Wealth inequality in America

Question: What is "wealthy" described as for purposes of this discussion? For example, "only the wealthy can enjoy the things we all have a right to like clean air and water especially as these things become scarcer".

My husband and I have saved and saved for over 35 years and invested wisely ala Your Money or Your Life. While I don't live in a fancy house, I do live in our downtown and have a 2 car garage. I have almost complete security for the future. Am I the wealthy?

What is your dividing line?

To me, wealthy would mean the top five percent or so.

I had a little difficulty finding what I needed but one article puts us in the top 5% of net worth in the US. It is not hugely wealthy though. As I said, no inheritance, no business, just incredibly hard work and persistence in investment. We paid off debt early and did not go out and buy bigger and better "because we could". I never believed the advice of "professionals" that we should leverage and take out huge debt.

So even though all I have was earned as wage earners (not in management)and saved for the future, do you feel we should have our wealth redistributed? After all, I made choices that were available to anyone. I do not have a college degree and it took hubby over 10 years to get his.

By most standards and studies we fall into that top 5% too, sweetana3. We owned our business, but other than that have pretty much the same story you do. We don't have a jet, no mega-yacht, no Maserati salesman calling to let me know the new models have arrived. We don't season in Palm Beach or gamble in Monte Carlo. We are just about to move into a small, mortgage free house that will be perfect for two empty-nesters. We have comfortable, reliable vehicles that are paid for. We can do the things we want to do and go where we want to go. We both feel that we have a very rich life, but wealthy? Nope.

You crack the top 1% with an annual income of $380,000. There is no denying that you can lead a very comfortable life and have a very secure retirement on that income as long as you're reasonable with spending and saving/investing. But that income won't get you anywhere close to being able to afford the trappings of real wealth. At that level a private jet costs more to operate for a year than you make, let alone what it takes to buy in. Its totally subjective, of course, but in my mind you aren't really wealthy until you start to crack that top couple 1/10ths of a percent.

Doesn't everyone who lives in a civilized country pay taxes and have their wealth redistributed? It seems like that's part of the bargain.

We're in the top 5% - 10% as well in net worth. My mom left me $60,00 which is a nice chunk of change, but that did not propel us into this position. Nor did our income.

It's not how much money you get, it's how much you hang onto. That's the lesson of The Millionaire Next Door. Hanging onto it takes focus, making choices every day that support the goal of wealth building.

You know, whether people bought and sold property at the right time, earned a good income and lived below their means, took risks that paid off , or inherited their wealth I have a hard time looking at the top five or ten percent as the bad guys. It seems like so many like to portray those wealthier than they are in a non favorable light, where many have used their wealth to better things for countless around them. It would be a shame for the goverment to decide to take more so they can waste it when so much good can be done.

It would be a shame for a government to ever waste money, regardless of the circumstances. The issue really isn't about securing the ability for government to "waste" more money. That's just silliness.

The issue is about fairness. What would be a shame is to allow the level of inequity double again, as it has since the 1960s. Indeed, it would be a shame to not reverse the trend since the 1960s - it would be a shame if we fail to halve inequity, i.e., fail to bring fairness in society back to 1960s levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bUU

The issue is about fairness. What would be a shame is to allow the level of inequity double again

---

Sounds like classic newspeak to me. Fairness is providing equal opportunity and allowing people who work hard and save and make good decisions to benefit from their efforts. Fairness is not imposing equal outcomes on people who have made different decisions and contributed different amounts of effort or value.

If we insist on handicapping the game of life, aren't there better ways of doing that than the tax code?