Historic High for WAGE earners

[Bern80]

I have no problem at all calling the line at 1 million in assets. Now, if you have a source that suggests that 80% out of the entire wealthy quintile made their own money through saving and hard work alone instead of hand me down wealth then, by all means, post that skinny puppy.

the specific wording of the source I used was 'first generation millionaires'. Meaning their parents before them did not have a net worth of a million dollars. Who comprosises the 80% seems to be your sticking point. The answer is that according to their research that includes EVERYONE who has a net worth over a million dollars. You seem to believe the 80% is some subset of that. It isn't. You think it is cause you read one excerpt out of the book but without haveing read the only thing you have no clue as to wether the 80% is based on the definition you cited. Haveing read it, I can tell you it isn't. My interpretatio could be wrong, i went back and read it a couple times, so i don't think it is.

no shit. which leads me to ask why you have tried to insinuate everything else but that logical conclusion for the last two days? Your original arguement that 80% of our wealthy class are the product of their own effort, work and responsibility was mind-numbingly inaccurate and an example of obfuscation behind stats.. Im glad we can both agree on that now.

And the evidence you have provided that it is inaccurate was where again?

My stance is that you have been hiding behind a book as a single source that uses manipulated stats to reach a desired conclusion. I haven't made a single value statement on the nature of wealthy beyond bringing you to the point of admitting that, in fact, your single source's narrow ass sample criteria does not at all reflect the entire population of America's upper class.

I haven't hid behind anything. You asked for A source. I provided A source. You don't like that source. You've called it crap because you think you understand (based on a single excerpt, btw) that you understand what is being said, which is rather foolish.

 

[Shogun]

THE NOMINAL DEFINITION OF WEALTHY

One way we determine whether someone is wealthy or not is based on net worth--"cattle," not "chattel." Net worth is defined as the current value of one's assets less liabilities (exclude the principle in trust accounts). In this book we define the threshold level of being wealthy as having a net worth of $1 million or more. Based on this definition, only 3.5 million (3.5 percent) of the 100 million households in America are considered wealthy. About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million. Much of the discussion in this book centers on this segment of the population. Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s...llionaire.html


Jesus fucking christ, dude. This is the THIRD TIME i've had to post this. Are you going to sit there and tell me that the above paragraph is not CLEAR regarding a specific bracket it is looking at because, and I fucking quote, "Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans."?


You're not listening. I'm well aware the children of the Hiltons and Trumps are gonna have it made without doing much of anything. the point is when it comes to how people become rich, they are the exception, not the rule.

My source? The Millionaire Next Door. Read it.

this book proves what again?



Under those terms 80% of millionaires (notice the word millionaires, not wealthy) are first generation millionaires.

look familiar?

this is not difficult Shogun. yes the book focuses on a specific level of wealth, which you quoted.

how about this one?


The majority of rich didn't get that way through luck. They didn't get that way through a silver spoon. the overwheling majority of people got there by hard work.

Is THAT what a cropped sample suggests?


The book isn't even claiming to talk about being super wealthy. Repeatedly all they state are commonalities they have found in people with a net worth of a million dollars. If you don't consider that wealthy, what do I care?

and then we bounce back to this..



you've officially bored me. enjoy your book and your desired statistics, dude. You are going to believe what you want to believe even if it takes a little manipulation to make the stats say what they need to say. Have fun with that.

 

[Bern80]

THE NOMINAL DEFINITION OF WEALTHY

One way we determine whether someone is wealthy or not is based on net worth--"cattle," not "chattel." Net worth is defined as the current value of one's assets less liabilities (exclude the principle in trust accounts). In this book we define the threshold level of being wealthy as having a net worth of $1 million or more. Based on this definition, only 3.5 million (3.5 percent) of the 100 million households in America are considered wealthy. About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million. Much of the discussion in this book centers on this segment of the population. Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s...llionaire.html


Jesus fucking christ, dude. This is the THIRD TIME i've had to post this. Are you going to sit there and tell me that the above paragraph is not CLEAR regarding a specific bracket it is looking at because, and I fucking quote, "Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans."?

It's very clear, what should also be clear is that the 80% is not referring to that definition.

you've officially bored me. enjoy your book and your desired statistics, dude. You are going to believe what you want to believe even if it takes a little manipulation to make the stats say what they need to say. Have fun with that.

I don't blindly follow anything. I believe things until other evidence is more persuasive and again you have provided nothing.

 

[maineman]

because they are upset about what they pay for. If our tax dollars were only spent on people who simply coudl not help themselves we would have lower tax rates and few complain. But we passed that a long time ago and much of our tax burden goes to people that CAN help themselves but simply wont.

You really can't see how someone might not to be a little annoyed paying for something for someone else, which they payed for on their own? They're essentially asking, 'I did it with my own money, why can't you? If the reason they can't is legitimate fine, more than willing to help. If not, quit complaining.

I cannot understand why people who have more money than they can possibly ever need would complain about a marginal increase in taxes. If they have a problem with HOW their tax dollars are being spent - fine...get involved in the process and make your opinions heard, but when the rich are stingy with all that they have - especially those who have merely inherited their wealth - it really makes me sick.

 

[Bern80]

I cannot understand why people who have more money than they can possibly ever need would complain about a marginal increase in taxes. If they have a problem with HOW their tax dollars are being spent - fine...get involved in the process and make your opinions heard, but when the rich are stingy with all that they have - especially those who have merely inherited their wealth - it really makes me sick.

Well for one thing we aren't a 'need' based society. It's called the American dream, you know the idea you can achieve whatever you want want, not the American necessity where someone deems this is all you should be allowed to have.

I would agree that those that did nothing to gain their wealth don't have much right to complain. those that did work for it do. You wouldn't scratch your head and go wait a minute I worked for this wealth, why is it going to all these people that didn't?

 

[maineman]

Well for one thing we aren't a 'need' based society. It's called the American dream, you know the idea you can achieve whatever you want want, not the American necessity where someone deems this is all you should be allowed to have.

I would agree that those that did nothing to gain their wealth don't have much right to complain. those that did work for it do. You wouldn't scratch your head and go wait a minute I worked for this wealth, why is it going to all these people that didn't?

no one has ever told wealthy americans there was any sort of "cap" on what they are allowed to have. I spent most of my first two decades around powerful wealthy individuals.... back when tax rates were enormous compared to today.... they never felt that the government was telling them they could only have so much...if they wanted more, they went and made more. quite simple.

and in actuality... very very little of any tax dollar goes to social welfare programs... not very much of the money wealthy people pay in taxes goes to people who didn't work for it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

no one has ever told wealthy americans there was any sort of "cap" on what they are allowed to have. I spent most of my first two decades around powerful wealthy individuals.... back when tax rates were enormous compared to today.... they never felt that the government was telling them they could only have so much...if they wanted more, they went and made more. quite simple.

and in actuality... very very little of any tax dollar goes to social welfare programs... not very much of the money wealthy people pay in taxes goes to people who didn't work for it.

Most of it goes to the Military which protects everyone. A big chunk goes to pay for the infrastructure, which is used mostly by people who didn't pay much of anything for it. And thanks to Bill Clinton and his Welfare reform a lot less goes to handouts to the undeserving than used to...

 

[Zoomie1980]

oh.. so NOW all of a sudden you are NOT using the entire population of american wealthy in order to come to an 80% conclusion, eh?

Gosh, it's almost like this is what I've been pointing at for almost 20 posts now.


Feel free to keep using it as an example of the nature of America's wealthy class though. CLEARLY this was the most phenomenal single source you could have chosen.

If you can't figure out how dirty are your manipulated stats and willingness to pull a scheme on people who wouldn't otherwise take your source to task then what to I care. talk about a disingenuous, weasel-like low brow slimy tactic in "proving" your position. You should run for office with honesty like that.

The number of 80-85% is widely regarded as the percentage of first-generation wealth among all with net worth's of $1,000,000+. I have seen that range used in every periodical, editorial, and university research article I have ever read on the topic.

As everything else in this thread, the leftists refuse to accept any fact that flies in the face of their perceptions of life in America. In order to fulfill their warped perception and try and defend their defensless position of unfairness, they need the vast majority of the wealthy to be silver-spooned, spoiled heirs and heiresses ala Paris Hilton. And they need the image of oppressed middle-class being slammed with the vast majority of the tax burden. Of course neither are even REMOTELY true. Facts are facts....

 

[Alpha1]

no one has ever told wealthy americans there was any sort of "cap" on what they are allowed to have. I spent most of my first two decades around powerful wealthy individuals.... back when tax rates were enormous compared to today.... they never felt that the government was telling them they could only have so much...if they wanted more, they went and made more. quite simple.

and in actuality... very very little of any tax dollar goes to social welfare programs... not very much of the money wealthy people pay in taxes goes to people who didn't work for it.

and in actuality... very very little of any tax dollar goes to social welfare programs... not very much of the money wealthy people pay in taxes goes to people who didn't work for it.

Really now? Just how far up your ass do you normally store your head...???
Why not look it up....tell us how many dollars are spent social welfare programs... try naming about 50 or so, just for a start....

 

[Alpha1]

I'll help you...
Just a partial list...


Medicare Drug Program....54 Billion
Midicare........................294 B
Medicade......................198 B
Soc. Security.................519 B
Child Nutrition Programs....12 B
Food Stamps..................33 B
Income Tax Credits..........35 B
Unemployment Comp........33 B
Pell Grants......................13 B
Welfare..........................21 B

Thats 1, 212 in billions
1.212 Trillion.....and these figures are a couple years old....

 

[jillian]

I'll help you...
Just a partial list...


Medicare Drug Program....54 Billion
Midicare........................294 B
Medicade......................198 B
Soc. Security.................519 B
Child Nutrition Programs....12 B
Food Stamps..................33 B
Income Tax Credits..........35 B
Unemployment Comp........33 B
Pell Grants......................13 B
Welfare..........................21 B

Thats 1, 212 in billions
1.212 Trillion.....and these figures are a couple years old....

Which of those programs is a bad thing? And the largest, social security, is us getting our own money back. It isn't welfare and shouldn't be lumped in.

 

[onedomino]

Which of those programs is a bad thing? And the largest, social security, is us getting our own money back. It isn't welfare and shouldn't be lumped in.

I agree. But look at those medical expenses: $544 billion. If the Dem candidates actually achieve socialized medicine, what would that cost? $1 trillion? More? We simply do not have the money. Even if there was no more money for Iraq (which will not happen for a long time), we still have no where near enough money for what both the Dem candidates are promising. This year, with no deduct for the recession, we are going to bounce $420 billion (probably a lot more depending how deep the recession turns out to be).

 

[maineman]

I'll help you...
Just a partial list...


Medicare Drug Program....54 Billion
Midicare........................294 B
Medicade......................198 B
Soc. Security.................519 B
Child Nutrition Programs....12 B
Food Stamps..................33 B
Income Tax Credits..........35 B
Unemployment Comp........33 B
Pell Grants......................13 B
Welfare..........................21 B

Thats 1, 212 in billions
1.212 Trillion.....and these figures are a couple years old....

bogus list

Medicare Drug Program....available for all citizens, not solely for people who didn't pay for it
Medicare........................available for all citizens, not solely for people who didn't pay for it
Soc. Security.................available for all citizens, not solely for people who didn't pay for it

 

[jillian]

I agree. But look at those medical expenses: $544 billion. If the Dem candidates actually achieve socialized medicine, what would that cost? $1 trillion? More? We simply do not have the money. Even if there was no more money for Iraq (which will not happen for a long time), we still have no where near enough money for what both the Dem candidates are promising. This year, with no deduct for the recession, we are going to bounce $420 billion (probably a lot more depending how deep the recession turns out to be).

But a lot of the medical expenses are as high as they are because the prices of things haven't been negotiated. We're don't bargain with pharmaceutical companies and pay way more than other countries pay for OUR drugs. We also don't utilize services efficiently. One of the things universal health care would do is make sure that people can go to the doctor before their illnesses are serious and they require hospitalization.

I don't think the cost will be as bad as you think. The first thing we need to do money wise is cut off the bleeding in Iraq. I'm sure you heard that Bush asked for a "blank check" for that from Congress. Is he kidding?

 

[Bern80]

But a lot of the medical expenses are as high as they are because the prices of things haven't been negotiated. We're don't bargain with pharmaceutical companies and pay way more than other countries pay for OUR drugs. We also don't utilize services efficiently. One of the things universal health care would do is make sure that people can go to the doctor before their illnesses are serious and they require hospitalization.

It isn't 'we' Jillian, it's the government not negotiating prices. It's the government not running it efficiently. And you think that's gonna miraculously change if we give them ever more control over it?

 

[maineman]

It isn't 'we' Jillian, it's the government not negotiating prices. It's the government not running it efficiently. And you think that's gonna miraculously change if we give them ever more control over it?

I certainly think that a democratic administration will not let the pharmacutical industry rob us blind without price negotiations.

 

[Bern80]

I certainly think that a democratic administration will not let the pharmacutical industry rob us blind without price negotiations.

they will probably go to the other extreme as they have with insureance companies and regulate them into Oblivion which will only make things more expensive for the consumer. Part of teh reason premiums are as bad as they are is because of the endless government red tape put on insureance providers. Part of the reason drug are expensive is because so much of the R & D is done here. that costs money. Getting drugs from Canada is dirt cheap because they just wait for our companies to do the work thus they can afford to sell drugs to us for a lot less.

If you think inefficiency is gonna disappear just because dems are in office you have another comin as well. Government has beem inefficient at providing services since the beginning of time. Partly because what there paying for isn't comeing out of their pocket. It's coming out of our pocket.

 

[Alpha1]

Which of those programs is a bad thing?

I didn't see any claims the programs were good or bad...thats a different issue

And the largest, social security, is us getting our own money back. It isn't welfare and shouldn't be lumped in.

Some of those that paid in get much, much, much more than they put in....and a good portion of collecting widows put nothing in.....so lets be real....

ITS people like me that have invested over 1/2 million in SS that will not get it back, unless I live to be over 75 or so......most likely you too......

---

 

[Taomon]

Under the leadership of President Bush, since his inception, wage earners have achieved a 6% increase in wages since 2000.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpswktab1.htm

Wow, too bad it doesn't help against the inflation rate: http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp

The cost of living is higher than the average wage. Sorry, Bush has not really helped out in this area. In fact, he has caused more damage.

 

[Bern80]

bogus list

Medicare Drug Program....available for all citizens, not solely for people who didn't pay for it
Medicare........................available for all citizens, not solely for people who didn't pay for it
Soc. Security.................available for all citizens, not solely for people who didn't pay for it

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.