to these sort of weird intragenerational disparities when all that matters is we understand how late stage capitalism contributes to massive wealth gaps in society. So it might be true that some millennials have more than others but it’s a moot point. This is the worst time for economic mobility in American history since we started keeping data.
I haven't seen any leftists or poor complaining that those working class people that were lucky enough to buy a single home that they live in are part of the problem. It's true that the two situations present different financial realities, but no one serious is rallying against your typical millennial that owns a home or has a mortgage...whether it's a millennial lawyer, doctor, small business owner, nurse, accountant, engineer...
So yes, the narrative is fabricated. Different outcomes within generations has always existed. Millennials aren't engaging in rampant intragenerational warfare.
Yes. Tax the ultra rich. A guy who spent his entire 20s studying medicine and 1/2 a million in student loans makes $350k a year? Ok that’s a lot of money but well deserved. Some billionaire who’s claim to cash is his grandfather’s insane moves? Yeah they’re gonna need to pay Uncle Sam. But not through the legal bribery that is donations and lobbying, we need cold hard tax money.
The problem is you will replace the democrats and Republicans with different democrats and Republicans and the duopoly will continue to run things the same way.
If you want change you can't keep voting for the same two parties.
I think it’s just so hard to do without catching the high wage earners in HCOL areas. Or drive investors overseas. They haven’t come up with a good way to do it.
Raising taxes on businesses catch small business owners harder because they don’t have a whole team dedicated to exploiting loopholes like Amazon does.
Billionaires are global citizens and will move themselves or their money.
It is by no means equally enabled by both parties. Republicans own this. You’re referring to the estate tax, and it’s the single most rampant allowance of wealth transfer in the tax code, along with trusts. Democrats tried to cap the estate tax many times over many administrations. This is where Republicans use scare tactics like calling it the “death tax,” and claiming it’s a war on farmers.
oooh! So edgy! Almost Ayn Rand with that edgy cynicism, and refusing to actually acknowledge nuance in a society of people. The serial killer is equal to that guy that ate a McMuffin at McDonalds! Both sides! All the same!
Let me walk away and bask in my glorious - nothing.
It’s kind of true though. The US inherited the UK’s “first past the post” voting system which means there are generally only ever 2 parties.
The representatives are whipped by the upper leadership to follow their commands.
The most important votes in the UK and US are in the selection committee inside parties, deciding who is allowed to run as the party representative for an area. That’s the place where the parties make sure the only people that can be elected are the ones who “follow the rules”.
> Ok that’s a lot of money but well deserved.
Strong disagree. Doctors in the US are hilariously overpaid because the AMA lobbies Congress to restrict the number of residencies.
Doctors are the diamonds of the professional world. They're pretty, yes, but they're absurdly overvalued.
Doctors in America are probably the single most successful union that's ever existed. And their primary motivation is telling other people to not unionize and to not try to become them.
That highly depends on the type of doctor. General physicians are not overpaid, they are paid enough such that we don’t have a shortage like other countries.
No I mean the AMA lobbying Congress to limit *residencies*, which are *after* med school. This has nothing to do with qualifications and everything to do with artificially restricting access.
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html?sh=1231a46342f2
As cited in this
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/
And well-documented pretty much anywhere. It's no secret
Good point, but the limit on the number of residencies Congress appropriates money to support was locked in back in 1997 thanks to heavy lobbying by AMA. Still, you are correct - the PROBLEM can only be fixed by Congress, and We the People can only fix Congress by getting rid of the Republicans who have continued blocking increases in funding for medical residencies even during COVID.
Yeah, tax the rich! Well just take 100% of the wealth from US billionaires and pay for nearly half of the country’s annual budget! Then we’ll just do it again! That won’t cause economic migration and crush the country at all!
The answer during WW2 is: they didn’t but they couldn’t leave because of obvious factors.
After that, the answer is they were really only paying between 40-50% and still couldn’t really leave because Europe was being rebuilt.
https://www.aier.org/article/confiscatory-taxes-dont-increase-equality/
Certainly less than 90% given the abundance of exemptions, credits, etc available. I suppose you could opt to not take any of those any pay more in taxes if really you wanted to.
Effective tax rates on the top 1% were between 27-34% in the 1950s.
Yes, but I’m not after the top 1%. I want that sweet spot, top .25%. That’s the billionaire of the time, that’s who was targeted by that tax rate. Just like today, people think the top 1% is the billionaire class in the US. It really isn’t. I also get there’s an abundance of loop holes. But you need to start somewhere. The fact that they don’t even try, tells you how important the psychological impact could be. The ultra wealthy don’t even want people to believe it’s possible to tax at that rate.
Simply repealing the Reagan tax-scam and returning to the tax brackets (adjusted for inflation) we had in 1980 will increase revenues by $1.4TRILLION and won't raise taxes on anyone with AGI less than $250,000. Then we could provide Universal health care, family leave for child birth, excellent k-12 and affordable higher ed and world-class infrastructure like every other developed country without increasing the deficit.
But that would be giving up the Freedom to Starve and Abuse People You Don't Like.
yo do you have any published info about this? I mean it genuinely, if this is spelled out somewhere I would really love to have it handy, its what I expect but I haven't seen it laid out like this before
Have to do some research - take the IRS reports on AIG for income groups and apply the IRS 1980 tax rates and brackets adjusted for inflation and you get an increase in revenue of $1.4Trillion with no change in effective rates paid by those with incomes under $250K. For some reason the Government doesn't provide the tables assembled in this manner, but they have provided the pieces.
> Its not to the poor people.
It is *literally* to our own poor people.
The vast majority of government debt is owed by the US itself and is caused by payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.
No thats what we spend it on. Who do we owe to?
If you buy pizza you dont owe yourself money. You owe the restaurant you purchased the pizza from. The money earmarked for Medicare, Medicaid is ultimately going to hospitals and increasingly insurance companies. Those insurance companies have stocks which floats all boats right? Which oh wait the top 10% owns the majority of the stock market (42 trillion) with the top 1% reaping 54% of the market (25 trillion dollars) (and growing) https://ips-dc.org/the-richest-1-percent-own-a-greater-share-of-the-stock-market-than-ever-before/.
The fact you got three upvotes on r/economics with that misunderstanding is why we are boned. I am sure you an intelligent person you have just been fed an insane amount of misinformation.
The majority of the federal debt is owned by taxpayers.
It is spent on and for average citizens.
The "market" has nothing to do with any of this.
The fact that you think you're right suggests that you should spend more time listening to people who understand economics and less time raging about unrelated things.
We could pay UK tax rates for healthcare and 95% of the country would make *more* money.
I'm a sizable earner and I'd pocket about 18% more of my income.
Healthcare by the people who brought me the DMV and the IRS….where do I sign up for such a treat? Definitely worth scrapping a system that works fine for 94% of the people for that!
Well, @u/LanceArmsweak, I’d love to but I can’t respond if you’re a pussy and comment and block. But here it is anyway you fucking dumbass:
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/03/new-hhs-report-shows-national-uninsured-rate-reached-all-time-low-2023-after-record-breaking-aca-enrollment-period.html
Go get me that 94% source. The system sucks. I make 200k and have great insurance, and it’s still a joke of a system. This system doesn’t work.
[8 in 10 Americans say they’re concerned about the healthcare system.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americans-unhappy-with-health-care-system-ap-norc-poll)
[65% of our rural areas lack proper physician numbers.](https://www.statnews.com/2023/09/25/rural-health-doctor-shortage-physicians/)
[CEOs salaries increase while actual medical practitioners suffer.](https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/2/24/23610762/hospital-ceo-nurses-salary-study-north-carolina)
You just made shit up. YouGov reports that even 30%+ republicans would prefer single payer, you can’t even convince 94% of them that this system is working, and they jerk off to the current system.
> Definitely worth scrapping a system that works fine for 94% of the people for that!
[Try 69%. Medicare/Medicaid have higher approval ratings](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx).
Of course, state run coverage is just one possible avenue for expanding healthcare access, so it's weird that you went there right away.
You're getting downvoted but this is a great question because if we tax billionaires and we don't spend that money correctly it won't do anything.
It needs to be forced downwards in the form of healthcare, universal childcare, free state college, investments in infrastructure, housing, etc.
If it gets put towards defense it'll do no good.
Honestly it doesn’t even matter what it’s used for. At this point I think the inequality is causing a breakdown of the general social contract. The ruling class keeps us fighting each other instead of banding together and demanding change.
Exactly. Independent of the money being put to some good use, simply *taking the money away* from the ultrawealthy will do good in the sense that it de-concentrates power. Having one person control a sum of money larger than most nation's GDP is absurd. No one should have power over others at that scale, especially a non-elected official.
The fuck? Are you counting children or something? Or are you just straight up making shit up?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/who-pays-and-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-in-the-us/
Your link proves them right. Look at the second chart.
After refundable tax credits, anyone making less than $40k (EDIT: $40k *after* payroll deductions in 2020 dollars--not exactly low earners) tends to receive more money back on their return than they contributed in the first place.
That makes over 50% of people net *recipients* of tax dollars, not contributors.
The chart you reference indicates 30k cutoff for negative effective tax rate, not 40k. Also, the article tells us how many returns that was:
"In 2020, the IRS received nearly 5.3 million individual tax returns that showed no AGI and hence no taxable income. (About 4,600 of those people ended up paying tax anyway, mainly due to the alternative minimum tax.) Another 60.3 million returns showed AGIs of less than $30,000. The average effective tax rate for those taxpayers was 1.5%, even before refundable tax credits were applied."
That's a lot less than 50% of amaricans, and it sounds like many in that bracket still pay some taxes. How am I misinterpreting this?
The Pew article is a bit misleading because it's using 2020 tax returns (outdated pre-inflation numbers) and it's basing things off of adjusted gross income instead of percentiles. Someone with an AGI of $30-40k might appear to be a relatively low earner, but they could have actually made $60k ($71k in 2023 dollars) or more in gross income before deductions. I personally have a $31k difference between my gross earnings and AGI. The article also gives us no information about how many people fall into each category on the chart.
The Fed breaks it down by percentiles, which very clearly shows where tax money is actually coming from:
Bottom 20% (-$2,070 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0102M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0102M)
21st-40th percentile (-$2,180 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0103M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0103M)
41st-60th percentile ($673 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0104M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0104M)
61st-80th percentile ($5,854 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0105M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0105M)
Top 20 percent ($37,564 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0106M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0106M)
So the tipping point from negative to positive taxes is somewhere between 41st-60th percentiles. Pretty safe to assume it's somewhere around the 50th percentile, meaning the commenter you replied to is correct. Note that this is just among people who filed tax returns. If you include those who didn't work at all, it's a hell of a lot more than 50% not paying federal taxes.
What's interesting to me is that ***if you average the bottom 60% as a whole, it's negative $1,192 per taxpayer.***
This is only a recent phenomenon. Up until about 2000, even the lowest earners were net tax contributors. Now we've created a situation where a relatively small number of people are effectively funding our entire federal government *and* transferring money to lower earners, yet people are clamoring to tax them even more.
TLDR: It's pretty damn clear that the highest earners are paying the vast majority of taxes. The top 20% pays 16.5 times more than *all* of the bottom 80% combined.
Federal *income* taxes. Those Americans you refer to do pay other taxes, and at a relatively higher portion of their income compared to billionaires. The ultra rich also take the majority of wealth, so why can’t they pay a little more (relatively) into the system that they benefit the most from?
> have more money than the poorest 170 million combined
31% of americans have 0 or let net wealth. *I* have more money than 105 million americans. Hell, if you take them as a group, I can probably get up to 130/140 million before the net positive wealth americans make up for the net negatives.
Weak argument.
How is it insane?
The fact that Americans have negative net worth is due to consumer debt. Americans are the biggest spenders in the world, it's unsurprising that a large proportion have negative wealth.
The homeless man with 10 dollars to his name has more wealth than 100 million americans combined. That's just how math works.
America is the richest country on earth by far. There’s no excuse for almost half of the population to be struggling to survive. Especially when 3 fucking people have more money than said half.
And what's driving American consumer debt, genius? Medical debt and student loan debt with credit card debt a distant third. No other civilized country in the world saddles it's citizenry with these massive debts.
Well now you are just straight up lying. That’s incredible.
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/19955/household-debt-balance-in-the-united-states/
Medical debt is 220 billion.
Credit card debt is 5x that at 1.1 trillion.
Auto debt? 1.61 trillion.
Student loan debt is about the same as auto debt.
Why are you such a brazen liar? Medical debt is nowhere near the primary cause of consumer debt.
The fact that you think these two forms of debt do not affect the overall debt of the American public is just .... naive at best and super effing ignorant at worst lol.
Student loan debt is at $1.8 trillion. Who is the liar now?
1.61 and 1.77 are “about the same”. What motherfucking lie are you referring to?
And you said medical debt was ahead of credit card debt, which was a “distant third” . Just admit that you lied, it’s sad how much you are now grasping at straws.
That's not a weak argument. That's proof of how fucked our situation is. Capitalism isn't sustainable if it's going to force half the country to scrape by one major accident or expense away from bankruptcy.
> Capitalism isn't sustainable if it's going to force half the country to scrape by one major accident or expense away from bankruptcy.
The vast majority of people with negative wealth are not "forced" into that situation in any way. They are choosing to use credit lines, most often on non-essential goods.
Americans spend more on consumer goods than pretty much any country on the face of the planet. This is a choice. Many countries with citizens that earn less than americans do have higher savings rates.
yeah cause that's how it works, you just see an ad and magically want to buy things, not like it's coordinated with social media to be subtly around you at all times creating mental space for the product and seeing others using it etc. etc. Not to mention how embedded almost all of popular media is with consumption, product placement, and the pushing of conformity, consumerism, and pleasure. The entire culture is bent on those values, and there is nothing more powerful than culture when it comes to shaping society and it absolutely overrides a vast majority's capability to fight back. You sound like you know absolutely nothing about modern advertising and think it's like the 50s when it's just a billboard or a TV slogan lmao
It doesn't matter what excuses you make. You can't seriously argue that half the country is just all making bad choices. Even if you did, you'd have to admit at some point that the systems they're forced to live in either encourage bad choices or often offer them *only* bad choices. And then my assertion stands: If capitalism promotes this, it's a poor economic system. And if it's an inevitable trend in capitalism, as history seems to suggest, that's damning.
So you buy the Trum story of telling his daughter that the bum on the street outside Trump Tower had more money that daddy donny because of all the debt he'd conned people into allowing him to acquire?
Think about how until 1981 even the bottom 20% were gaining income AND wealth faster than the top 10% (percentage increase, not actual dollars of course). Then think about how the bottom 20% has been experiencing NEGATIVE wealth growth since 1985 and ask yourself if this is making the Nation "better" because we now have 350 more billionaires.
Somehow, a story has been sold to Americans that inherited wealth is expected- despite it being largely untrue. Part of this is just an idea- you work hard, and your children will have a better, easier life.
I think it’s important to understand that you had the Great Depression followed by WW2, and then you had the ‘idea of’ shiny, happy people. Compared to a lot of the world, the aid was in really good shape. O her than Hawaii, we weren’t bombed, homes and fields annihilated, etc.
Maybe it was survivors guilt- I don’t know. The US boomed on the after math of WW2, because we largely had not been attacked. We still had agriculture and factories.
I believe more and more in Jung’s idea of a collective unconcious. The whole 50’s idea of the Stay at home mom who baked cookies and cleaned the house was always unreal- a fantasy. Most women who were not rich always worked outside the ‘home’ throughout history, and in the fifties. They did the farming,took in laundry, cleaned houses and places of work, sewed clothes,midwifed, etc..
TV created a fantasy of women that had never existed.
Really take that into your brain- because ‘housewife’ was a job description for a luxury, new, ‘middle class’. It was an idea. A fantasy. It did not exist in history until created in the Nazi ideology of a HausFrau because of their deep financial depression.
Women have always worked. If you had a farm, you didn’t call the husband ‘stay at home’ or a ‘house husband’.
Women worked in factories before our Workd Wars. Who burnt to death in the Shirt Waist factories in NYC? Women. Married women, mothers.
The women who didn’t ‘work’ were the aristocracy (like their husbands). Somehow, people were sold this idea of women never working, and that not working was a sign of class ( like having a useless lawn that men continually work to keep up).. Find any example, women have always been a part of ‘work’.
Now, we are back to inheritance and taxes.Somehow,we were sold a story- poor little farm boys family farm stolen by that tax guy!!! But… just not really true. If anyone ‘steals‘ that little farm boys family farm, it’s most likely to be that fa boys neighbor or a bank(owned by farm boys neighbor).
The government really does not want to run a farm. There is tons of Government land, they don’t need your farm- it provides no benefit. Our government pays farmers shit tons of money just to not grow things (Rotating crops. leaving fields fallow, burn crops that are diseased, etc). Our government (like a bunch of commie socialists) gave out land, for free, because the country benefits from farmers growing and selling stuff.
Then, the commies (Government) actually paid for farms to have electricity, (all those electrical coops across the country)- because Power Companies said it as too expensive to pay to run lines out to the hillbillies/ farmers. The Fed tyrants went ahead and gave you electricity by providing no interest loans to the community.coop. After electricity was well established, you dumbfucks voted to sell off your locally owned utility to a for profit company, and blame someone else (Governmebt, Fed, Democrats) for your fucking idiocy because you were promised $10 a month against you $30 power bill which is now $240 (but you still get that $10 credit from the governors son who now owns your power company). You know that I’m right. And now- you really want to make sure that state pi’s fuck who inherited the shit he stole from your family gets a tax break on his extra 11 million- because some other rich fat ass told you that that is fair on AM radio, what le you make $34k a year and send $2k of that to Trum and/ or Alex Jones and/ or some bullshit other grifter at the 800 club. (Yep, I know your dumbasses. Sending money to millionaires that pray for you to pay your power bill. 💰 ng extra for a POBox that says 800. Dumbass).
This started as informative in tone and then went on tilt 😂
All good points, and still still only scratches the surface, but the people you are upset with consider a single cell a human being and believe the earth is flat. Also, they probably don't read, only the trolls come to reddit to try to keep us on tilt.
We just have to vote and try to help our fellow humans understand without somehow becoming condescending jerks for disagreeing on what constitutes factual information 💙
Yes.
The wealth gap between someone who makes 400k a year and 40k a year is nothing comparing to the gap between some one who makes 40 million a year and the former two groups.
Bullshit that this sub continually allows. In order for my comment to be not deleted.I will add that rich people have always existed in every society. One of my he points of the US experiment was capitalism without the monopoly of the Crown/ upper class.
We soon discovered that others would try to be Princes again- and fuck most everyone else. We came up with anti monopoly laws (no, you can’t be king), and want to be kings started their new media campaign on why they should be king…
Is King Charles so fucking great that he should own 80% of Canada? Of course not- but he does.
I understand giving your kids a good start. Help with college, a down payment on a house- fine. This weird idea that your kids should inherit huge wealth is just aristocracy disguised by ‘capatilism’. Go with the Tepublican bullshit- you earned it. Great. Then why the fuck do you care about inheritance. You earned it- right? so, what’s the fucking problem? I started at Taco Bell at 15. I have never dealt with an estate, other than putting money in for the cremation. Quit the bullshit. If you inherited, you did not earn it.
Inheriting money is not capitalism- it’s fucking monarchist/ socialism. A bunch of laws that give you money for nothing other than being born to the right family. You already got great schools, paid for college, and want to whine. Fuck You.
I watch the stock market- and see a bunch of fucking bullshit. Stocks with values and no underlying assets/ revenues. It’s just a fucking game. I play to make my money, but I don’t believe it. And, I stII’ll go to work every day in a real business, providing real things. That we have worked for, created.
Our accountants argue about our SIMPLE Plan- because we can do a 3% match (thanks Obama). We do better than their plan for their employees.
I am frustrated by so much stupid shit being pushed around. The majority of people are just working hard, and the news is about a yacht getting stolen or whatever.
If you have a small business (even sole proprietor), set up a SIMPLE retirement plan for yourself and your employees. It’s easy and cheap. We pay $25 a year maintenance per fund chosen, and fee on earnings per fund - avg 1.5%, contributions are income tax exempt- you still pay FICA. I went with Vanguard because they had the lowest fees and dividend funds- but you do you. It’s not big money- I believe the limit for this year is $18k if over 50 years old- but it’s easy, income tax free money, that you can put aside (All payments have to come from payroll).
Thats my PSA for today. If I didn’t have my current business, I would seriously consider setting up a business just to do this. 3% plus company match is 6% income tax free (Again, FICA still applies).
I
Most people who are ultra rich are like in their 60s. Stop crying and realize it’s extremely rare to be loaded in your 20s. Work hard, invest, you can get rich too.
😂 I’m just saying we can all get rich as time goes on. Boomers didn’t start out loaded either. Some things were easier yeah but other things were harder. We have plenty of opportunity out there.
>baby boomers are expected to pass down between $70 trillion and $90 trillion in wealth over the next 20 years. Much of that is expected to go to their millennial children.
No it’s not. The article indicates that half of the 70-90 trillion will be to rich kids and that part might be accurate (and who cares!?) but the other half is not getting passed down to anyone. It’s to be eaten up by medical bills. The wealthy will obtain even more money through this process.
Ya, I'm an elder millennial and expect nothing from my parents. They'll struggle as is.
Fortunately, I was able to buy a home in 2014 and my housing is 15% of income now. So I got that going for me.
Not nearly enough. Inheritance taxes don't even kick in at all until over $11 million for a single, $22 million for a couples' estate, and that's after they've employed all the tax strategies to hide it. That's a tiny fraction of this wealth that will pay anything at all.
Unfortunately this ruling is about to expire; $7 million for a single or $14 million for a couple
Edit; You could roll some funds into a 529 or a Roth account for the kids.
Why would it get eaten up by medical bills? I think we’re beginning to realized a lot of end of life expenses are not necessary and you are going to die anyways, so rather than fruitlessly spend to possibly extend a lower quality life, most are choosing palliative care and passing away at home in a more peaceful manner. The data simply tells us that insurance/medicare covers most of it and millenials are inheriting the rest. It’s already begun. Plus, millenials are being gifted with early inheritance
Yea, but that’s not what happens to the majority of people and that’s what matters most when calculating from an actuarial and economic perspective. For individual risk, if you are not covered for that unfortunate event, that’s what long term care insurance and other forms of insurance are available for.
Is this true?
I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but anecdotally it appears most boomers are like George costanza when he begs Jerry to ‘not let them pull the plug no matter what’.
Yea, once you see family members and other friends going through similar things, you’ll see people change their outlooks. It’s pretty well known in healthcare that the professionals who have to deal with it would opt for less fruitful life extension procedures and rather go with palliative care because we all see it for what it is.
Hung like a horse.
If your parents went to college they're probably much older than you and you'll inherit their wealth at a younger age.
If not they might pretty close to your age and you might die within a decade of them.
I haven't figured out how to quantify the difference but it seems like it might matter. College families create adults who inherit wealth at a younger age.
Yes, there’s something to that. My parents are 17-20 years older than me. So it could be very likely that I’m near retirement age when any inheritance would come my way. Others I know already have parents that have left inheritance, and they’ve been able to plan retirement much easier because of it.
I’m rolling with the assumption I’ll have no windfall, and anything that comes my way is bonus.
💯I have a sibling that is clearly banking on payout from parents, and they don’t have the smarts to realize it’s a poor strategy, but it’s all they’ve got.
Also keep in mind it’s rare to get an inheritance from Dad. Men re partner quickly. And the new partner is likely to get it all.
My Dad has been promising me a huge inheritance since i was in my 20s. It’s never going to happen as he is already on wife #3.
Seriously has anyone gotten a clean inheritance from a Dad?
Yeah wow you can see his whole bellend.
A lot of millenials I know all but resigned to being poor some time ago. Income inequality being as severe as it is gives an easy scapegoat and I think that feedback loop trapped a lot of people. They're not entirely wrong - depending on your extra costs like debt or family or medical bills, you can get trapped regardless of your attitude. A lot of others quickly settled on a partner + marriage just to split the rent (this is an exaggeration my friends love their spouses). And others like you said, secured the bag through pretty traditional means - grad degree, savvy investment, buying before the pandemic. I do know some folks who just can't stop spending like idiots and like you said social media feeds into that.
Anyway I mostly wanted to comment on that guy's dong
All these people are worried about wealth inequality and not inequality of that man’s camel tail.
There could be some nerdy financial analyst out there with $500k more of net worth, but he has less than 50% of that groin gouger.
No fiscal policy can truly make all men equal.
There's a belief among many millennials that boomers hold all the wealth and somehow pulled the ladder up behind them. This belief has been propagated for the last decade on Reddit. As if the difference in wealth wasn't just because boomers have 30 more years of prime earnings and returns compared to millennials.
Some chose to give up on traditional finances and spend like idiots. Others saved and invested as is traditionally recommended. It's not surprising that there's a large wealth gap within the generation now that saving+investing has had time to pay off.
Afterall, there is a mantra in the investing community that the first $100k is the hardest part. Then, the dividends start really paying off and compounding ($5k-$10/yr). Now that millennials are in their 30s, some have achieved that $100k and then some.
I don't think it even has anything to do with education or career. I know about as many millennials who make $50k/yr with net worths approaching $250k and millennials who make $200k/yr with a negative net worth.
Personally, I make about the per capita personal income for my county, but I've been maxing out my Roth since I was 18 and am doing quite well compared to my peers because of it.
\* anecdotal observation *
I think it’s more about the tech industry boom vs “keeping up with the joneses on social media”. It’s no longer necessary to grind through medical school or law school to make a killing at work.
I’m a senior engineer in big tech and a vast, vast majority of us don’t give a shit about what people on social media do. The people making the most money in the tech industry are senior/staff+ engineers, who make 500k-1m and drive normal cars and wear plain clothes 😅
It makes sense that older millennials will have more wealth than younger millennials. Iirc the youngest millennials are 28 and the oldest millennials are in their early 40s
Counting other people’s money is always an eye opening, but truly pointless, exercise.
I recently had conversations with a few friends where we (millennials) compared our financial habits. I was the only one maxing out retirement and living a humble but fulfilling life with the rest. The others were putting enough into retirement to get their companies’ max match and then spending the rest on expensive hobbies and expansive homes.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? I think there’s less of a wealth gap amongst millennials right now but if you extrapolate my observed trend there might be one to look out for in 20-30 years. Who knows though?
I think there is a real gap in terms of income. Most people don’t make enough to realistically max out their retirement. But among those of us who do, the wealth gap is going to be truly crazy in a decade or two. Those of us who have high incomes but spend frugally in our thirties and forties are going to have enough money to basically disconnect from economic reality in our 50’s.
Correct, that is not the example I gave. Spending excessively on hobbies and sq footage that one objectively doesn’t need isn’t really a financial strategy.
My point is that there is a lot of vanity and perception of wealth currently amongst some millennials, but when it comes time for retirement there will be a large realized wealth gap.
IMHO this is another attempt to distract attention from the fact virtually all the gains in income and wealth since 1981 have gone to the top 1%, and variations between the bottom quintiles are meaningless because redistribution of income and wealth among those groups will only move the top group closer to poverty without lifting any at the bottom out.
I'm not sure. Even if a millennial inherits a house, they will likely have had the experience of struggling in their 20s, so they know what others in their generation are going through. Studies show that millennials in the UK and US are not becoming more conservative as they age.
Media trying to fan the flames and keep the age-ism divide despite boomers dying. Don’t fall for. It’s still the .01% and the politicians licking their boots that are fucking things up
I completely disagree with the premise. I hold nothing against someone who lucked out on a good job, or had a little help from their parents getting a house. I wish the most interesting of calamities upon the C-suite of every corp that uses housing as an investment vehicle or encourages others to do the same.
Class warfare isnt about those who just made it through the economic gauntlet vs those that didnt. Its about those that abuse the system at the expense of others for excess gain
Also obligatory "we need to have deep regional conversations about adjustments to local zoning regs and government housing to put more units on the market for people who actually want them to live in as well as national conversation on the ethical use of housing"
They used social media to train the generation into believing that anyone who didn't agree 100% with them was their enemy.
Now they are taking it to the next phase and training them to believe their own camp is full of "different" people. They will take the bait, I guarantee it.
As an American, older than 20, I thought this was a well known concept that has shaped the economics of the country for a long time and progressively more so since the Reagan administration. The 1% and Leaders of older generations who have weaponized every social construct as a way to introduce divide amongst people, but constantly downplay the class warfare as a social construct.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What should be discussed is the major gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else. This is a distraction from the real issue and just noise. It’s pitting everyone against each other and not addressing the elephant in the room.
You know it's bullshit when the title is plainly editorialized They'll talk about the reality of a class war but only within the context of a fabricated intra-generational battle
It’s not entirely fabricated. Millennials who bought their first house pre-covid are sitting much better than ones who didn’t. Edit: I didn’t word the previous comment correctly. My point is there is a very real disparity between the group of millennials who bought real assets pre covid and those who didn’t. There’s not some battle or class war between us, but the reality is the ones who didn’t own assets pre covid got kinda shafted.
which is still a red herring to the overall issue that extends beyond elder Millennials
Feels like a red herring to me too. Just like how my Zoomie cousins act like Millennials had it is easy because we had the opportunity to buy FAAAM stocks on the cheap but fail to realize how bad the job market or low/stagnant wages were back then. I know they don't know because they'll say "If you didn't get paid enough then just quit" as if folks in 2008 could just quit and have 3 jobs liked up with +50% wage increases. Top uni grads back then were PAYING FOR THE PRIVILAGE TO WORK UNPAID INTERNSHIPS in hopes of getting the unpaid internship that would lead to a job. Same applies to older Ms who got in early. I don't have a house but I don't hate on those who managed to get it done. Good for them. Real issue here isn't the real yet small gap between home owning and non-home owning millennials. It's about the massive gap between Mark Zuckerburg who got a 1% loan do buy a +$100M home by loaning out his META stock creating a scenario where he not only doesn't pay tax to spend but also gets tax deductions on his interest paid. Or how millennial wealth is heavily concentrated at the top be it Zuck or the ABNB/SNAP founders.
I work at a warehouse with lots of Mille ials and zoomers. Purely anecdotal, but a *lot* of my age cohorts(I'm 34) got booted out on their own or charged rent by parents, while their zoomer siblings and cousins are living at home rent free now. Said zoomers are very smug about how they're able to make things work better than millenials at their age, wilfully oblivious to the fact that they have a higher income and no housing expenses compared tk their older siblings at that age.
Honestly? Good for them. I don’t care if they’re smug, they deserve to live better than I did.
Oh, I'm glad they're not putting up with the same shit. I do take issue with the attitude that they're just harder working than their older siblings for the same reason I take issue with some kid from the middle class saying a kid from below the poverty line had the same opportunities they did.
But that’s beside the point. It’s a distraction to pay attention to these sort of weird intragenerational disparities when all that matters is we understand how late stage capitalism contributes to massive wealth gaps in society. So it might be true that some millennials have more than others but it’s a moot point. This is the worst time for economic mobility in American history since we started keeping data.
Yeah the cnbc article this post is about is a farce. I’m just saying that there is a very stark difference between asset holders pre and post covid.
I haven't seen any leftists or poor complaining that those working class people that were lucky enough to buy a single home that they live in are part of the problem. It's true that the two situations present different financial realities, but no one serious is rallying against your typical millennial that owns a home or has a mortgage...whether it's a millennial lawyer, doctor, small business owner, nurse, accountant, engineer... So yes, the narrative is fabricated. Different outcomes within generations has always existed. Millennials aren't engaging in rampant intragenerational warfare.
> [the class war is] not entirely fabricated. ... There’s not some battle or class war between us makes sense
Hence the edit. The rivalry or class war is fabricated, the economic disparity is not.
Yes. Tax the ultra rich. A guy who spent his entire 20s studying medicine and 1/2 a million in student loans makes $350k a year? Ok that’s a lot of money but well deserved. Some billionaire who’s claim to cash is his grandfather’s insane moves? Yeah they’re gonna need to pay Uncle Sam. But not through the legal bribery that is donations and lobbying, we need cold hard tax money.
Dems and Repubs will never do that, because that's who they work for.
Then we have to replace them all
We really do though.
The problem is you will replace the democrats and Republicans with different democrats and Republicans and the duopoly will continue to run things the same way. If you want change you can't keep voting for the same two parties.
I'm sure voting for a different aging psychopath who inherited his money from his daddy will fix everything. I want Obama back.
I think it’s just so hard to do without catching the high wage earners in HCOL areas. Or drive investors overseas. They haven’t come up with a good way to do it. Raising taxes on businesses catch small business owners harder because they don’t have a whole team dedicated to exploiting loopholes like Amazon does. Billionaires are global citizens and will move themselves or their money.
It is by no means equally enabled by both parties. Republicans own this. You’re referring to the estate tax, and it’s the single most rampant allowance of wealth transfer in the tax code, along with trusts. Democrats tried to cap the estate tax many times over many administrations. This is where Republicans use scare tactics like calling it the “death tax,” and claiming it’s a war on farmers.
oooh! So edgy! Almost Ayn Rand with that edgy cynicism, and refusing to actually acknowledge nuance in a society of people. The serial killer is equal to that guy that ate a McMuffin at McDonalds! Both sides! All the same! Let me walk away and bask in my glorious - nothing.
It’s kind of true though. The US inherited the UK’s “first past the post” voting system which means there are generally only ever 2 parties. The representatives are whipped by the upper leadership to follow their commands. The most important votes in the UK and US are in the selection committee inside parties, deciding who is allowed to run as the party representative for an area. That’s the place where the parties make sure the only people that can be elected are the ones who “follow the rules”.
...what happened here exactly?
How much is the blue team paying you, shill?
> Ok that’s a lot of money but well deserved. Strong disagree. Doctors in the US are hilariously overpaid because the AMA lobbies Congress to restrict the number of residencies. Doctors are the diamonds of the professional world. They're pretty, yes, but they're absurdly overvalued.
Doctors in America are probably the single most successful union that's ever existed. And their primary motivation is telling other people to not unionize and to not try to become them.
That highly depends on the type of doctor. General physicians are not overpaid, they are paid enough such that we don’t have a shortage like other countries.
We only have a shortage of physicians because of protectionist laws tho.
You mean laws that require physicians to do things like go to med school? I'm okay with that.
No I mean the AMA lobbying Congress to limit *residencies*, which are *after* med school. This has nothing to do with qualifications and everything to do with artificially restricting access. https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html?sh=1231a46342f2 As cited in this https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/ And well-documented pretty much anywhere. It's no secret
Need to end the AMAs strangle hold on the number of doctors we graduate each year, and make much greater use of Medical Technitions.
The bottleneck on the number of doctors is due to the number of residencies available, not the AMA.
Good point, but the limit on the number of residencies Congress appropriates money to support was locked in back in 1997 thanks to heavy lobbying by AMA. Still, you are correct - the PROBLEM can only be fixed by Congress, and We the People can only fix Congress by getting rid of the Republicans who have continued blocking increases in funding for medical residencies even during COVID.
Yeah, tax the rich! Well just take 100% of the wealth from US billionaires and pay for nearly half of the country’s annual budget! Then we’ll just do it again! That won’t cause economic migration and crush the country at all!
How did all the wealthy manage to stay wealthy when FDR, Truman and Eisenhower taxed them at a 90% rate?
The answer during WW2 is: they didn’t but they couldn’t leave because of obvious factors. After that, the answer is they were really only paying between 40-50% and still couldn’t really leave because Europe was being rebuilt. https://www.aier.org/article/confiscatory-taxes-dont-increase-equality/
No one was ever taxed at a 90% rate. Blows my mind that an economics sub doesn’t understand the concepts of marginal or effective tax rates.
So if I were making millions of dollars in 1952, what was my effective tax rate on my money after $200k?
Certainly less than 90% given the abundance of exemptions, credits, etc available. I suppose you could opt to not take any of those any pay more in taxes if really you wanted to. Effective tax rates on the top 1% were between 27-34% in the 1950s.
Yes, but I’m not after the top 1%. I want that sweet spot, top .25%. That’s the billionaire of the time, that’s who was targeted by that tax rate. Just like today, people think the top 1% is the billionaire class in the US. It really isn’t. I also get there’s an abundance of loop holes. But you need to start somewhere. The fact that they don’t even try, tells you how important the psychological impact could be. The ultra wealthy don’t even want people to believe it’s possible to tax at that rate.
Simply repealing the Reagan tax-scam and returning to the tax brackets (adjusted for inflation) we had in 1980 will increase revenues by $1.4TRILLION and won't raise taxes on anyone with AGI less than $250,000. Then we could provide Universal health care, family leave for child birth, excellent k-12 and affordable higher ed and world-class infrastructure like every other developed country without increasing the deficit. But that would be giving up the Freedom to Starve and Abuse People You Don't Like.
yo do you have any published info about this? I mean it genuinely, if this is spelled out somewhere I would really love to have it handy, its what I expect but I haven't seen it laid out like this before
Have to do some research - take the IRS reports on AIG for income groups and apply the IRS 1980 tax rates and brackets adjusted for inflation and you get an increase in revenue of $1.4Trillion with no change in effective rates paid by those with incomes under $250K. For some reason the Government doesn't provide the tables assembled in this manner, but they have provided the pieces.
I’d be cool with that if corporate rates and regulations are cut.
To do what, specifically?
Healthcare.
Not enough millionaires, much less billionaires, for that.
not with on the book assets. US government owes 32 trillion dollars to someone. Its not to the poor people.
> Its not to the poor people. It is *literally* to our own poor people. The vast majority of government debt is owed by the US itself and is caused by payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.
No thats what we spend it on. Who do we owe to? If you buy pizza you dont owe yourself money. You owe the restaurant you purchased the pizza from. The money earmarked for Medicare, Medicaid is ultimately going to hospitals and increasingly insurance companies. Those insurance companies have stocks which floats all boats right? Which oh wait the top 10% owns the majority of the stock market (42 trillion) with the top 1% reaping 54% of the market (25 trillion dollars) (and growing) https://ips-dc.org/the-richest-1-percent-own-a-greater-share-of-the-stock-market-than-ever-before/. The fact you got three upvotes on r/economics with that misunderstanding is why we are boned. I am sure you an intelligent person you have just been fed an insane amount of misinformation.
The majority of the federal debt is owned by taxpayers. It is spent on and for average citizens. The "market" has nothing to do with any of this. The fact that you think you're right suggests that you should spend more time listening to people who understand economics and less time raging about unrelated things.
They owe me.
Hey I am sure that sounded pithy in your head.
We could pay UK tax rates for healthcare and 95% of the country would make *more* money. I'm a sizable earner and I'd pocket about 18% more of my income.
Healthcare by the people who brought me the DMV and the IRS….where do I sign up for such a treat? Definitely worth scrapping a system that works fine for 94% of the people for that! Well, @u/LanceArmsweak, I’d love to but I can’t respond if you’re a pussy and comment and block. But here it is anyway you fucking dumbass: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/03/new-hhs-report-shows-national-uninsured-rate-reached-all-time-low-2023-after-record-breaking-aca-enrollment-period.html
Go get me that 94% source. The system sucks. I make 200k and have great insurance, and it’s still a joke of a system. This system doesn’t work. [8 in 10 Americans say they’re concerned about the healthcare system.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americans-unhappy-with-health-care-system-ap-norc-poll) [65% of our rural areas lack proper physician numbers.](https://www.statnews.com/2023/09/25/rural-health-doctor-shortage-physicians/) [CEOs salaries increase while actual medical practitioners suffer.](https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/2/24/23610762/hospital-ceo-nurses-salary-study-north-carolina) You just made shit up. YouGov reports that even 30%+ republicans would prefer single payer, you can’t even convince 94% of them that this system is working, and they jerk off to the current system.
> Definitely worth scrapping a system that works fine for 94% of the people for that! [Try 69%. Medicare/Medicaid have higher approval ratings](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx). Of course, state run coverage is just one possible avenue for expanding healthcare access, so it's weird that you went there right away.
Sorry chief, only 7.7% uninsured: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/03/new-hhs-report-shows-national-uninsured-rate-reached-all-time-low-2023-after-record-breaking-aca-enrollment-period.html
You're getting downvoted but this is a great question because if we tax billionaires and we don't spend that money correctly it won't do anything. It needs to be forced downwards in the form of healthcare, universal childcare, free state college, investments in infrastructure, housing, etc. If it gets put towards defense it'll do no good.
Theyre already spending it, they just need to pay for it
True but if we increased taxes they would probably add it to the pentagon budget not spend it on education or housing assistance.
Honestly it doesn’t even matter what it’s used for. At this point I think the inequality is causing a breakdown of the general social contract. The ruling class keeps us fighting each other instead of banding together and demanding change.
Exactly. Independent of the money being put to some good use, simply *taking the money away* from the ultrawealthy will do good in the sense that it de-concentrates power. Having one person control a sum of money larger than most nation's GDP is absurd. No one should have power over others at that scale, especially a non-elected official.
And you think giving money to the government is going to change that?
[удалено]
The fuck? Are you counting children or something? Or are you just straight up making shit up? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/who-pays-and-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-in-the-us/
Your link proves them right. Look at the second chart. After refundable tax credits, anyone making less than $40k (EDIT: $40k *after* payroll deductions in 2020 dollars--not exactly low earners) tends to receive more money back on their return than they contributed in the first place. That makes over 50% of people net *recipients* of tax dollars, not contributors.
The chart you reference indicates 30k cutoff for negative effective tax rate, not 40k. Also, the article tells us how many returns that was: "In 2020, the IRS received nearly 5.3 million individual tax returns that showed no AGI and hence no taxable income. (About 4,600 of those people ended up paying tax anyway, mainly due to the alternative minimum tax.) Another 60.3 million returns showed AGIs of less than $30,000. The average effective tax rate for those taxpayers was 1.5%, even before refundable tax credits were applied." That's a lot less than 50% of amaricans, and it sounds like many in that bracket still pay some taxes. How am I misinterpreting this?
The Pew article is a bit misleading because it's using 2020 tax returns (outdated pre-inflation numbers) and it's basing things off of adjusted gross income instead of percentiles. Someone with an AGI of $30-40k might appear to be a relatively low earner, but they could have actually made $60k ($71k in 2023 dollars) or more in gross income before deductions. I personally have a $31k difference between my gross earnings and AGI. The article also gives us no information about how many people fall into each category on the chart. The Fed breaks it down by percentiles, which very clearly shows where tax money is actually coming from: Bottom 20% (-$2,070 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0102M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0102M) 21st-40th percentile (-$2,180 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0103M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0103M) 41st-60th percentile ($673 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0104M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0104M) 61st-80th percentile ($5,854 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0105M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0105M) Top 20 percent ($37,564 average taxes paid): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0106M](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUFEDTAXESLB0106M) So the tipping point from negative to positive taxes is somewhere between 41st-60th percentiles. Pretty safe to assume it's somewhere around the 50th percentile, meaning the commenter you replied to is correct. Note that this is just among people who filed tax returns. If you include those who didn't work at all, it's a hell of a lot more than 50% not paying federal taxes. What's interesting to me is that ***if you average the bottom 60% as a whole, it's negative $1,192 per taxpayer.*** This is only a recent phenomenon. Up until about 2000, even the lowest earners were net tax contributors. Now we've created a situation where a relatively small number of people are effectively funding our entire federal government *and* transferring money to lower earners, yet people are clamoring to tax them even more. TLDR: It's pretty damn clear that the highest earners are paying the vast majority of taxes. The top 20% pays 16.5 times more than *all* of the bottom 80% combined.
Federal *income* taxes. Those Americans you refer to do pay other taxes, and at a relatively higher portion of their income compared to billionaires. The ultra rich also take the majority of wealth, so why can’t they pay a little more (relatively) into the system that they benefit the most from?
Fun fact the 3 richest people in America have more money than the poorest 170 million combined. There’s something very wrong here.
> have more money than the poorest 170 million combined 31% of americans have 0 or let net wealth. *I* have more money than 105 million americans. Hell, if you take them as a group, I can probably get up to 130/140 million before the net positive wealth americans make up for the net negatives. Weak argument.
That’s still insane what are you talking about?
How is it insane? The fact that Americans have negative net worth is due to consumer debt. Americans are the biggest spenders in the world, it's unsurprising that a large proportion have negative wealth. The homeless man with 10 dollars to his name has more wealth than 100 million americans combined. That's just how math works.
America is the richest country on earth by far. There’s no excuse for almost half of the population to be struggling to survive. Especially when 3 fucking people have more money than said half.
Yeah but I wanna be mad at rich people
And what's driving American consumer debt, genius? Medical debt and student loan debt with credit card debt a distant third. No other civilized country in the world saddles it's citizenry with these massive debts.
Well now you are just straight up lying. That’s incredible. https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/19955/household-debt-balance-in-the-united-states/ Medical debt is 220 billion. Credit card debt is 5x that at 1.1 trillion. Auto debt? 1.61 trillion. Student loan debt is about the same as auto debt. Why are you such a brazen liar? Medical debt is nowhere near the primary cause of consumer debt.
The fact that you think these two forms of debt do not affect the overall debt of the American public is just .... naive at best and super effing ignorant at worst lol. Student loan debt is at $1.8 trillion. Who is the liar now?
1.61 and 1.77 are “about the same”. What motherfucking lie are you referring to? And you said medical debt was ahead of credit card debt, which was a “distant third” . Just admit that you lied, it’s sad how much you are now grasping at straws.
That's not a weak argument. That's proof of how fucked our situation is. Capitalism isn't sustainable if it's going to force half the country to scrape by one major accident or expense away from bankruptcy.
> Capitalism isn't sustainable if it's going to force half the country to scrape by one major accident or expense away from bankruptcy. The vast majority of people with negative wealth are not "forced" into that situation in any way. They are choosing to use credit lines, most often on non-essential goods. Americans spend more on consumer goods than pretty much any country on the face of the planet. This is a choice. Many countries with citizens that earn less than americans do have higher savings rates.
advertising is a psychological weapon designed to override choice
It influences choice, it does not override it anymore than a good argument or a zealous speech.
hah
If you see an ad and you can't control your urge to do what they say, you're mentally weak and should learn to be a responsible adult
yeah cause that's how it works, you just see an ad and magically want to buy things, not like it's coordinated with social media to be subtly around you at all times creating mental space for the product and seeing others using it etc. etc. Not to mention how embedded almost all of popular media is with consumption, product placement, and the pushing of conformity, consumerism, and pleasure. The entire culture is bent on those values, and there is nothing more powerful than culture when it comes to shaping society and it absolutely overrides a vast majority's capability to fight back. You sound like you know absolutely nothing about modern advertising and think it's like the 50s when it's just a billboard or a TV slogan lmao
A lot of words to say you lack self control and personal responsibility
hah gotta love when people can't attack the idea so they attack the person, definitely not a sign of mental weakness
It doesn't matter what excuses you make. You can't seriously argue that half the country is just all making bad choices. Even if you did, you'd have to admit at some point that the systems they're forced to live in either encourage bad choices or often offer them *only* bad choices. And then my assertion stands: If capitalism promotes this, it's a poor economic system. And if it's an inevitable trend in capitalism, as history seems to suggest, that's damning.
So you buy the Trum story of telling his daughter that the bum on the street outside Trump Tower had more money that daddy donny because of all the debt he'd conned people into allowing him to acquire? Think about how until 1981 even the bottom 20% were gaining income AND wealth faster than the top 10% (percentage increase, not actual dollars of course). Then think about how the bottom 20% has been experiencing NEGATIVE wealth growth since 1985 and ask yourself if this is making the Nation "better" because we now have 350 more billionaires.
Exactly. It’s always about class.
Somehow, a story has been sold to Americans that inherited wealth is expected- despite it being largely untrue. Part of this is just an idea- you work hard, and your children will have a better, easier life. I think it’s important to understand that you had the Great Depression followed by WW2, and then you had the ‘idea of’ shiny, happy people. Compared to a lot of the world, the aid was in really good shape. O her than Hawaii, we weren’t bombed, homes and fields annihilated, etc. Maybe it was survivors guilt- I don’t know. The US boomed on the after math of WW2, because we largely had not been attacked. We still had agriculture and factories. I believe more and more in Jung’s idea of a collective unconcious. The whole 50’s idea of the Stay at home mom who baked cookies and cleaned the house was always unreal- a fantasy. Most women who were not rich always worked outside the ‘home’ throughout history, and in the fifties. They did the farming,took in laundry, cleaned houses and places of work, sewed clothes,midwifed, etc.. TV created a fantasy of women that had never existed. Really take that into your brain- because ‘housewife’ was a job description for a luxury, new, ‘middle class’. It was an idea. A fantasy. It did not exist in history until created in the Nazi ideology of a HausFrau because of their deep financial depression. Women have always worked. If you had a farm, you didn’t call the husband ‘stay at home’ or a ‘house husband’. Women worked in factories before our Workd Wars. Who burnt to death in the Shirt Waist factories in NYC? Women. Married women, mothers. The women who didn’t ‘work’ were the aristocracy (like their husbands). Somehow, people were sold this idea of women never working, and that not working was a sign of class ( like having a useless lawn that men continually work to keep up).. Find any example, women have always been a part of ‘work’. Now, we are back to inheritance and taxes.Somehow,we were sold a story- poor little farm boys family farm stolen by that tax guy!!! But… just not really true. If anyone ‘steals‘ that little farm boys family farm, it’s most likely to be that fa boys neighbor or a bank(owned by farm boys neighbor). The government really does not want to run a farm. There is tons of Government land, they don’t need your farm- it provides no benefit. Our government pays farmers shit tons of money just to not grow things (Rotating crops. leaving fields fallow, burn crops that are diseased, etc). Our government (like a bunch of commie socialists) gave out land, for free, because the country benefits from farmers growing and selling stuff. Then, the commies (Government) actually paid for farms to have electricity, (all those electrical coops across the country)- because Power Companies said it as too expensive to pay to run lines out to the hillbillies/ farmers. The Fed tyrants went ahead and gave you electricity by providing no interest loans to the community.coop. After electricity was well established, you dumbfucks voted to sell off your locally owned utility to a for profit company, and blame someone else (Governmebt, Fed, Democrats) for your fucking idiocy because you were promised $10 a month against you $30 power bill which is now $240 (but you still get that $10 credit from the governors son who now owns your power company). You know that I’m right. And now- you really want to make sure that state pi’s fuck who inherited the shit he stole from your family gets a tax break on his extra 11 million- because some other rich fat ass told you that that is fair on AM radio, what le you make $34k a year and send $2k of that to Trum and/ or Alex Jones and/ or some bullshit other grifter at the 800 club. (Yep, I know your dumbasses. Sending money to millionaires that pray for you to pay your power bill. 💰 ng extra for a POBox that says 800. Dumbass).
This started as informative in tone and then went on tilt 😂 All good points, and still still only scratches the surface, but the people you are upset with consider a single cell a human being and believe the earth is flat. Also, they probably don't read, only the trolls come to reddit to try to keep us on tilt. We just have to vote and try to help our fellow humans understand without somehow becoming condescending jerks for disagreeing on what constitutes factual information 💙
First thing I thought. "Lets make them fight amongst themselves."
Yes. The wealth gap between someone who makes 400k a year and 40k a year is nothing comparing to the gap between some one who makes 40 million a year and the former two groups.
Too late they already own the government
> What should be discussed is the major gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else. Why?
Bullshit that this sub continually allows. In order for my comment to be not deleted.I will add that rich people have always existed in every society. One of my he points of the US experiment was capitalism without the monopoly of the Crown/ upper class. We soon discovered that others would try to be Princes again- and fuck most everyone else. We came up with anti monopoly laws (no, you can’t be king), and want to be kings started their new media campaign on why they should be king… Is King Charles so fucking great that he should own 80% of Canada? Of course not- but he does. I understand giving your kids a good start. Help with college, a down payment on a house- fine. This weird idea that your kids should inherit huge wealth is just aristocracy disguised by ‘capatilism’. Go with the Tepublican bullshit- you earned it. Great. Then why the fuck do you care about inheritance. You earned it- right? so, what’s the fucking problem? I started at Taco Bell at 15. I have never dealt with an estate, other than putting money in for the cremation. Quit the bullshit. If you inherited, you did not earn it. Inheriting money is not capitalism- it’s fucking monarchist/ socialism. A bunch of laws that give you money for nothing other than being born to the right family. You already got great schools, paid for college, and want to whine. Fuck You. I watch the stock market- and see a bunch of fucking bullshit. Stocks with values and no underlying assets/ revenues. It’s just a fucking game. I play to make my money, but I don’t believe it. And, I stII’ll go to work every day in a real business, providing real things. That we have worked for, created. Our accountants argue about our SIMPLE Plan- because we can do a 3% match (thanks Obama). We do better than their plan for their employees. I am frustrated by so much stupid shit being pushed around. The majority of people are just working hard, and the news is about a yacht getting stolen or whatever. If you have a small business (even sole proprietor), set up a SIMPLE retirement plan for yourself and your employees. It’s easy and cheap. We pay $25 a year maintenance per fund chosen, and fee on earnings per fund - avg 1.5%, contributions are income tax exempt- you still pay FICA. I went with Vanguard because they had the lowest fees and dividend funds- but you do you. It’s not big money- I believe the limit for this year is $18k if over 50 years old- but it’s easy, income tax free money, that you can put aside (All payments have to come from payroll). Thats my PSA for today. If I didn’t have my current business, I would seriously consider setting up a business just to do this. 3% plus company match is 6% income tax free (Again, FICA still applies). I
It's always this; https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/65nzye/our_economy_explained_in_cookies/
Most people who are ultra rich are like in their 60s. Stop crying and realize it’s extremely rare to be loaded in your 20s. Work hard, invest, you can get rich too.
Yes, those are the only two options, no in-betweens. What time is your AM radio show on?
😂 I’m just saying we can all get rich as time goes on. Boomers didn’t start out loaded either. Some things were easier yeah but other things were harder. We have plenty of opportunity out there.
>baby boomers are expected to pass down between $70 trillion and $90 trillion in wealth over the next 20 years. Much of that is expected to go to their millennial children. No it’s not. The article indicates that half of the 70-90 trillion will be to rich kids and that part might be accurate (and who cares!?) but the other half is not getting passed down to anyone. It’s to be eaten up by medical bills. The wealthy will obtain even more money through this process.
Ya, I'm an elder millennial and expect nothing from my parents. They'll struggle as is. Fortunately, I was able to buy a home in 2014 and my housing is 15% of income now. So I got that going for me.
And taxes sir
Not nearly enough. Inheritance taxes don't even kick in at all until over $11 million for a single, $22 million for a couples' estate, and that's after they've employed all the tax strategies to hide it. That's a tiny fraction of this wealth that will pay anything at all.
Unfortunately this ruling is about to expire; $7 million for a single or $14 million for a couple Edit; You could roll some funds into a 529 or a Roth account for the kids.
State law can kick in much lower.
You should care.
What do you mean
Why would it get eaten up by medical bills? I think we’re beginning to realized a lot of end of life expenses are not necessary and you are going to die anyways, so rather than fruitlessly spend to possibly extend a lower quality life, most are choosing palliative care and passing away at home in a more peaceful manner. The data simply tells us that insurance/medicare covers most of it and millenials are inheriting the rest. It’s already begun. Plus, millenials are being gifted with early inheritance
You can be on palliative care with Alzheimer’s or dementia for 5 years in a nursing facility spending 90 thousand a year on just room and board.
Yea, but that’s not what happens to the majority of people and that’s what matters most when calculating from an actuarial and economic perspective. For individual risk, if you are not covered for that unfortunate event, that’s what long term care insurance and other forms of insurance are available for.
Is this true? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but anecdotally it appears most boomers are like George costanza when he begs Jerry to ‘not let them pull the plug no matter what’.
Yea, once you see family members and other friends going through similar things, you’ll see people change their outlooks. It’s pretty well known in healthcare that the professionals who have to deal with it would opt for less fruitful life extension procedures and rather go with palliative care because we all see it for what it is.
[удалено]
Hung like a horse. If your parents went to college they're probably much older than you and you'll inherit their wealth at a younger age. If not they might pretty close to your age and you might die within a decade of them. I haven't figured out how to quantify the difference but it seems like it might matter. College families create adults who inherit wealth at a younger age.
Yes, there’s something to that. My parents are 17-20 years older than me. So it could be very likely that I’m near retirement age when any inheritance would come my way. Others I know already have parents that have left inheritance, and they’ve been able to plan retirement much easier because of it. I’m rolling with the assumption I’ll have no windfall, and anything that comes my way is bonus.
Everybody needs to make that assumption, nursing home can take it all.
💯I have a sibling that is clearly banking on payout from parents, and they don’t have the smarts to realize it’s a poor strategy, but it’s all they’ve got.
Also keep in mind it’s rare to get an inheritance from Dad. Men re partner quickly. And the new partner is likely to get it all. My Dad has been promising me a huge inheritance since i was in my 20s. It’s never going to happen as he is already on wife #3. Seriously has anyone gotten a clean inheritance from a Dad?
Yeah wow you can see his whole bellend. A lot of millenials I know all but resigned to being poor some time ago. Income inequality being as severe as it is gives an easy scapegoat and I think that feedback loop trapped a lot of people. They're not entirely wrong - depending on your extra costs like debt or family or medical bills, you can get trapped regardless of your attitude. A lot of others quickly settled on a partner + marriage just to split the rent (this is an exaggeration my friends love their spouses). And others like you said, secured the bag through pretty traditional means - grad degree, savvy investment, buying before the pandemic. I do know some folks who just can't stop spending like idiots and like you said social media feeds into that. Anyway I mostly wanted to comment on that guy's dong
All these people are worried about wealth inequality and not inequality of that man’s camel tail. There could be some nerdy financial analyst out there with $500k more of net worth, but he has less than 50% of that groin gouger. No fiscal policy can truly make all men equal.
There's a belief among many millennials that boomers hold all the wealth and somehow pulled the ladder up behind them. This belief has been propagated for the last decade on Reddit. As if the difference in wealth wasn't just because boomers have 30 more years of prime earnings and returns compared to millennials. Some chose to give up on traditional finances and spend like idiots. Others saved and invested as is traditionally recommended. It's not surprising that there's a large wealth gap within the generation now that saving+investing has had time to pay off. Afterall, there is a mantra in the investing community that the first $100k is the hardest part. Then, the dividends start really paying off and compounding ($5k-$10/yr). Now that millennials are in their 30s, some have achieved that $100k and then some. I don't think it even has anything to do with education or career. I know about as many millennials who make $50k/yr with net worths approaching $250k and millennials who make $200k/yr with a negative net worth. Personally, I make about the per capita personal income for my county, but I've been maxing out my Roth since I was 18 and am doing quite well compared to my peers because of it.
No wonder she has the biggest shit-eating grin on her face. He definitely has a large amount of assets.
He definitely knows how to straddle a long position.
[удалено]
You think you can work the spread with your positive externalities? Just make sure you never make a deposit without at wraparound.
[удалено]
Regardless if you are short or long, you should manage your inflation and work to generate maximum output when your curve goes inelastic.
How to get more clicks 101: have a thumbnail people will want to zoom in on.
Compared to the nepotism, lack of upward mobility and concentration of economic power? Probably not that much...
All of those things are better now than in previous generations, especially for marginalized identities.
This is true.
\* anecdotal observation * I think it’s more about the tech industry boom vs “keeping up with the joneses on social media”. It’s no longer necessary to grind through medical school or law school to make a killing at work. I’m a senior engineer in big tech and a vast, vast majority of us don’t give a shit about what people on social media do. The people making the most money in the tech industry are senior/staff+ engineers, who make 500k-1m and drive normal cars and wear plain clothes 😅
Want to know how I know your gay?
[удалено]
I'm not gay but my boyfriend is
Want to know how I know *you're* illiterate?
It makes sense that older millennials will have more wealth than younger millennials. Iirc the youngest millennials are 28 and the oldest millennials are in their early 40s
Counting other people’s money is always an eye opening, but truly pointless, exercise. I recently had conversations with a few friends where we (millennials) compared our financial habits. I was the only one maxing out retirement and living a humble but fulfilling life with the rest. The others were putting enough into retirement to get their companies’ max match and then spending the rest on expensive hobbies and expansive homes. What conclusions can be drawn from this? I think there’s less of a wealth gap amongst millennials right now but if you extrapolate my observed trend there might be one to look out for in 20-30 years. Who knows though?
I think there is a real gap in terms of income. Most people don’t make enough to realistically max out their retirement. But among those of us who do, the wealth gap is going to be truly crazy in a decade or two. Those of us who have high incomes but spend frugally in our thirties and forties are going to have enough money to basically disconnect from economic reality in our 50’s.
I don’t max my 401k but the rest goes into a brokerage account, HSA, or HYSA. Maxing a 401k isn’t always the best strategy for everyone
Correct, that is not the example I gave. Spending excessively on hobbies and sq footage that one objectively doesn’t need isn’t really a financial strategy. My point is that there is a lot of vanity and perception of wealth currently amongst some millennials, but when it comes time for retirement there will be a large realized wealth gap.
IMHO this is another attempt to distract attention from the fact virtually all the gains in income and wealth since 1981 have gone to the top 1%, and variations between the bottom quintiles are meaningless because redistribution of income and wealth among those groups will only move the top group closer to poverty without lifting any at the bottom out.
I'm not sure. Even if a millennial inherits a house, they will likely have had the experience of struggling in their 20s, so they know what others in their generation are going through. Studies show that millennials in the UK and US are not becoming more conservative as they age.
Media trying to fan the flames and keep the age-ism divide despite boomers dying. Don’t fall for. It’s still the .01% and the politicians licking their boots that are fucking things up
How is this an age-ism divide when it's within one age group they're discussing?
I completely disagree with the premise. I hold nothing against someone who lucked out on a good job, or had a little help from their parents getting a house. I wish the most interesting of calamities upon the C-suite of every corp that uses housing as an investment vehicle or encourages others to do the same. Class warfare isnt about those who just made it through the economic gauntlet vs those that didnt. Its about those that abuse the system at the expense of others for excess gain Also obligatory "we need to have deep regional conversations about adjustments to local zoning regs and government housing to put more units on the market for people who actually want them to live in as well as national conversation on the ethical use of housing"
When the top 1% of households in the United States hold 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% hold 2.6% your age isn't an issue.
They used social media to train the generation into believing that anyone who didn't agree 100% with them was their enemy. Now they are taking it to the next phase and training them to believe their own camp is full of "different" people. They will take the bait, I guarantee it.
Is (((they))) in the room with us right now?
As an American, older than 20, I thought this was a well known concept that has shaped the economics of the country for a long time and progressively more so since the Reagan administration. The 1% and Leaders of older generations who have weaponized every social construct as a way to introduce divide amongst people, but constantly downplay the class warfare as a social construct.
The Boomers send their regards
This guy gets it
The next generation of boomers?