Inequality was huge before coronavirus. The stock market is making it worse

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  79 comments

By:   CNN

Inequality was huge before coronavirus. The stock market is making it worse
The gap between the world's rich and poor is expected to grow due to the pandemic, and a stock market high on government and central bank cash bears much of the blame.

320


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



London (CNN Business)The gap between the world's rich and poor is expected to grow due to the pandemic, and a stock market high on government and central bank cash bears much of the blame.

Research shows that stock ownership is highly concentrated among the rich, with the wealthiest 10% of US households owning 84% of all stocks in 2016, the most recent year for which the Federal Reserve has released data. That means the S&P 500(INX) index's massive gains over the past 12 weeks are likely to have disproportionately benefited the haves over the have-nots, exacerbating inequality as Main Street reels from a brutal economic shock that's triggered the worst unemployment crisis since World War II. The index dropped sharply last Thursday as investors reevaluated risks to the outlook, but it's still up nearly 40% since its low on March 23. "A rising stock market, especially at a time of high unemployment and stagnant labor incomes, will disproportionately benefit richer households," said Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University. US stock prices have increased thanks to unprecedented support from the Federal Reserve, trillions in government stimulus and optimism over a quick economic recovery, and there's some evidence that smaller investors have driven the rally.  Even so, the Americans that have been hurt the most by the pandemic are unlikely to benefit directly from the recent snap back. That disconnect could feed social unrest, as socioeconomic and racial divides become even more pronounced.

How stocks feed inequality


In 2019, the richest 1% owned 45% of the world's wealth, according to a report from Credit Suisse. Stock ownership was an important factor. After the dot-com crash in the early 2000s, middle class families exited the stock market, according to Edward Wolff, a professor at New York University who focuses on wealth disparity and analyzed the 2016 Fed data. Facing ongoing financial pressure, many never returned, while the wealthy held onto their shares. "Median family income hasn't really budged for 20 years," Wolff said. "There's a lot of financial stress on the middle class so they haven't really expanded their stock holdings." In the United States, the disparity also plays out along demographic lines, according to a 2017 report from the Federal Reserve. More than 60% of white families own stocks, either directly or through a retirement account, compared with around 30% of black and Hispanic families. Stocks aren't the only way to grow wealth. But higher-income households tend to save more, giving them greater opportunities to invest. These households can then leverage their returns on assets like stocks to keep growing their portfolios, according to the Fed.

This creates a "feedback effect" that helps the rich keep expanding their holdings. Households with a net worth above $500,000 now have almost 16 times the stock and mutual fund holdings of households worth between $50,000 and $100,000, according to an analysis from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in October. These households on the upper end of the spectrum have nearly 80 times the stock and mutual fund holdings of households worth between $25,000 and $50,000. Stock market gains have poweredthe cycle. Whilemiddle-class incomes have remained stagnant, the value of stocks has skyrocketed, helped by easy money from central banks like the Fed and a glut of shareholder rewards. The S&P 500 has increased by 172% since 2002, while the Nasdaq has shot up more than 400%. One reason: Between 2008 and March 2020, companies have spent nearly $7.1 trillionon share buybacks that have boosted stock prices, according to Birinyi Associates.A big corporate tax cut by the Trump administration in 2017 was spent by many companies buying back their own shares. Proponents argue that buybacksand dividends trickle down to regular workers, since stockholders can reinvest higher earnings in the real economy, while critics think that money should go to longer-term workforce investments, such as higher wages and retraining employees.

The coronavirus effect


After plunging in March, stocks have gained at a record clip as central banks pledged trillions of dollars in an unprecedented intervention to prop up markets and the economy. That's helped those who are most likely to own stocks. Between March 18 and last Thursday, US billionaire wealth increased by $637 billion, an increase of more than 21%, according to a report from the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank. Meanwhile, the economic outlook appears dim. Tens of millions of workers around the world remain unemployed during the worst downturn since the Great Depression, and the most vulnerable communities — including women and black and Hispanic Americans — have been hit the hardest. "Those least able to withstand the downturn have been affected most," Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday. "If not contained and reversed, the downturn could further widen gaps in economic well-being that the long expansion had made some progress in closing." Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday. Many people who have lost their jobs since March are unlikely to have participated in the S&P 500's dramatic rally. Overall, only 55% of Americans own stock, according to the most recent poll by Gallup. "Households that are getting hardest hit during this recession, particularly those with low-paid and low-skilled workers, tend to have small or nonexistent buffers of savings, which means they receive few benefits from resurgent stock prices," Prasad said. Plus, some companies have opted to maintain their dividends while laying off workers. BP(BP), for example, is giving investors their payout for the first quarter but announced last week that it would cut 10,000 jobs by the end of this year.

The consequence, though, is that inequality drummed up by the stock market over the past two decades won't improve through this crisis. It's only expected to get worse, which could contribute to the widespread anger and discontent that's helped fuel the Black Lives Matter protests. "While there is nothing wrong with traders and investors profiting from timely and smart speculative activity, the growing disconnect between the economy and equity markets is going to cause increased social tensions," said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the auditing firmRSM.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
inequality drummed up by the stock market over the past two decades won't improve through this crisis. It's only expected to get worse, which could contribute to the widespread anger and discontent that's helped fuel the Black Lives Matter protests. "While there is nothing wrong with traders and investors profiting from timely and smart speculative activity, the growing disconnect between the economy and equity markets is going to cause increased social tensions,"
 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

The 600 dollar per week coronavirus bonus paid to those on unemployment benefits will end in mid July.  Some think subsequent hardship could lead to social unrest if unemployment stays high through the rest of the year. 

I hope they take out their frustration at the voting booth. 

-

40% of those who lost their jobs due to the coronavirus effect on businesses are people who were making 40,000 dollars a year or less. Such people generally have no savings to fall back on.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

As long as we operate as a capitalistic society, there will be income disparity.

So what?

Not every job SHOULD pay the same.

And what people choose to do with their own money after they get it is up to them. Some aren't very savvy when it comes to finances. Some like to spend more than they make. Some want to max out their credit cards. Some would rather spend $1200+ for a phone than bank it or invest it.

Or buy $1000 stereo systems and wheels for cars worth  $1500 at best.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3    4 weeks ago

No one is saying every job should pay the same. 

10% of the population owns 84% of stocks.  So basically the stock market benefits 10% of the population.  Why should the 90% give a fuck if the rising stock market makes Trump happy? 

America cannot go on much longer like this. There will be serious unrest in the streets. Not this piddling shit we have been seeing over the past few weeks. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
10% of the population owns 84% of stocks.  So basically the stock market benefits 10% of the population.  Why should the 90% give a fuck if the rising stock market makes Trump happy?

Basically, the stock market generally benefits all who own stocks. Some people choose not to invest. Plenty of regular people own stocks as a part of their retirement accounts. You know---the 90% of the owners of the stocks.

Trump doesn't have a fucking thing to do with it except in your mind.

Wait a minute--did you think the ownership of stocks differed greatly under a Democratic President? LMAO!

America cannot go on much longer like this. There will be serious unrest in the streets. Not this piddling shit we have been seeing over the past few weeks. 

Sure America can, and more importantly, will. So a few people are upset. They may get over it in time, or not. No big deal either way. And I fully support anyone exercising their Constitutional rights in a peaceful manner. Not so for yahoos who riot, loot, and burn.

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

Yep, Wall St. decoupled from Main St. a long time ago. But they provide bread and circuses for the plebeians so it's all good.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

I'm glad we all have the choice to invest or trade in the market. That's why I'm up at 4am checking futures and what the Asian markets did overnight. It makes no difference to me if Steve Jobs widow owns a million times more Apple stock than I do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

We should be about the common good, not the Dean (individual) good.  Stock market profits should be paid only after the workers for a company are paid a living wage. As it is now stock market profits are gained at the expense of workers wages.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Ok, can you please name some large companies that are traded on the exchange that don't pay a living wage?

And what do you consider a living wage?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    4 weeks ago

why does Walmart need subsidized by US taxpayers. Y can't they pay employees enough so as they don't need government help ?

Why can't they employ their employees with enough hours so as they are covered by health insurance, provided by Walmart ?

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.7  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.6    4 weeks ago

It is this type of thinking that has now caused several Walmarts to go self check out only, now all those cashiers have zero income instead of some.  Good job, you shamed walmart into no jobs.   My home is in NW Arkansas, everything is tested here, they will soon have grocery pullers for people to lazy to shop for themselves and 1 or 2 customer service people if you have an issue, no more cashiers.   So now these people have no jobs...Yeah?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @3.1.7    4 weeks ago

so you're all for subsidizing the Walton Family ...?

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.9  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

Sigh,  way to completely miss the point, let me simplify, is no job better than a part time job? And why is the walton family the boogie man? what about Bezo's? 7 11? circle K or any of the others? What do you think dragging a coke across a scanner is worth? But congrats, like Mickey "D"s they soon will have no jobs. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
We should be about the common good, not the Dean (individual) good. 

We are not our brother's keepers...the world, society, and reality doesn't work that way

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.6    4 weeks ago
why does Walmart need subsidized by US taxpayers.

Please list all the subsidies Wal Mart receives from the federal government.

Y can't they pay employees enough so as they don't need government help ?

How many Wal Mart employees receive government benefits?

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Walmart.com

Why don't some of the folks always whining about Wal Mart open their own stores, and pay whatever they determine is a "fair" wage?

Or is it just easier to whine about someone else's success?

BTW, since you didn't answer anything I asked, what do you consider a "fair" or "living" wage?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.8    4 weeks ago
so you're all for subsidizing the Walton Family ...?

Got a list of subsidies the Wal Mart family receives?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

Any Walmart workers who receive government aid to the working poor such as food stamps or subsidized housing are an example of Walmart receiving government subsidies. The government pays the workers what the employer won't. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

are you claiming Walmart employees' don't receive BILLIONS because they do not earn enough, while the heirs make tens of billions each year...?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.11    4 weeks ago
Y can't they pay employees enough so as they don't need government help ?
How many Wal Mart employees receive government benefits?

Actually, I believe a good number of them do.  Of course what is invariably never mentioned is that those 'employees' are part time workers, but then even those workers qualify for benefits if they opt to take advantage of them.  There's the rub....  it's their personal decision.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.16  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.14    4 weeks ago
are you claiming Walmart employees' don't receive BILLIONS because they do not earn enough, while the heirs make tens of billions each year...?

Exactly which heirs, or hell, combination of heirs, are making "tens of billions" each year.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    4 weeks ago

No, Wal Mart doesn't receive those benefits. Not the same thing that was claimed.

How many Wal Mart workers receive benefits?

What percentage of them receive benefits?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.18  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    4 weeks ago
Any Walmart workers who receive government aid to the working poor such as food stamps or subsidized housing are an example of Walmart receiving government subsidies.

So you're now saying that someone working ten or twenty hours a week needs sufficient income to fully sustain them and their families?   

The government pays the workers what the employer won't. 

Nope.  The government is providing what the 'workers' can't or won't earn on their own and keep their hands out for the handouts.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.16    4 weeks ago
  • loomberg had ranked the Waltons family as the richest back in June 2018,and ever since,their fortune started to escalate rapidly. From 39 billion dollars after topping the rankings to   191 billion dollars   in 2019,the Waltons are gaining more and more. The Waltons family business,Walmart,is the world’s largest retailer by revenue.

The   Waltons Family: 100 Million Dollar Income   Per Day

sokodirectory.com/ 2019 /08/the-waltons- family -100-million-dollar- income -per-day/
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.14    4 weeks ago
are you claiming Walmart employees' don't receive BILLIONS because they do not earn enough

IF you can provide an example of me doing so, PROVE it. Otherwise, it is a stupid question.

while the heirs make tens of billions each year...?

What business is it of yours what others make?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.20    4 weeks ago

wanna parse words TEX ?

Ok, can you please name some large companies that are traded on the exchange that don't pay a living wage?

I gave you Walmart , but asz usual, you wish to move goal posts, too bad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.21    4 weeks ago

Well, parse this:

WHAT is a "living" wage? Who determines it? Is it determined by geographical location?

Why don't you open your own store, and then pay your employees the wages and benefits that you want others to pay?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.21    4 weeks ago
I gave you Walmart , but asz usual, you wish to move goal posts, too bad.

Just. Stop. The. Nonsense. About. Moving. Goal. Posts.

No one did any such thing.

Why won't you tell us what you have determined a living wage to be?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.24  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.17    4 weeks ago

It's not my problem that you don't understand why government benefits to the working poor act as subsidies to their employers. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.25  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    4 weeks ago
WHAT is a "living" wage? Who determines it? Is it determined by geographical location?

One that won't KILL U

 
 
 
1776  Traditional American
3.1.26  1776 Traditional American  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

I spent much of my career between the top 40-45% and am now due to job change in the bottom 50%.  So, I’m not at all rich.  On the other hand, my ability to pay off my house, have a comfortable retirement, preserve kids education funds as well as my health savings and rainy day fund are solely dependent upon the wellbeing of corporate America and the stock market.  My economic future is tied to that market.  I’m one of the 90% that owns the 16% above and I’ve been invested through my former employers pension and 403b plan and now my current employer for over 33 years and on my own for 25.  So as a non rich person it irks my last nerve to see progressives complaining about the stock market when men and so many in the middle and industrialized working class have our economic future dependent upon it 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.24    4 weeks ago
It's not my problem that you don't understand why government benefits to the working poor act as subsidies to their employers. 

And it isn't my problem that government has decided to subsidize people willing to work part time. Or at low-paying jobs. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.28  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.21    4 weeks ago

SVNDF

ANCUF

DG

There are 3 that you should be familiar with, everyone pays minimum wage for the most part.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.25    4 weeks ago
One that won't KILL U

So tell us who has died because Wal Mart didn't pay what you think they should. Never saw a paycheck kill a person myself, Maybe you are unique in that regard.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.30  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.19    4 weeks ago
loomberg had ranked the Waltons family as the richest back in June 2018,and ever since,their fortune started to escalate rapidly. From 39 billion dollars after topping the rankings to   191 billion dollars   in 2019,the Waltons are gaining more and more. The Waltons family business,Walmart,is the world’s largest retailer by revenue.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between income and market valuation increases, as you noted "while the heirs make tens of billions each year".

Income vs valuation are two distinctly different things.

What they EARN is NOT//NOT the same as their WEALTH.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.31  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.24    4 weeks ago
It's not my problem that you don't understand why government benefits to the working poor act as subsidies to their employers.

It's not our problem that you don't understand that "subsidies" to part time workers or even full time workers not sufficiently skilled or educated to sustain themselves on their own is NOT//NOT subsidies to their employers.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.32  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.30    4 weeks ago

another goal post mover..?

Exactly which heirs, or hell, combination of heirs, are making "tens of billions" each year.'

. So now you twisted your above statement to mean you actually wanted on;\ly their market valuation increases, and not their income...   you guys are too funny

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.32    4 weeks ago

What the Waltons make or have won't kill you.

 
 
 
1776  Traditional American
3.1.34  1776 Traditional American  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.30    4 weeks ago

Too many on the progressive side are bitter that when the Dow to use the commonly referenced index dropped from 29,000+ to 18,000+ wiping out all of the Trump gains since the day after the 2016 election due to corona virus that it didn’t keep sliding into a total melt down. They fear that the market rebound might hand Trump re election and they’d be willing to see millions mired in poverty if that’s what it took to defeat Trump.  Bill Maher openly stated that.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.35  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.32    4 weeks ago
another goal post mover..?

NOPE!!

Your own words:

are you claiming Walmart employees' don't receive BILLIONS because they do not earn enough, while the heirs make tens of billions each year...?

YOUR implication was that the Walton heirs (implied) make "tens of billions each year" was compared to Walmart employees EARNINGS.  Market valuation increases are NOT//NOT earnings.  They are indicators of increases of wealth and do NOT become earnings until that wealth is received as in the stocks sold.

Ok...  your turn.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.35    4 weeks ago

Ok...  your turn.

you've spun it enuff for both of US.

Congratulations to You and Tex

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.36    4 weeks ago
Congratulations to You and Tex

Oh, thank you so much!

Always good to know when the debate is over and I have won.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.38  XDm9mm  replied to  1776 Traditional American @3.1.34    4 weeks ago
Too many on the progressive side are bitter

You could have stopped right there!!

What the vast majority refuse to acknowledge or simply don't even know is that those "market valuations" have a great impact on them as well.  But, I guess that's why they say ignorance is bliss.

If they live anywhere in the country that has municipal workers that can get a pension, those pensions are supported by two methods, taxes, which comes out of the individuals pocket, or from stock market earnings or securities sales.  If the market is down, the pensions need to come from somewhere or they need to be cut.   

They also forget that if they have ANY investment, like an IRA/mutual fund, or even personal mutual fund, they are "stock holders".  And company 401k's are invested in the markets.

Also, many companies have funds invested in the markets to supplement any product/service income to grow and expand the company to provide employment opportunities to yet more people.

They always say "let the government pay for it".   Not one of them understand that the government has NO money of it's own.  It relies entirely on what it gets from taxpayers to redistribute for services that the people believe are worthy of that support.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.39  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.36    4 weeks ago
you've spun it enuff for both of US.

No spin.  It was a teaching moment.  You're welcome.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.40  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.37    4 weeks ago

Always good to know when the debate is over and I have won.

i 'll let you both know when, or if, that ever comes to fruition

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.41  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.40    4 weeks ago
i 'll let you both know when, or if, that ever comes to fruition

No need.  It already has and is now history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.42  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.38    4 weeks ago

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32% of Americans are saving for retirement in a 401(k). Granted, that owes partly to the fact that 401(k)s are employer-dependent, and not every company offers one.  

original
www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-american-have-a-401k.a…
 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.43  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.42    4 weeks ago

How many Americans don't have a retirement account?

According to the Aspen Institute, close to 6 in 10 working-age Americans do not have a retirement account. Sadly, the Aspen Institute also warns that things are likely to get worse due to the changing nature of work.

As more Americans freelance or become part of the gig economy, traditional workplace benefits such as access to a 401(k) will become less common. This will leave working-age Americans on their own to figure out how to save enough for retirement and take advantage of tax breaks that help them build a big nest egg more easily.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/20/the-shocking-number-of-americans-without-a-retirem.aspx

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.44  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.43    4 weeks ago

Today, less than 10 percent of Americans have access to a pension.  Most however have access to 401k plans and other retirement options.  Unfortunately as the  middle class  shrinks more Americans are finding it more difficult to save any money.

Social Security unfortunately is going to become the default retirement plan for many.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/20/the-shocking-number-of-americans-without-a-retirem.aspx

So then , we should be increasing Social Security benefits, correct? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.45  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.42    4 weeks ago
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32% of Americans are saving for retirement in a 401(k). Granted, that owes partly to the fact that 401(k)s are employer-dependent, and not every company offers one.  

And that is the problem of you and me how and why?  Hell even the much maligned WalMart offers even part time employees a 401k.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.44    4 weeks ago
So then , we should be increasing Social Security benefits, correct? 

because people refuse to plan for their own retirement?

You really want wealthy people to get more in benefits?

Hmmmm.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.47  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.44    4 weeks ago

About half of American workers simply cannot afford to save much money for retirement. They need all their money to live a "decent" lifestyle today.  About half of individual Americans make less than 40,000 dollars a year.  Rent or mortgage will easily take a quarter of that, or more, then there is groceries, transportation, health insurance, out of pocket medical expenses, clothing , home maintenance, child expenses, and a little to booze it up on the weekends.  Half the country has zero money for the stock market. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.48  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.46    4 weeks ago

it would be very easy to prevent "wealthy" people from  getting more social security. all you need is politicians willing to do it. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.49  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.43    4 weeks ago
According to the Aspen Institute, close to 6 in 10 working-age Americans do not have a retirement account. Sadly, the Aspen Institute also warns that things are likely to get worse due to the changing nature of work.

That is a personal choice and responsibility.  Hell, most people are too dumb to save a few hundred bucks for an emergency fund, much less the future.

As more Americans freelance or become part of the gig economy, traditional workplace benefits such as access to a 401(k) will become less common. This will leave working-age Americans on their own to figure out how to save enough for retirement and take advantage of tax breaks that help them build a big nest egg more easily.

There are great possibilities and methods for "freelance" workers to save for retirement and reduce their taxable income.   They just need the knowledge to do that, and the DISCIPLINE to save NOW for the FUTURE.   But, when it's the immediate gratification crowd, tomorrow doesn't exist...  only the here and now matters.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.50  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.44    4 weeks ago
Today, less than 10 percent of Americans have access to a pension. 

Most companies have found that a pension became the worst albatross around their neck.  They were conceptualized and initiated long before people started living as long as they do now.  Very similar to Social Security.   SS was a tax funded ponzi scheme.   The actuarial tables had people dying prior to or shortly after receiving benefits.

Most however have access to 401k plans and other retirement options.  Unfortunately as the  middle class  shrinks more Americans are finding it more difficult to save any money.

If they WANT to save for retirement, they could.  It would simply mean a little sacrifice now.   No one NEEDS that latest I-Phone or Samsung Galaxy.  I could go on and on, but I'm sure you're capable of figuring that out for yourself.

Social Security unfortunately is going to become the default retirement plan for many.

SS IS the default retirement plan for many.   Too many had no foresight to save since they thought that SS would tide me over.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.51  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.50    4 weeks ago

Americans have always lived a keep up with the Joneses lifestyle. No one needs the latest i phone, including those who can afford it. No one needs anything but something to eat and a roof over their heads (when it rains. )  Advertising works, and people will always be influenced to buy, whether it means no retirement savings or not. 

None of this is the issue. The issue is why do we have an economic system where 1% of the people have 50% of  the wealth of the society? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.48    4 weeks ago

Yeah, but I prefer to take care of myself, not depending on others to provide for me and my family. I have always thought it was my job to take care of me and mine. I won't be begging someone to provide for me.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.53  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.51    4 weeks ago
Americans have always lived a keep up with the Joneses lifestyle. No one needs the latest i phone, including those who can afford it. No one needs anything but something to eat and a roof over their heads (when it rains. )  Advertising works, and people will always be influenced to buy, whether it means no retirement savings or not. 

In other words, you're claiming the people are incapable of making intelligent cogent decisions on their own without having another lead them by the hand to get it accomplished.

You've unintentionally just noted the difference between the left and right.   The left are government dependent followers and the right for the most part are independent personal accountability people willing to sacrifice now for tomorrow.

None of this is the issue. The issue is why do we have an economic system where 1% of the people have 50% of  the wealth of the society? 

Because that 1% had the foresight to INVEST in tomorrow.   They're the opposite of the "Blimpy" character who always noted: " I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today "

They made the sacrifice TODAY for the payoff tomorrow.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.54  Snuffy  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.53    4 weeks ago
They made the sacrifice TODAY for the payoff tomorrow.  

This is so very true.  A prime example of this is an IT worker that I hired a few years ago because of his experience as a trainer for Oracle software. Due to his experience I hired him in at a good rate for an IT worker here in Phoenix. But he had developed a hobby of collecting pins from Hard Rock Cafe's, even traveled around the world to pick up pins.  He bragged about a trip to South America where he flew in,  took a taxi to the Hard Rock there to get the pin, same taxi back to the air port to fly back to Arizona.  And he has stated he will be working until 70 as he needs to maximize his SS payments to survive as he has no real retirement savings.

On the other hand, I will be retired at 65 (due to the cost of health insurance, I decided to wait until I was eligible for Medicare) with no money worries as I have built up a very nice nest egg that will easily provide for all my needs (and most of my wants). My first retirement account was started when I was 24.  Yes, I know I started late in life.  :)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.55  XDm9mm  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.54    4 weeks ago
And he has stated he will be working until 70 as he needs to maximize his SS payments to survive as he has no real retirement savings.

Predicated on his age, that might in fact be the minimum retirement age when he's getting near that time!!  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

On the other hand, I will be retired at 65 (due to the cost of health insurance, I decided to wait until I was eligible for Medicare) with no money worries as I have built up a very nice nest egg that will easily provide for all my needs (and most of my wants).

Ok...   I'll give you an old timers advice.  First, wait until you can draw maximum SS benefits.  It makes a pretty big difference in the monthly check and over the long haul.   

THAT does not negate your ability to sign up for Medicare which is an entirely different program and entirely independent (albeit tied together at the hip so to speak), of the other.

Plus, unless you've already decided what you want to do once retired, don't rush it.   You'll find you want something to do to keep you busy and occupied.  Sitting around sounds nice until you're bored mindless doing it.

I had been contracting to the feds but got a minor injury that made me face my own age and ability to shrug off what never used to hurt!!   Now, I have my rental properties and keeping track of the people that work with me maintaining those properties.  That's enough to keep me occupied, but able to take off at a minutes notice when I want to do what I want.  It's the best of both worlds!!

My first retirement account was started when I was 24.  Yes, I know I started late in life. 

My son and daughter-in-law are both federal employees.   Both have their 'individual' federal retirement accounts, plus ROTH accounts, and they have funds stashed for their kids college if they don't get scholarships.   They're in their 40's and will retire in about another 5 years or so.  With a paid off northern VA house, plus their individual retirement savings they can sit back or as will be likely, become independent contractors themselves or possibly start a contracting company and work that for about five or ten years.  Then pull the plug for good and take over what the wife and I leave for the grandkids with them as executors.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.56  Snuffy  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.55    4 weeks ago
Predicated on his age, that might in fact be the minimum retirement age when he's getting near that time!! 

sry, guess I didn't include that he's 67 now.  he has to go to the 70 to hit the maximum SS benefit due to his spending all his money on travel to collect those pins.

As far as myself,  already planned on waiting until at least the full SS benefit age of 67 before I start to withdraw.  Might even wait until I hit the max amount but my family history and medical history don't make for great odds that I'm gonna hit my 90's so I may start to draw at 67.  But I'm set for money,  it's health insurance that I am waiting for.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.57  XDm9mm  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.56    4 weeks ago
But I'm set for money,  it's health insurance that I am waiting for.

Then apply at 65 like I did.   Just make sure you do 'due diligence' and scope out ALL the options available.  Personally, I've always had an advantage PPO type plan.  A network, but generally pretty good and no referrals needed.  I know what Dr's I need and want to see and don't need to see a PCP to get his/her approval.  Also, predicated on your med's, check prescription drugs covered.

 
 
 
MUVA
4  MUVA    4 weeks ago

I always find it funny when so called grown ups complain about income inequality.Hey it is time grow up and take responsibility for your poor life choices or you could have just worked harder and saved.  

 
 
 
loki12
4.1  loki12  replied to  MUVA @4    4 weeks ago
Hey it is time grow up and take responsibility for your poor life choices or you could have just worked harder and saved.  

That post is directed at the type of people who are celebrating CHAZ/CHOP.  FFS they will never grow up and put their big boy pants on, they are entitled to the proceeds of your hard work, and if they can't vote you out of your hard work, they will take it by riot/force.  

Some morons actually think people are forced to work for bad pay and it's not their fault. That is about the most amazingly stupid thing i have heard.  robots can ask me if i want fry's with that, not some drug addled 20 something who thinks his presence is worth 15 bucks because he studied art for 8 years. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

It's funny how conservatives do not at all address what is clearly laid out in the article. 

They either talk about themselves , or they belittle those who are not getting rich from the stock boom as "losers" or whatever. 

When a society has an economic system geared to the enrichment of a small slice of the population , inevitably at the expense of everyone else, it is sowing the seeds for civil unrest. 

We should start with a tax on stock market transactions, and use the money collected for social programs that benefit everyone.  

 
 
 
loki12
5.1  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago
We should start with a tax on stock market transactions, and use the money collected for social programs that benefit everyone.

Translation:  The worthless takers of society are getting upset and want more, if we want them to continue to vote for us we have to throw them some more scraps which we will steal from the rich, not our rich, but their evil rich, or they might rebel and realize that we have kept them as our slaves for votes every 2 years. 

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.1  MUVA  replied to  loki12 @5.1    4 weeks ago

The sheer reason some want Joe elected access to their fellow citizens wealth.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.2  loki12  replied to  MUVA @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

They worked hard voting to take your money, now they need to rest for 2 years before they vote to see how much you get to keep the next round.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago

I have little stock holdings my wife does I’m in cash and hard work.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago

We don't want socialism or communism JR

It's never worked out for the common good anywhere that it has been tried.

Even in those systems, the money, like cream, always rises for and to the top few percent.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.1  loki12  replied to  Greg Jones @5.3    4 weeks ago
It's never worked out for the common good anywhere that it has been tried.

Come on Greg, Venezuela went from the 3rd richest country in the western hemisphere to one where everyone is pretty much equal, It's a workers paradise!  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago
We should start with a tax on stock market transactions, and use the money collected for social programs that benefit everyone.  

Actually, I've called for, and notified my federal congressional representatives that there should be a $1.00 transaction fee on each market transaction.  All transactions, with the possible exception of "penny stocks" under a certain dollar volume should pay on the seller and buyer side.  

A $1.00 fee on the seller and buyer will not be a deal breaker and anyone trading will likely not even notice the charge on their settlement reports.   

That small fee can generate sufficient revenue to pay off the national DEBT in less than ten years, (of course that would require a balanced budget except in EXTREME circumstances like DECLARED war),  and any revenue stream after the debt is paid off could be used for national infrastructure and other nationally beneficial programs.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5.4.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  XDm9mm @5.4    4 weeks ago

I feel a thirty seven percent tax on short term capital gains is already far too much. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.4.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.4.1    4 weeks ago
I feel a thirty seven percent tax on short term capital gains is already far too much. 

That's a variation of an income tax.   What I've proposed is a simple flat transaction fee, paid by the buyer/seller of $1.00 per.

If someone trading in the market can't handle something as insignificant as that, they have no business trading.  Hell, brokers are more often than not charging upwards of 4% for transactions, but even those are admittedly coming down.

 
 
 
1776  Traditional American
5.4.3  1776 Traditional American  replied to  XDm9mm @5.4.2    4 weeks ago

I get a good number of free trades per year for my brokerage accounts and that means I can make tiny trades that wouldn’t make sense if there was a 5 to $10 brokerage fee.  So if I buy a single share or a minimum purchase or participate in something like where you can buy fractional shares in as little as $5 increments like Stash which makes it possible for anyone to be an investor, a transaction fee would hurt.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.4.4  XDm9mm  replied to  1776 Traditional American @5.4.3    4 weeks ago
So if I buy a single share or a minimum purchase or participate in something like where you can buy fractional shares in as little as $5 increments like Stash which makes it possible for anyone to be an investor, a transaction fee would hurt.  

Not really.   Places like Stash, are for lack of a better term aggregators, kind of like a bank savings account.   They would be responsible for the actual 'transaction fee' when the security is actually bought or sold.  You're just a 'depositor'.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.4.5  MUVA  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.4.1    4 weeks ago

Yes sir punishment for success where as you phone it in and get a earn income tax credit.

 
 
 
1776  Traditional American
5.5  1776 Traditional American  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago

So now you want a tax on every ones retirement account as well as all parents kids education funds, as well as regular taxable investments for other life goals and health savings.  A market transaction tax is either a tax on the middle class or a progressive way to keep the middle class out of the stock markets

 
 
 
charger 383
6  charger 383    4 weeks ago

If working, doing a little extra, saving and investing did not put you in a better position people would not do it

 
 
 
loki12
6.1  loki12  replied to  charger 383 @6    4 weeks ago
If working, doing a little extra, saving and investing did not put you in a better position "intelligent" people would not do it

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


shona1


26 visitors