Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not bogus, just because it's available to everyone doesn't mean it's being used by everyone, and that's the point. You noted that at a point you can make so much money that whining about taxes becomes irrelevent because it isn't much of a hit to the pocket book. By the same token, when you're 'uber wealthy' many of those same programs become irrelivent. What difference is $800 a month in SS gonna make to someone that ranking in ten times that? Likewise they will often opt to pay for better options then medicare and medicade.
1. a survey? I'll take Alfred Kinsey and answers that people give despite reality for 100 alex.
2. OTHER sources? the posted BLOG from the WSJ? bravo.
3. Gosh, why on EARTH do people manipulate stats in order to come to a predetermined conclusion that corroborates their opinions... hmmm.. It probably has nothing to do with validating a specific agenda! I mean, it's not like tobacco companies conducted research during the 50s!
4. Yes the book focuses on a specific group of millionaires (net worth of 1 million to 10 million)
to
It is simply about the habits of the wealthy (which they define as a net worth of a million dollars (if you want to debate whether tha should be considered wealthy, by all means, but I think I have shown that is no small feet)) and how they became so.
a blog from the wall street journal. How very profound, dude. It's almost as if I had asked you for other supporting sources at the very beginning of this thrill ride. I mean, had I known that you had access to a BLOG with OPINIONS I probably would have shut right the hell up.
still trying to convince someone, dude.
I've already bitchslapped you with quotes from your own single source, dude. If you want to pretend that wealthy codgers using a SURVEY, of all testing methods available for christ sakes, that mainly focuses on a narrowed demographic reflects anything about the population of wealthy then be my guest.
after all, why would anyone conduction this kind of research have a reason to achieve desired results, eh joe camel?
Hell, it's probably not obvious why you keep bringing up my name with a big five finger red mark on your left cheek like that. People who soundly trounce my point generally ALWAYS keep trying to defend their position 10 posts after I've stopped taking their logic to task.
Again, still feel the need to convince someone of something?
I've posted my evidence regarding your single source. If you had the conviction to move beyond defending this single lame-assed book then perhaps it wouldn't be clear why you are defending it as if it were the last ark floating in the flood.
As it is, tell me another jokey jokey about how people with an agenda have no reason to produce crafted results. It's almost as funny as asking kinsey-like questions to a narrowed sample while expecting an honest answer about having earned individual wealth. I bet just as many people admit their silver spoon as will also admit to jacking off.
Now, if you don't mind passing me my healthy cigarettes... There was a study done, you know.
I've said over and over that narrowing the SURVEYED (snicker snicker) criteria down to a bracket of 1 - 10 million in personal wealth is in no way reflective of the population of wealthy Americans. Wealthy as an adjective doesn't end at 10 million just because focusing on 80% of a chosen sample sells books to people who want desperately to believe that wealth is merely a matter of personal achievement. The paragraph that I posted indicates exactly why the book focuses on a cropped sample: "Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans."
yea, dissecting the research method you seem to think is solid gold sure is an assumption, isn't it? Maybe if I take a survey on racism in the south I can expect truthful answers from the men wearing hoods and burning crosses on the weekend.
Yes, it is very logical when you assert such ideals from a single source as mana from heaven and then cry about the attention given to the research method used in order to create a result that is marketable in book form.
I know, when someone whips out a single source that is a book most reasonable people will just nod their heads, accept a premise as fact, and move on. Since what I've posted came from the book itself and you've danced around multiple times around the books method, application and conclusions you are probably the first person who should be doling out lessons on context.
MM says....They are NOT programs where the "haves" give away to the "have nots". THOSE programs make up a small amount of each tax dollar the wealthy pay in anyway..which was MY point.
-----------------------------
Its sad to see someone so brainwashed by politics that they cease to exercise logic and reason in their thinking.....
Anyway...
By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expense in the federal budget, with 20.9% for social security and 20.4% for Medicare..
Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
The original Social Security Act[1] and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs. The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:
* Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
* Unemployment Insurance
* Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
* Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
* The nonworking spouse of someone entitled to an old-age benefit also became entitled to an old-age benefit. (welfare)
* Survivors (widow(er)s and orphans) became eligible for a benefit. (welfare)
* Retirees who had never paid any FICA taxes became eligible for old-age benefits.(welfare)
This feature was very popular among the millions of elderly Americans hard hit by the Great Depression, and fatefully decoupled benefits eligibility from work history.(welfare)
During the Carter administration, immigrants who had never paid into the system became eligible for SSI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits when they reached age 65. SSI is not a Social Security benefit, but a welfare program
because the elderly and disabled poor are entitled to SSI regardless of work history.
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages.
The fact that present day workers now fund the workers of decades ago....? (welfare)
Because that money put in decades ago, is long gone.....
But my wife and I love it....love getting that check every month....so to all you youngsters....KEEP WORKING-AND KEEP PAYING
so...you're on welfare?
Not yet...My wife and I invested over 1/2 million bucks in SS.....(I don't have the early figures) So it will take some time yet for us to collect just the principle.....I don't expect to ever see any interest.....
I thought you said that SS was a welfare program. The vast majority of SS checks go to people just like you and me who have worked for their whole lives and now get their SS contributions back. It is not a welfare program....
Funny thing about SS, when it was first enacted the collection age was about two years beyond the average life expectancy.... Today it's about 15 years under that....
And to get everything back in inflation adjusted dollars you'd have to live well past 100.
irrelevant. SS is still not a welfare program.
I never said it was. It's a pension program....one with a pathetically lousy ROI.
I thought you said that SS was a welfare program. The vast majority of SS checks go to people just like you and me who have worked for their whole lives and now get their SS contributions back. It is not a welfare program....
