Saturday, April 30, 2011

Rising Wealth Inequality: should we care?

Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care? is the title of an article by Harvard university Michael Norton, published in the New York Times on March 22, 2011. It refers to the survey he coauthored with Dan Ariely of Duke University, Building A Better America: One Wealth Quintile At A Time (pdf). While today the richest 20% own 84%, a majority of Americans would prefer a distribution where the richest 20% own 32%! The survey also showed the public had no idea about the real present distribution:

"Respondents vastly underestimated the actual level of wealth inequality in the United States, believing that the wealthiest quintile held about 59% of the wealth when the actual number is closer to
84%. More interesting, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution, reporting a desire for the top quintile to own just 32% of the wealth." That's about the situation in Sweden.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The people's budget

Paul Krugman's column explains (once more) why raising taxes for the wealthiest should be an evidence, except if one wants to return to the 1930s or further. The people's budget is produced by the Progressive Caucus.

Friday, April 22, 2011

What about a Robin Hood Tax in the US?

Bill Nighy helps understand the idea in this very funny clip (on YouTube of course). Apparently there is no Robin Hood Taxgroup in the US (yet) although there are a few supporters.

Patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength

A list of millionaires who want to pay more taxes.

Taxes are patriotic

A very interesting post by Anna Fahey on Sightline Daily. She mentions an appeal by 45 millionaires I have not heard about (why is that) and the fact that half the members of Congress are millionaires.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Soak the very, very rich (by James Surowieki)

Soak the very, very rich is a key article by James Surowieki, published in the New Yorker on August 16, 2010. He explains the huge difference between the middle class "rich" and the very, very rich. The logical consequence should be to treat them very, very differently as they absolutely did not belong to the same class of wealth.