04-01-2009, 02:45 PM
Quote:It was what pushed the wealthy to move their money outside the US. Also, much of the rest of the world was rubble, so where would you invest your ₤'s? It is also more convenient for avoiding paying estate taxes when the US government has no control over your assets. I remember that by the Reagan years, the tax code was so stuffed with tax shelters that wealthy people often ended up paying zero taxes. This resulted in the tax reform movement in the eighties (1982, 1984).
On the "rubble" issue, investing in that "rubble" with every dime to your name would have been one of the best investments you could have made, the sooner the better. Postwar growth in Europe and Japan was off the hook.
Getting rid of tax shelters and other dodges for the very rich would be among the best possible things you could do to improve the tax code. The more the wealthy pay, the lower taxes can be on the way up. If that's what you're arguing for, making the tax system more progressive by closing loopholes, let me lay down arms right now: we are in entire agreement on that point.
Quote:Every lie has a grain of truth. He and I (and many others) see the same problem and have different suggestions on what to do about it. Examine the results over the last century and tell me what you see. And, being a millionaire doesn't cut it as wealth alone is not the measure of the upper class (capitalist class). As we see these days, money is transient. How many parents can afford $300K per child for a Yale University education? The American sangre azul do exist, and the barriers for entry into the upper class are intentional. In 2007, the top .01 percent of the population received 5% of the income and had an annual income of $9.5 million or higher. It comprises about 15,000 families who are privy to such activities as vacationing in the Hamptons or at their Spanish villa, or attending the annual gala at the Bohemian Club of San Francisco.
You're not going to get your Villa on the Costa del Sol, that's true, and the Bohemian Club invite is unlikely to arrive in the mail at a mere million. Far be it from me to talk down the existence of an elite. However, the average joe McDonald's worker is not going to join that elite, except at astronomical odds, since it is not only a product of wealth: it is a product of social status accumulated and inherited across generations.
But... if you were going to grab for the brass ring, break into the elite, buy that silver spoon to put in your kid's mouth, where is that easier than America?* Plenty of the richest economic players, the big-name managers, the most influential polticians, came from relatively humble origins. Now, they probably met the right people at the right time, and it's no easier to make it to the top of the heap for average joe than it ever was, but it is possible. As much as I usually emphasize the aspects of America that are disturbingly closed off to the poor, it is still an open society, and the American dream is still at least tentatively alive.
However, by the numbers, I think being a millionaire cuts it pretty darn well for being "upper class", at least in broad brush terms. Even if your returns are an uninspiring 5% a year, you could live the life of a median household in perpetuity without working another day of your life. You could send your kid (or even two or three) to whatever school they want on that much money, and still have plenty left over, even if they never got a single dime in scholarships. Want that ferarri? A million will buy it for you. If you're more of a foodie (and I am), you could book a table at Per Se for years on end, order the tasting menu every night, and die of cardiac arrest long before your money ran out. A million is still a hell of a lot of money, and if it's not a billion, I think it's unrealistic to expect any given person to see a billion dollars in their lifetime, no matter what talents they may have, or how scrupulously they save.
-Jester
*or possibly Canada!