upworthy

Justice

A woman with hundred dollar bills.

The United States has more money held by private citizens than any other country in the world. According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. households hold a total of $160.35 trillion, which is the value of each person’s assets minus their liabilities. However, many Americans are perplexed by the fact that, in a country with such wealth, so many people still struggle to make ends meet.

Although Americans hold the largest amount of privately held wealth in the world, many of us still struggle with financial stress. A recent report found that 68% don’t have enough money to retire, 56% are struggling to keep up with the cost of living, and 45% are worried about their debt levels. A significant reason is that a small number of people hold a large portion of the privately held wealth in the U.S..

Nearly two-thirds of America’s private wealth is held by the top 10% of people, leaving the remaining one-third to be divided among 90% of the population.

elon musk, richest americans, elon musk black hat, elon musk sunglasses, doge Elon Musk at CPAC.via Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

What if America divided its privately held money evenly?

With so many people struggling in America, while a few at the top are unbelievably wealthy, what would happen if the money were magically divided evenly among the 340 million people who live in the United States? If everyone received a truly equal share of the American pie, every person would receive approximately $471,465. That’s $942,930 per couple and $1.89 million for those with two kids.

With that chunk of change, the couple could easily pay off the average U.S. mortgage and have plenty of resources to save for a good retirement and send both kids to a decent college or trade school. The billionaire who once had more assets than they knew what to do with would probably have to move into a middle-class neighborhood.

couple with money, middle class money, cash money, couple on couch, man and woman A couple with cash sitting on a couch.via Canva/Photos

However, such a drastic redistribution of wealth would be cataclysmic for the economy, as people would have to liquidate their investments to give their assets to others. The sudden increase in wealth for many, without a corresponding increase in goods and services, would lead to incredibly high inflation. The dramatic reconfiguring of the economy would also disincentivize some from working and others from innovating. Some posit that if everyone were equal, in just a few months, those with wealth-generating skills would immediately begin rising to the top again, while others would fall behind.

What programs reduce poverty?

Although it seems that a massive redistribution of wealth isn’t in the cards for many reasons, we do have some evidence from recent history on how programs that give people money can help lift them out of poverty. Government stimulus programs during the COVID-19 pandemic brought the U.S. poverty level to a record low of 7.8% in 2021. Child poverty was also helped by the American Rescue Plan’s Child Tax credit expansion, which drove child poverty to an all-time low of 5.2%. It’s also worth noting that the trillions in government stimulus had a downside, as it was partially responsible for a historic rise in inflation.

While for many, the notion that there are billionaires while others can hardly get by feels obscene, redistributing America’s wealth is more of a thought experiment than something that would realistically happen. But it highlights an important truth: massive wealth inequality exists in the world’s wealthiest nation. While perfect equality will never exist, that shouldn't stop us from making targeted efforts to reduce poverty that make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

This article originally appeared in July

When people move in and refuse to move out, what do you do?

Squatters' rights laws are some of the most bizarrely misused legal realities we have, and something no one seems to have a good answer for. Most of us have heard stories of someone moving into a vacant home and just living there, without anyone's permission and without paying rent, and somehow this is a legal question mark until the courts sort it out.

According to The National Desk, squatters' rights are a carryover from British property law and were created to ensure that abandoned property could be used and to protect occupants from being kicked out without proper notice. It should go without saying that squatter law isn't meant to allow someone to just take over someone else's property, but sometimes that's exactly what happens.

It's what happend to Flash Shelton's mother when she put her house up for rent after her husband passed away. A woman contacted her with interest in the property, only she wanted to do repairs and look after the home instead of paying rent. Before anyone knew it, she had furniture delivered (which she later said was accidental) and set up camp, despite Shelton's mom not agreeing to the arrangement.

But since the woman had expressed her intention and already moved in, the matter was out of police hands, as Shelton found out when he tried to contact the local sheriff.

“They said, ‘I’m sorry but we can’t enter the house, and it looks like they’re living there, so you need to go through the courts',” he shared in a YouTube video.

Shelton rightfully didn't want the expense of a court battle, so he took matters into his own hands—not with violence, but with logic. He had his mom lease the home to him, and then told the squatter that she had to move everything out because he was moving things in.

“If they can take a house, I can take a house," he said.

He was calm and clear about her having to get everything out within the day or he would have people come and take it, and thankfully, she didn't put up a big fight.

That experience made him realize how squatter law can be abused, but that there's a faster system for removing a squatter than to go through the court system. If a squatter can move in and force a homeowner to take them to court to prove they are living there illegally, then he could simply move in alongside the squatter, putting the squatter in the position of having to take the homeowner to court instead.

"The legal process is so slow, and at some point when they're in there, you're going to feel like they have more rights than you do and that's how you're going to be treated. So even though you it's your house and you're paying the mortgage or whatever, at some point squatters feel like they have more rights than you, so they don't have an incentive to leave until a judge tells them to, until they're actually ordered to, and that could take months."

After successfully removing the squatters in his mother's house, Shelton has been tackling similar squatter situations for other homeowners in California, earning him the nickname "The Squatter Hunter."

"All I'm doing is becoming a squatter and flipping this process on them," Shelton told CBS News. "I figured if they could take a house, I could take a house."

According to CBS, he's successfully removed a dozen squatters in the past year. ""I'm not going in and I'm not hurting anyone," he said. "I'm not kicking them out, I'm not throwing them out." He's literally just moving in himself, setting up cameras, and then creating small annoyances until the squatters get fed up enough to move out.

California isn't the only state that has seen issues with squatters. There are squatter stories from all over the U.S. of people moving into a property and refusing to leave without a court order, tying owners up in lengthy, expensive legal battles.

Shelton even has a Change.org petition to try to get squatter laws changed to "make squatting in residential maintained homes criminal." Making squatting illegal "will shift the burden of proof onto the squatter and make the crime punishable with restitution an option for damages," the the petition states.

Watch Shelton share his personal story:

This article originally appeared last year.

Images via Facebook

Pamela Hemphill, formerly known as the "MAGA Granny"

Mere hours into his second term, President Trump signed an executive order granting clemency to roughly 1,500 people charged with offenses related to the Capitol riots and protests on January 6th, 2021. But one woman who went to jail for her role is refusing the pardon, saying none should have been issued at all.

Pamela Hemphill, formerly dubbed "MAGA Granny" on social media, pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building in 2022. She received a 60-day sentence, 36 months of probation, and an order to pay $500 restitution. "We were wrong that day," Hemphill told the BBC, adding that "[a]ccepting a pardon would only insult the Capitol police officers, rule of law and, of course, our nation." She continued, "I pleaded guilty because I was guilty, and accepting a pardon also would serve to contribute to their gaslighting and false narrative."

In a recent USA Today feature, Hemphill opened up about her change in perspective since January 6th, which she called “the worst day in our history."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Many current Republicans support Trump but oppose the blanket pardons. The Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, issued a joint statement denouncing the move, saying they "firmly believe" that anyone "convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers" should be forced to "serve their full sentences."

"When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence," the note continues.

Several Republican senators also took issue with the pardons, including North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who was surprised by their scope. "I just can’t agree,” he said. “I’m about to file two bills that will increase the penalties up to and including the death penalty for the murder of a police officer and increasing the penalties and creating federal crimes for assaulting a police officer—that should give you everything you need to know about my position.”

In their statement, the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police criticized Trump's predecessor for the same reasons. In one of his final acts in office, President Biden commuted the life sentence of Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of killing two FBI agents in 1975. (Peltier, 80, will serve the rest of his sentence at home.) Biden, like Trump, also faced pushback from members of his own party—in this case, for using pardons for family and government employees who haven't been charged with crimes.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

"We need to make a critique of some of the more unjust pardons, like the January 6 pardons," said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, of Virginia. "And I think it’s harder to make that critique, to stand on the high ground and make a critique of the Trump pardons on January 6 when President Biden is pardoning family members.” Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida told CBS News, "I'm not a fan of these pardons. I wish he didn't feel that he needed to do that. ... Now the precedent is set, from now into the future."

Political division is inescapable—seemingly more now than ever. But by taking a stand, Hemphill has set a unique and powerful precedent for people on both sides of the aisle. It takes courage to stand for one's principles, even when doing the opposite would benefit them personally.

Democracy

Local newspapers are deleting old crime stories to give ex-convicts a second chance

Preventing one mistake from becoming a person’s permanent Google search result

Newspapers are deleting old stories about certain crimes so the rehabilitated can more forward.

A growing number of newspapers in the United States are doing their part with the rehabilitation of former criminals and helping them achieve new lives. How? By literally deleting their old ones.

Bringing it to worldwide attention by The Guardian, several American newspapers and their websites have taken down and erased old reported stories of local crimes. This movement was spearheaded in 2018 by Chris Quinn, an editor at Cleveland.com, who founded a “right to be forgotten” edict for his publication.

Multiple requests from readers to pull down old reports about them or simply remove their names from the stories inspired Quinn’s movement. One such example that Quinn experienced was a woman in the health field who at one point stole some drugs from her job. She served her sentence and not only was deemed completely rehabilitated by a judge, but had the records of her crime sealed. In short, no one would be able to find records of her crime today through official channels. Google, however, doesn’t forget.

A tough job interviewHaving a mistake from your past available online makes it more difficult during job interviews.Photo credit: Canva

While she tried to start a new career outside the medical field (she accepted the fact that her actions made it so she couldn’t reclaim her medical license), any potential employer could see her mugshot from Cleveland.com’s news coverage of her past crime upon just Googling her name. This made it difficult to move forward by obtaining a new job for her new life.

She’s just one of millions of people going through this struggle. Per The Sentencing Project, more than 60% of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed within one year of being released, and as many as one in three Americans have a criminal record of some sort. Given that most job applications require a background check, employers can unearth past offenses of job applicants through a simple Google search, which can influence whether or not a person can be hired. This means that a good chunk of Americans are losing out on opportunities due to being judged by a mistake they made deep in the past, some of which are decades-old.

A person in prison with their head in their hands.With their stories still available to the public years later, some rehabilitated offenders still feel imprisoned by their past.Photo credit: Canva

“We heard from many people about the pain this caused for them, especially those who had turned their lives around and were striving to be better people,” said Quinn in a 2022 op-ed updating their readers. “In 2018, we started our Right to be Forgotten project, accepting applications from people to remove their names from dated stories about them. We received 10 to 15 a month on average, and a committee of editors considered them.”

Other publications took notice and in recent years started enacting their own “right to be forgotten” practices, such as The Oregonian and The Boston Globe.

“Our response up until now has been that we do not remove accurate stories, as they are a snapshot of historical fact,” wrote Therese Bottomly, editor at The Oregonian. “But news organizations are coming to realize that such stories linger and affect lives in ways that can be outsized compared to the incident itself.”

Each publication has their own standards as to what stories get taken down and which ones remain online. Certain factors come into play in making that decision such as how long ago the incident was first reported and the severity of the crime committed. Some publications may elect to keep stories as written, but remove any mugshots that identify the persons involved. In any case, the overall focus is universal: Not letting a person’s past define their future.

A road with the words "FRESH START" written on the pavement.A clean slate means a fresh start and a new road for the rehabilitated.Photo credit: Canva