Unequal distribution of wealth

[topspin]

show the demand side graph with no wealth. LOFL

 

[Gadawg73]

Could it be that the folks that have the wealth did things such as working hard to acquire the weath, educating themselves and investing wisely and the folks that do not have any wealth have continued to do the things that made them not wealthy?
An economy based on horse and buggy manufacturing once went bad and the blue collar mentality of the 1940s has also gone bad.
China has more college honor students in math, IT and engineering than we have COLLEGE STUDENTS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

cuyo should be thanked for the comedy. After being slamed dunked on being wrong on the inherited. He/she say's most people don't change classes.
Nice trying but no cigar.
Most people start out at min wage or near it, and then the fun begins.

Exactly. Because America does not have a caste system, it is virtually pointless to talk about "the rich" and "the poor" as though these are static groups. Most of the time, what you are actually talking about are the same people, but at different points in their lives. It's very unlikely that a person in his forties is going to be doing the same job and making the same wage as he was in his twenties. But even if he never changes jobs, after twenty years he's going to have gotten raises.

Studies from the Treasury Department, which can track the same people's incomes over time, tell us that taxpayers whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1996 had a 91 percent increase in incomes by 2005. Meanwhile, taxpayers in the top one-hundredth of one percent had their incomes drop by 26 percent over those very same years. Clearly, the first group of people went up in income bracket, and at least some of the second group dropped. The University of Michigan Panel Survey on Income Dynamics showed that, among people who were in the bottom 20 percent income bracket in 1975, only 5 percent were still in that category in 1991. Nearly six times as many of them were now in the top 20 percent in 1991. (Thank you to Thomas Sowell for the study references.)

 

[Cuyo]

Okey dokey.

Self-Made VS Inherited Billionaire Fortunes | Money Tip Central

This shows us, first of all, that of the 60 richest people in the world, 53% live in the United States, 29% live in Europe, 5% live in the Middle East, India, and Hong Kong each, and 3% live in Russia.

Second, it shows us that, of the 53% living in the United States, 69% are self-made billionaires, versus 31% who inherited their wealth.

Furthermore, of the percentage living in the Middle East, 58% are self-made, versus 42% who inherited.

Continuing, we see that 100% of Russia's billionaires are self-made, and 71% of Hong Kong's are. Now, my math tells me that this would all mean that . . . Ta Da!!! Most billionaires are also self-made, just like millionaires.

Thanks for asking.

Uhhh Yes, considering there were only 13 Billionaires as of 1982, it would make sense that most of today's billionaires did not descend from other billionaires.

Out of curiosity I did peruse the list awhile, and, not saying they don't exist, but I've not found one that did not come from privilege.

Most people wind up in the class into which they're born, because the corresponding obstacles and advantages reproduce themselves. People in the upper-upper echelons almost never fall from their position because they have too many safety nets. Why do you guys try so hard to say it ain't so?

Ahhh. So now we're moving the goalposts. First, it was "they all inherited their wealth". NOW, it's "well, they made themselves wealthy, but they weren't dirt-poor to start with, so it doesn't count".

You've just proven yourself utterly unworthy of responding to, but I'll throw just one more pearl before the swine: most people do NOT wind up in the class in which they're born. Statistics show us that only a tiny percentage of the population doesn't move from one quintile to others - both up and down - in their lifetime.

Income Mobility and Economic Opportunity

How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?

We try so hard to say it ain't so because your envy-warped view of the world AIN'T so.

First of all, you're disgusting; C-word level of just a simply disgusting human being. Luckily, I don't use that word. And that's fine, first amendment and all that crap.

Turns out, however, that there is some truth to what your saying. Wealth mobility _IS_ higher than I thought. The truth is somewhere in between what you say and what I say, as is usually the case. From Wiki:

There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%[1]. Increasing income inequality, however, does not necessarily imply decreasing mobility. Median family income has risen 29% and mean family income has risen 43%, compared to the income of the previous generation for people that were children in 1968[3]. Most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time[3]. Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles[3]. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents[3].
Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

So in showing that Billionaires are generally not born of other Billionaires, and in also showing that wealth mobility was higher than I thought, what do you think you've proven?

Is it your argument that a social hierarchy does not exist in this country? That those born poor are not unduly burdened, and those born wealthy are not undeservedly advantaged?

Get real.

 

[Cuyo]

Could it be that the folks that have the wealth did things such as working hard to acquire the weath, educating themselves and investing wisely and the folks that do not have any wealth have continued to do the things that made them not wealthy?
An economy based on horse and buggy manufacturing once went bad and the blue collar mentality of the 1940s has also gone bad.
China has more college honor students in math, IT and engineering than we have COLLEGE STUDENTS.

Well, to be fair they do outnumber us in people about 4:1. Do you have a link to the study your referring to? I'm curious.

 

[The Rabbi]

Uhhh Yes, considering there were only 13 Billionaires as of 1982, it would make sense that most of today's billionaires did not descend from other billionaires.

Out of curiosity I did peruse the list awhile, and, not saying they don't exist, but I've not found one that did not come from privilege.

Most people wind up in the class into which they're born, because the corresponding obstacles and advantages reproduce themselves. People in the upper-upper echelons almost never fall from their position because they have too many safety nets. Why do you guys try so hard to say it ain't so?

Ahhh. So now we're moving the goalposts. First, it was "they all inherited their wealth". NOW, it's "well, they made themselves wealthy, but they weren't dirt-poor to start with, so it doesn't count".

You've just proven yourself utterly unworthy of responding to, but I'll throw just one more pearl before the swine: most people do NOT wind up in the class in which they're born. Statistics show us that only a tiny percentage of the population doesn't move from one quintile to others - both up and down - in their lifetime.

Income Mobility and Economic Opportunity

How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?

We try so hard to say it ain't so because your envy-warped view of the world AIN'T so.

First of all, you're disgusting; C-word level of just a simply disgusting human being. Luckily, I don't use that word. And that's fine, first amendment and all that crap.

Turns out, however, that there is some truth to what your saying. Wealth mobility _IS_ higher than I thought. The truth is somewhere in between what you say and what I say, as is usually the case. From Wiki:

There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%[1]. Increasing income inequality, however, does not necessarily imply decreasing mobility. Median family income has risen 29% and mean family income has risen 43%, compared to the income of the previous generation for people that were children in 1968[3]. Most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time[3]. Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles[3]. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents[3].
Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

So in showing that Billionaires are generally not born of other Billionaires, and in also showing that wealth mobility was higher than I thought, what do you think you've proven?

Is it your argument that a social hierarchy does not exist in this country? That those born poor are not unduly burdened, and those born wealthy are not undeservedly advantaged?

Get real.

Caught being wrong and you blame her. Shame on you.
I guess the real question is, what were you trying to show by claiming that most wealth was inherited?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uhhh Yes, considering there were only 13 Billionaires as of 1982, it would make sense that most of today's billionaires did not descend from other billionaires.

Out of curiosity I did peruse the list awhile, and, not saying they don't exist, but I've not found one that did not come from privilege.

Most people wind up in the class into which they're born, because the corresponding obstacles and advantages reproduce themselves. People in the upper-upper echelons almost never fall from their position because they have too many safety nets. Why do you guys try so hard to say it ain't so?

Ahhh. So now we're moving the goalposts. First, it was "they all inherited their wealth". NOW, it's "well, they made themselves wealthy, but they weren't dirt-poor to start with, so it doesn't count".

You've just proven yourself utterly unworthy of responding to, but I'll throw just one more pearl before the swine: most people do NOT wind up in the class in which they're born. Statistics show us that only a tiny percentage of the population doesn't move from one quintile to others - both up and down - in their lifetime.

Income Mobility and Economic Opportunity

How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?

We try so hard to say it ain't so because your envy-warped view of the world AIN'T so.

First of all, you're disgusting; C-word level of just a simply disgusting human being. Luckily, I don't use that word. And that's fine, first amendment and all that crap.

Turns out, however, that there is some truth to what your saying. Wealth mobility _IS_ higher than I thought. The truth is somewhere in between what you say and what I say, as is usually the case. From Wiki:

There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%[1]. Increasing income inequality, however, does not necessarily imply decreasing mobility. Median family income has risen 29% and mean family income has risen 43%, compared to the income of the previous generation for people that were children in 1968[3]. Most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time[3]. Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles[3]. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents[3].
Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

So in showing that Billionaires are generally not born of other Billionaires, and in also showing that wealth mobility was higher than I thought, what do you think you've proven?

Is it your argument that a social hierarchy does not exist in this country? That those born poor are not unduly burdened, and those born wealthy are not undeservedly advantaged?

Get real.

You got so caught up in being spectacularly wrong, as loudly as possible, that you forgot what the topic was about which you were making a fool of yourself? Good job, dumbass.

My work here is done. Move along.

 

[georgephillip]

This graph pretty much says it all

and this pretty much shows us WHY we're in an economic disaster right now, too.

DEMAND is out of balance with supply because SUPPLY has most of the wealth and most of the income, too.

Fourty years of supply side stupidity will have that effect on a society, ya know?

No, apparently many of you do not know.

And no amount of evidence to support that fact seems enough to wake you up.

Your conservative superpower is the fact that you guys are impervious to facts or logic.

The "Happy Two Percent" of the US population "now receives an estimated three quarters (~75%) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains.)

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago"

Did hard work play a role?

Did hard work play a bigger role than government tax policy created by elected Republicans AND Democrats who depend on the "happy 2%" for the lion's share of campaign donations?

Michael Hudson:

 

[Cuyo]

So in showing that Billionaires are generally not born of other Billionaires, and in also showing that wealth mobility was higher than I thought, what do you think you've proven?

Is it your argument that a social hierarchy does not exist in this country? That those born poor are not unduly burdened, and those born wealthy are not undeservedly advantaged?

Get real.

Caught being wrong and you blame her. Shame on you.
I guess the real question is, what were you trying to show by claiming that most wealth was inherited?

Very simply, that claims I hear around here that everyone's self made and all people have the same opportunity, are bullshit. Everyone doesn't have the same opportunity; Wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. Yes, there's unlimited opportunity in theory, and some people do make huge leaps and bounds, others fall hard from grace. But moreso than intelligence, drive, virtue, etc; Birthright is the #1 indicator in determining where you'll wind up.

This is a situation that has gotten worse in this country in the last 30 years, not better.

And I don't blame her for showing me to be wrong, I thank her for that. I hate being wrong and I'm always willing to learn. What I blame her for, is having an incredibly abrasive personality. She reminds me of fucking Ann Coulter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This graph pretty much says it all

and this pretty much shows us WHY we're in an economic disaster right now, too.

DEMAND is out of balance with supply because SUPPLY has most of the wealth and most of the income, too.

Fourty years of supply side stupidity will have that effect on a society, ya know?

No, apparently many of you do not know.

And no amount of evidence to support that fact seems enough to wake you up.

Your conservative superpower is the fact that you guys are impervious to facts or logic.

The "Happy Two Percent" of the US population "now receives an estimated three quarters (~75%) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains.)

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago"

Did hard work play a role?

Did hard work play a bigger role than government tax policy created by elected Republicans AND Democrats who depend on the "happy 2%" for the lion's share of campaign donations?

Michael Hudson:

Are we supposed to be shocked by the "revelation" that there are a lot fewer rich people than poor people in the country? Got a graph that proves the radical notion that the sky is blue, too?

What's your fucking point? I think everyone here knew already that it's a lot easier to be poor than it is to be rich.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So in showing that Billionaires are generally not born of other Billionaires, and in also showing that wealth mobility was higher than I thought, what do you think you've proven?

Is it your argument that a social hierarchy does not exist in this country? That those born poor are not unduly burdened, and those born wealthy are not undeservedly advantaged?

Get real.

Caught being wrong and you blame her. Shame on you.
I guess the real question is, what were you trying to show by claiming that most wealth was inherited?

Very simply, that claims I hear around here that everyone's self made and all people have the same opportunity, are bullshit. Everyone doesn't have the same opportunity; Wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. Yes, there's unlimited opportunity in theory, and some people do make huge leaps and bounds, others fall hard from grace. But moreso than intelligence, drive, virtue, etc; Birthright is the #1 indicator in determining where you'll wind up.

This is a situation that has gotten worse in this country in the last 30 years, not better.

And I don't blame her for showing me to be wrong, I thank her for that. I hate being wrong and I'm always willing to learn. What I blame her for, is having an incredibly abrasive personality. She reminds me of fucking Ann Coulter.

No, wealth does NOT beget wealth. Lots of people inherit money from their parents and blow it all. EDUCATION begets wealth. If you want your kids to be wealthy and successful, it's a lot more important to bequeath to them an appreciation for learning and hard work than a bundle of cash.

If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top. Or did you miss that part?

Oh, and as for abrasive, how abrasive do you think it is for you to come in here, spouting class envy vitriol based on blatantly false assertions as though you're some sort of economic expert? And how much courtesy do you think you deserve in being told that you're making a jackass out of yourself? I ain't your momma, son. If you want to debate with the grownups, I suggest you butch up and stop whining about how mean people are to you when you step on your johnson.

Oh, and next time you want to call me a dirty name, grow a pair of cojones and just say it. Don't be a hypocritical little punk and try to get the bennies of calling me a "****" while also trying to claim the bennies of being too nice to say it. Piss or get off the pot. It's not like after your little display of ignorance, anyone's going to respect your opinion enough to care, anyway.

 

[Cuyo]

Caught being wrong and you blame her. Shame on you.
I guess the real question is, what were you trying to show by claiming that most wealth was inherited?

Very simply, that claims I hear around here that everyone's self made and all people have the same opportunity, are bullshit. Everyone doesn't have the same opportunity; Wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. Yes, there's unlimited opportunity in theory, and some people do make huge leaps and bounds, others fall hard from grace. But moreso than intelligence, drive, virtue, etc; Birthright is the #1 indicator in determining where you'll wind up.

This is a situation that has gotten worse in this country in the last 30 years, not better.

And I don't blame her for showing me to be wrong, I thank her for that. I hate being wrong and I'm always willing to learn. What I blame her for, is having an incredibly abrasive personality. She reminds me of fucking Ann Coulter.

No, wealth does NOT beget wealth. Lots of people inherit money from their parents and blow it all. EDUCATION begets wealth. If you want your kids to be wealthy and successful, it's a lot more important to bequeath to them an appreciation for learning and hard work than a bundle of cash.

If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top. Or did you miss that part?

Yes, I'm afraid I missed that part. You'll be hard pressed to prove that one.

Oh, and as for abrasive, how abrasive do you think it is for you to come in here, spouting class envy vitriol based on blatantly false assertions as though you're some sort of economic expert? And how much courtesy do you think you deserve in being told that you're making a jackass out of yourself? I ain't your momma, son. If you want to debate with the grownups, I suggest you butch up and stop whining about how mean people are to you when you step on your johnson.

Oh, and next time you want to call me a dirty name, grow a pair of cojones and just say it. Don't be a hypocritical little punk and try to get the bennies of calling me a "****" while also trying to claim the bennies of being too nice to say it. Piss or get off the pot. It's not like after your little display of ignorance, anyone's going to respect your opinion enough to care, anyway.

OK, you're a ****. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.

And as I've shown, it's not "Blatantly false." I said it means almost everything, you said it means almost nothing. The truth is it means a lot, but not as much as I thought. Big fucking deal. It's still probably the single best predictive statistic in determining someones future income. I've admitted the mobility was higher than I thought, but my original assertion is still closer to the truth than the noise you're spouting.

Get bent. ****.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Very simply, that claims I hear around here that everyone's self made and all people have the same opportunity, are bullshit. Everyone doesn't have the same opportunity; Wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. Yes, there's unlimited opportunity in theory, and some people do make huge leaps and bounds, others fall hard from grace. But moreso than intelligence, drive, virtue, etc; Birthright is the #1 indicator in determining where you'll wind up.

This is a situation that has gotten worse in this country in the last 30 years, not better.

And I don't blame her for showing me to be wrong, I thank her for that. I hate being wrong and I'm always willing to learn. What I blame her for, is having an incredibly abrasive personality. She reminds me of fucking Ann Coulter.

No, wealth does NOT beget wealth. Lots of people inherit money from their parents and blow it all. EDUCATION begets wealth. If you want your kids to be wealthy and successful, it's a lot more important to bequeath to them an appreciation for learning and hard work than a bundle of cash.

If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top. Or did you miss that part?

Yes, I'm afraid I missed that part. You'll be hard pressed to prove that one.

Oh, and as for abrasive, how abrasive do you think it is for you to come in here, spouting class envy vitriol based on blatantly false assertions as though you're some sort of economic expert? And how much courtesy do you think you deserve in being told that you're making a jackass out of yourself? I ain't your momma, son. If you want to debate with the grownups, I suggest you butch up and stop whining about how mean people are to you when you step on your johnson.

Oh, and next time you want to call me a dirty name, grow a pair of cojones and just say it. Don't be a hypocritical little punk and try to get the bennies of calling me a "****" while also trying to claim the bennies of being too nice to say it. Piss or get off the pot. It's not like after your little display of ignorance, anyone's going to respect your opinion enough to care, anyway.

OK, you're a ****. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.

And as I've shown, it's not "Blatantly false." I said it means almost everything, you said it means almost nothing. The truth is it means a lot, but not as much as I thought. Big fucking deal. It's still probably the single best predictive statistic in determining someones future income. I've admitted the mobility was higher than I thought, but my original assertion is still closer to the truth than the noise you're spouting.

Get bent. ****.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

Now, since the Treasury Department tells us that half of the people who started the decade at the bottom move up by the end of that decade, and that this has been true for more than one decade (and since we can assume that the population isn't just kakking off en masse every ten years), that would be the majority of those people over their lifetime moving up. Indeed, if you read the entire report, you can see that only a small proportion of the population on both ends of the spectrum remains static their entire lives.

Second, what I know is that YOU THINK I'm a ****. I also know that you're such an ignorant twit that your opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

Third, you've shown absolutely nothing except that your assertions and assumptions were based on false beliefs, generated by your own liver-eating envy and bile. Oh, you've also shown that you're utterly incapable of admitting that you fucked up gracefully, instead stomping your feet and calling names like a hateful little child. Nice follow-up to making fool of yourself. Really takes care of any vestige of respect anyone might have had for you.

 

[boedicca]

I strive to be the world's first TRIILLIONAIRE.
First Bank of Dawgville Account # 73

Gadawg
73 Hicksville Dr.
Hahira, Ga.

CURRENT BALANCE: $1,007,023,000,000.00

I plan on gving most of it away to charities, youth groups and causes. In doing so, I plan on employing teams of lobbyists to fight the government in their continued attempts to take any, or all of it, oter than the normal tax rate.
I, not the goverment, knows what is best to do with MY $$. I, not the government, earned all of it and I intend to keep what I earn.
If I can give it away to anyone tax free I should be able to pass it on to Dawg Jr., his brother and sister tax free.

If Obama and Geithner are allowed to devalue our currency for a few more years, we all might become Trillionaires.

 

[Cuyo]

No, wealth does NOT beget wealth. Lots of people inherit money from their parents and blow it all. EDUCATION begets wealth. If you want your kids to be wealthy and successful, it's a lot more important to bequeath to them an appreciation for learning and hard work than a bundle of cash.

If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top. Or did you miss that part?

Yes, I'm afraid I missed that part. You'll be hard pressed to prove that one.

Oh, and as for abrasive, how abrasive do you think it is for you to come in here, spouting class envy vitriol based on blatantly false assertions as though you're some sort of economic expert? And how much courtesy do you think you deserve in being told that you're making a jackass out of yourself? I ain't your momma, son. If you want to debate with the grownups, I suggest you butch up and stop whining about how mean people are to you when you step on your johnson.

Oh, and next time you want to call me a dirty name, grow a pair of cojones and just say it. Don't be a hypocritical little punk and try to get the bennies of calling me a "****" while also trying to claim the bennies of being too nice to say it. Piss or get off the pot. It's not like after your little display of ignorance, anyone's going to respect your opinion enough to care, anyway.

OK, you're a ****. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.

And as I've shown, it's not "Blatantly false." I said it means almost everything, you said it means almost nothing. The truth is it means a lot, but not as much as I thought. Big fucking deal. It's still probably the single best predictive statistic in determining someones future income. I've admitted the mobility was higher than I thought, but my original assertion is still closer to the truth than the noise you're spouting.

Get bent. ****.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

Now, since the Treasury Department tells us that half of the people who started the decade at the bottom move up by the end of that decade, and that this has been true for more than one decade (and since we can assume that the population isn't just kakking off en masse every ten years), that would be the majority of those people over their lifetime moving up. Indeed, if you read the entire report, you can see that only a small proportion of the population on both ends of the spectrum remains static their entire lives.

Second, what I know is that YOU THINK I'm a ****. I also know that you're such an ignorant twit that your opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

Third, you've shown absolutely nothing except that your assertions and assumptions were based on false beliefs, generated by your own liver-eating envy and bile. Oh, you've also shown that you're utterly incapable of admitting that you fucked up gracefully, instead stomping your feet and calling names like a hateful little child. Nice follow-up to making fool of yourself. Really takes care of any vestige of respect anyone might have had for you.

You are SUCH a child!

Your quote:

the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misspoke in this quote.

You know what? I think I'm done with you. It's obvious that this is not going to segway into a reasonable conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, I'm afraid I missed that part. You'll be hard pressed to prove that one.



OK, you're a ****. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.

And as I've shown, it's not "Blatantly false." I said it means almost everything, you said it means almost nothing. The truth is it means a lot, but not as much as I thought. Big fucking deal. It's still probably the single best predictive statistic in determining someones future income. I've admitted the mobility was higher than I thought, but my original assertion is still closer to the truth than the noise you're spouting.

Get bent. ****.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

Now, since the Treasury Department tells us that half of the people who started the decade at the bottom move up by the end of that decade, and that this has been true for more than one decade (and since we can assume that the population isn't just kakking off en masse every ten years), that would be the majority of those people over their lifetime moving up. Indeed, if you read the entire report, you can see that only a small proportion of the population on both ends of the spectrum remains static their entire lives.

Second, what I know is that YOU THINK I'm a ****. I also know that you're such an ignorant twit that your opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

Third, you've shown absolutely nothing except that your assertions and assumptions were based on false beliefs, generated by your own liver-eating envy and bile. Oh, you've also shown that you're utterly incapable of admitting that you fucked up gracefully, instead stomping your feet and calling names like a hateful little child. Nice follow-up to making fool of yourself. Really takes care of any vestige of respect anyone might have had for you.

You are SUCH a child!

Your quote:

the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misspoke in this quote.

You know what? I think I'm done with you. It's obvious that this is not going to segway into a reasonable conversation.

You know what? You were done with me the minute I proved that you were talking out of your pea-green, jealous little ass. Everything since then has just been you trying to dig out of your hole. And this little attempt to pretend that you have any dignity left is just as delusional as your earlier assertion that most rich people inherited their money.

And the word is "segue", shitforbrains. Segway is a two-wheeled vehicle for dorks. You really are batting 0 lately, arentcha?

 

[Cuyo]

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.
• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

Now, since the Treasury Department tells us that half of the people who started the decade at the bottom move up by the end of that decade, and that this has been true for more than one decade (and since we can assume that the population isn't just kakking off en masse every ten years), that would be the majority of those people over their lifetime moving up. Indeed, if you read the entire report, you can see that only a small proportion of the population on both ends of the spectrum remains static their entire lives.

Second, what I know is that YOU THINK I'm a ****. I also know that you're such an ignorant twit that your opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

Third, you've shown absolutely nothing except that your assertions and assumptions were based on false beliefs, generated by your own liver-eating envy and bile. Oh, you've also shown that you're utterly incapable of admitting that you fucked up gracefully, instead stomping your feet and calling names like a hateful little child. Nice follow-up to making fool of yourself. Really takes care of any vestige of respect anyone might have had for you.

You are SUCH a child!

Your quote:

the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misspoke in this quote.

You know what? I think I'm done with you. It's obvious that this is not going to segway into a reasonable conversation.

You know what? You were done with me the minute I proved that you were talking out of your pea-green, jealous little ass. Everything since then has just been you trying to dig out of your hole. And this little attempt to pretend that you have any dignity left is just as delusional as your earlier assertion that most rich people inherited their money.

And the word is "segue", shitforbrains. Segway is a two-wheeled vehicle for dorks. You really are batting 0 lately, arentcha?

Are you utterly incapable of speaking without being insulting?
Thanks for the spelling correction.

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195335341/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0195179501&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1KC4SGS1MVAKHKJ0PA1V[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

No, wealth does NOT beget wealth.

capital gains?

stocks and other investments?

massive tax breaks from the Republicans designed to shift the burden onto the middle class?

Don't exist, right?

If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top.

The vast majority who start out poor end up rich?

Are you insane?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, wealth does NOT beget wealth.

capital gains?

stocks and other investments?

massive tax breaks from the Republicans designed to shift the burden onto the middle class?

Don't exist, right?

If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top.

The vast majority who start out poor end up rich?

Are you insane?

Why aren't you helping starving children in Africa, you hypocrite? There children starving to death and you're busy posting wrong, inane, and asinine comments here.
CHILDREN STARVING IN AFRICA. Got it??