quote:also consider the Chinese method we are watching right now shows how wealth concentration works. The State is literally collecting all the cream off the top and is using it as a weapon.
This is exactly what you both seem to be calling for here. The Government, which knows best of course, will take the 'cream off the top' (or in other words tax the @#$#$ out of the rich), and use it as it sees best. Whether that's to help friends' businesses or subsidize business sectors that they believe should get it, or simply to supply bread and circus to the masses...
You are calling for the Gov. to take a large measure of wealth out of the economy to put it back where elected officials (many who have NO business experience whatsoever) decide.
What you are decrying in the Chinese system...you are calling for here...
Irony...or insanity?
you missed my comparison.
the Chinese Govt is not spending that money.
our govt does the exact opposite. We run a deficit because, and this is bipartisan, it creates more liquidity, offers a safe places to save money at better rates than a bank savings account and once more creates liquidity.
all the jobs that are "gone" from our economy can be counted right in the Chinese cash reserves... every single one.... the fact that our own Corporations have just alittle bit more than the Chinese in cash reserves (2.3 tr$ to 2.75 tr$) shows you why we don't have jobs...
those dollars are the owners to do with as they please, but takingthem in taxes is one way to get them "back in circulation" now do not suggest that i want to see all that money take in taxes, i am simply supplying information to ponder.
i do KNOW for a fact that people who claim they are "scared" of what the govt will do so they won't spend are FOS. They don't know what ANYBODY will do. Tomorrow? Oil could become a thing of the past if cold fusion were discovered... Is that going to stop people from investing in oiltoday? NOPE, and we are much closer to getting cold fusion that most people think...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, I get your point. Honest. And to a point I even agree. Dollars horded do noone any good...
However, those horded Chinese dollars(yuen) ensure that they will not have to borrow cash from other nations( and thus become dependant on them). I do not condone how they are aquiring this horde, however there is room for the arguement for having one.
My purpose in using your post on it was to show how the confiscatory nature of the Chinese is just a 'logical conclusion' of the same policy that Big seems to be espousing. That is: that for the good of the whole, individuals need to forgo their right to property not essencial to their sustenance.
That is the end of this class warfare path...and always has been whenever its been tried.
posted
My purpose in using your post on it was to show how the confiscatory nature of the Chinese is just a 'logical conclusion' of the same policy that Big seems to be espousing.
their cash reserve are heavily favored in dollars (not their own currency)
actually i cannot explain how they have accumulated their horde.
their marginal (advertised) tax rates are not much different from ours.
Table of Income Tax Rates in China for an Individual in 2010
# The table relates to income from a salary. Income from other business is taxable at 5% - 35%. Income from personal services is taxed at 20%-40%. # Passive income such as interest and royalties is taxable at a standard rate of 20%.
the issue is that they are not running on a deficit and we are.
they are NOT creating liquidity and we are. they are using our liquidity against US.
they are NOT a FREE Socirty and we are.
they do not have Democracy we do
they do not have general elections and we do...
i would suggest that they provide little to no services to their people. I don't think the avg American would like living there either.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone who thinks they are overtaxed? CHARLIE RANGEL, the chairman of the house ways and means committee Which overseas tax law. A leftist who intentionally evaded his tax responsibilities.
Sheesh then another one comes out:
WASHINGTON – A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
We want more of that. For far too long our elected officials on both sides of the isle have been playing tag with tax law. We need more investigations and I think you should ponder why so many have started over the past two years when we heard very little about such investigations in 90's and '00's...
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: (sad laugh)
quote:If this inevitable trend of concentration continues unabated then our beautiful country of freedom runs a terrible risk of morphing into an oligarchy. Only has another 20% or so to go and the top 10 will have a choke hold on the nation resources.
Here we diverge again, sad to say. Consumerism will prevail. They will buy toys, services, goods, etc. That has to be produced and paid for. Produced by whom? Paid for to whom? That exchange of wealth is what keeps the capitalistic nature of our economy alive.
Bought by whom, Seek? Bought by whom? 80% of our society holds less than 7% of our nation's financial wealth now and has been losing ground for the past 3 decades (with one exception thanks to Clinton). Who is going to fuel the consumerism you say is going to keep our democracy functional? The 60 Million that make up the top 20? Oh wait...they have started losing wealth due to the over-concentration of the top 1% too. Can 30 Million consumers keep a democracy of 300 Million healthy? Can 3?
No Seek.
I do not want the government to have the bulk of the country's net worth to play with.
I do not want any small group or organization to have the bulk of the country's net worth held tight.
I thought I made this clear. I want an egalitarian society for America, not an oligarchy, or a plutarchy. Government controlled socialism (also known as government controlled economics) leads to these forms of governing just as surely as a having any minority group with an overwhelming control of national assets does.
There are some areas however like medical care, social security, and national security where it just makes sense to have everyone a part of the system. Part of what makes America beautiful. You may never make it big but you'll have the chance here. And even if you don't you will be protected and not be forgotten when you sicken or age. Beautiful.
You say consumerism will keep the country from over concentrating. It just ain't so SF. It will lead to a weak lower and middle class bowing their heads to the decisions and desires of the wealthy elite. We are nearly there already.
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007 Total Net Worth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7% 1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5% 1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2% 1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1% 1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6% 2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6% 2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3% 2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
You'll notice the big jump in wealth concentration from 1983 to 1989 for the top 1 percent. That's the '81 Regan tax cuts for you.
You might also notice that blip from '95-98 for the lower 80%? That was after the '93 Clinton tax hike.
Looking at the more recent past...
quote: So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%.
(P.S. You should thank me Seek. I have just linked you to a source that should give you ample ammo if you decide to pull key points. Doesn't matter, I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
You say consumerism will keep the country going...and it might. It will not keep the country a democracy with equal representation. It can't. The bottom half of society has been losing ground against the top for decades and soon they will be relegated to working to create the freedoms of America for the privileged rather than participating in America.
Oh and CCM...about that inheritance tax you always complain about. A study in 2000 found that 92% of American inherit....Nothing. nada. Zip. Zilch. from their parents death. Only 1.6% of Americans inherit more than $100,000. The exclusion amount will never be lower that $1 Million from this point on and has never been lower than 675k that I have been able to find.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
Love you too, Big.
quote:P.S. You should thank me Seek. I have just linked you to a source that should give you ample ammo if you decide to pull key points
Thank you...I intend to pull key points, because this 'study summation' is far less revealing that I think the authors would have us believe.
Let's start first with the two tables you posted from the article and compare the first and last data entries:
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007 Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7% 2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
Financial Wealth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7% 2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%
Let's play a game...do you see what I see?
A full quarter century later, 4 presidential administrations, and ALL the world events\economic changes and, VIOLA!
The top 1% gained a whopping 0.8% share of net wealth and LOST 0.2% in terms of financial wealth (also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing).
If you allow for a margin of error of plus or minus 1% (generous in any study) you get a statistical change of NOTHING for 24 years.
The next 19% gained nearly all of what was lost from the bottom 80%. But even that is less than 3% and 2% respectively. Again, if you allow for the margin of error, it's yet again possible for a 2% and 1% change in wealth redistribution in over 24 years.
Much of the rest of the article, specifically the asset catagory differences, are painfully obvious observations so I won't address them unless there's a specific point you want to contend.
(this is page 45 of the .pdf file with the periods in for formatting)
Now, add that to two little facts:
U.S. Population in 1983: 233,791,994 U.S. Population in 2007: 302.2 million (est)
That's an approximately 30% increase in population. Compare that population increase to the percentage increases in households with worth higher than 1, 5, and 10 million dollars: 201.7%, 493.8%, and 598.3% respectively.
Look at that, Big. More people are getting wealthy (as a percentage of the population) instead of less as a superconcentration of wealth model would suggest.
Add this to the 'death tax' data you cited, that only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000 from parental demise. That means the rest of the wealthy are making their wealth during their own lifetime.
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
–adjective 1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life. –noun 2. a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.
And I thought that I was supposed to be the naively idealistic one here, Big.
Economic egalitarianism CANNOT exist. Primarily because motivation, education, and capability is not equal among men or women. Those with more of any of the three are, by that virtue, more likely to acquire more wealth. Not necessarily through any dishonesty or illegality, simply by means of being more disposed to success in the economic arena.
quote:Government controlled socialism (also known as government controlled economics)
And yet, that is exactly the result of laying the 'lion's share' of the tax burden on the few. You are stating that instead of allowing market forces to rule the economy. You are saying that the Government should TAKE the money they WANT and spend it how they choose. Instead of taxing the economy in some 'fair' manner(ie flat tax, consumption tax, etc) and setting your budget based on that amount, you seem to be advocating for a system where the government spends enough to guaranty a quality life for all(and then some) and then TAKING what is needed to achieve it from those who have earned that wealth (see part 2) to pay for those who haven't.
In what possible way is that NOT forced Socialism?
posted
Here is what I dont like, I dont like how serious financial crimes go unpunished. Where as if one of us did the equivalent locally it would be hell on earth.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
whoa dude, i am in the top 20% and i am not a memebr of the wealthy class...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Government should TAKE the money they WANT and spend it how they choose.
so who gets to choose? do you see the problem yet?
the GOP and the Dems are fighting over who gets to choose. the "contract with America" was not worth the paper it was written on...
i don't think anybody really beleives that the govt should take 90% of anybody's money. on the other hand? my grandparents were more than ready to nuke the Russkies, invade the Nam and korea to stop communism, and that cost alot of money to be able to do... those taxes were going to what they wanted....
the Bush people decided to fund a world war too, they decided to create a New World Order. Remeber that? it was only 5 years ago...
Obama's people are spending the "extra" money they are spending now ON TOP OF what the New World Order people wanted to spend on domestic plans....
everybody finally recognises the overspending problem, the problem is to decide what is to be given up.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:everybody finally recognises the overspending problem, the problem is to decide what is to be given up.
FINALLY!!!
That is what needs to be addressed, Glass. What do we NOT pay for...not how do we get more cash to pay for everything we will have to pay for IF NOTHING CHANGES.
posted
nonetheless? the money is spent and committed.
we have to pay for it NOW!
raising taxes BACK to pre-Bush levels is not even in doubt, and that is why they sunsetted the taxes when they did it.
they were bunch of greedy punks with thier hand in the cookie jar, the cookies are gone and there's a note in it that says bake more, and the ones that cut those taxes wrote the note.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
they were bunch of greedy punks with thier hand in the cookie jar, the cookies are gone and there's a note in it that says bake more, and the ones that cut those taxes wrote the note. -------------------------------------------------
Best thing you have ever said Glassman.
I had to say after reading your posts both you and seeking freedom plus a few more that all of you had a vision of youselves as a god bestowing advise and cures for the nation on the little people.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we really undeserving of the wealth we create?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That can be pretty broad glass. You know I think the Republicans and Democrats should cut some deals. I think for the Republicans to be for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and in return the Republicans get something important to them approved by the Dems. A 1 for 1 deal. Both sides get something done, right?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: That can be pretty broad glass. You know I think the Republicans and Democrats should cut some deals. I think for the Republicans to be for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and in return the Republicans get something important to them approved by the Dems. A 1 for 1 deal. Both sides get something done, right?
i'm not a big fan of the govt "getting stuff done" cash. I think there's things we need the Govt for and there's things they should stay out of. They should stay out of our house and our body for starters. Thats clearly stated in the Constitution.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
supported by Oath means that a liar goes to jail... no less. Perjury.
random piss testing? sheesh that's a clear violation, but the SCOTUS upheld it.
the GOP wrote the new tax code and set the sunset provision. letting it expire is just plain not doing anything, there's nothing to "trade", and that's the way the GOP wrote it. Why would they do that? They allowed the so-called assault weapons ban to sunset too.... the people who wrote that made it with sunset clause as well...
the Patriot Act was alos a sunset law that got revised
anytime they do a sunset provision? thet's redflag IMO... sometheing ain't right and they know it...
to be honest? i think a sunset clause ought to be in every single law, say ten years, that way they would be revised with the times regularly anyway, but the way things are today ? a sunset law should be considered fishy...
as i said before? i was looking at the new code when it came out and thinking these guys expect to inherit alot of money in the next few years. Daddy and Mommy Bush came to mind right off.....
i never expected it to last, even tho i am against "death taxes" in principle. If you pay your taxes all your life? Dying is taxing your inheritors income. At worst they should tax it like Capital Gains. I know that's a fairly unsympathetic view about losing a loved one, but there were Founders that didn't like inheritance much either because it reminded them of Europe. In Europe the eldest son usually inherited. That's how Royalty worked and we were trying hard to get away from those concepts....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Are we really undeserving of the wealth we create?
could you create it without govt? nope.
that really is the key to what makes America Great.
I give my signature to many Bills with which my Judgment is at variance.... From the Nature of the Constitution, I must approve all parts of a Bill, or reject it in total. To do the latter can only be Justified upon the clear and obvious grounds of propriety; and I never had such confidence in my own faculty of judging as to be over tenacious of the opinions I may have imbibed in doubtful cases. George Washington, letter to Edmund Pendleton, September 23, 1793
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Here is what I dont like, I dont like how serious financial crimes go unpunished. Where as if one of us did the equivalent locally it would be hell on earth.
Agreed C. Agreed.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 1:
quote:I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
Love you too, Big.
quote: Let's start first with the two tables you posted from the article and compare the first and last data entries:
A full quarter century later, 4 presidential administrations, and ALL the world events\economic changes and, VIOLA!
The top 1% gained a whopping 0.8% share of net wealth and LOST 0.2% in terms of financial wealth (also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing).
If you allow for a margin of error of plus or minus 1% (generous in any study) you get a statistical change of NOTHING for 24 years.
The next 19% gained nearly all of what was lost from the bottom 80%. But even that is less than 3% and 2% respectively. Again, if you allow for the margin of error, it's yet again possible for a 2% and 1% change in wealth redistribution in over 24 years.
I knew you'd bite on that at the least. However, both of the three year periods in which there was in increase in wealth in the bottom 80% for financial wealth (1.1% rise in 1992 which is statistically insignificant if we are using a 1% margin of error and 2.1% in 1998) came directly after a federal minimum wage increase and within a couple years the slide continues. The Fed has learned how to put speed bumps out but the trend is obvious. Unless....are you suddenly a proponent of minimum wage increases SF? Is that why you don't find this concentration trend alarming?
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 2:
I delved into the source material for the article and found something you might find interesting Big...
(this is page 45 of the .pdf file with the periods in for formatting)
Now, add that to two little facts:
U.S. Population in 1983: 233,791,994 U.S. Population in 2007: 302.2 million (est)
That's an approximately 30% increase in population. Compare that population increase to the percentage increases in households with worth higher than 1, 5, and 10 million dollars: 201.7%, 493.8%, and 598.3% respectively.
Look at that, Big. More people are getting wealthy (as a percentage of the population) instead of less as a superconcentration of wealth model would suggest.
Add this to the 'death tax' data you cited, that only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000 from parental demise. That means the rest of the wealthy are making their wealth during their own lifetime.
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
Huh? Since when does 20% represent more than 20%? There are more millionaires on that we agree. There are also more $100aires. For every 1 that has joined the top 20% in the population 4 have joined the bottom 80. That's statistics for you.
Indeed, you make my point of wealth concentration for me. Based on the very chart you post it is easy to see that those who have millions are growing in millions much quicker than those who have $100,000's are. There is a chevron of acceleration (similar to what you find in Mario Kart) where once you pass your first million wealth accumulation becomes much faster and easier. I do not begrudge that. However, once you pass that marker as your ease of making money increases so should your tax burden. Lets face it. You aren't working harder for that money, your money is working harder for that money. If anything it has allowed you to work less.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anything it has allowed you to work less.
what people also take for granted, that i have seen first hand in multiple third world countries is that keeping wealth in other places requires one to have very different view of the value of life.
Pablo escobar is very good ezample. the guy was not just vicious he was blood thirsty. He thought nothing of executing people on the spot for any perceived slight, petty theft or simply renegging on a "deal? death, and that's how he had to be to accumulate his wealth. The fact hat he was in thedrug biz is really irrelevant since this only magnifies the need for him to take care of all of his own business.
now, i'm not suggesting we should be as "limp" as we are here and now esp. about white collar crimes... but i dont think we wnat to get to hwere Mexico is right now either.
this ability to value human life so highly is only available thru a "community agreement" that really comes right from our govt.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 1:
quote:I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
Love you too, Big.
quote: Let's start first with the two tables you posted from the article and compare the first and last data entries:
A full quarter century later, 4 presidential administrations, and ALL the world events\economic changes and, VIOLA!
The top 1% gained a whopping 0.8% share of net wealth and LOST 0.2% in terms of financial wealth (also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing).
If you allow for a margin of error of plus or minus 1% (generous in any study) you get a statistical change of NOTHING for 24 years.
The next 19% gained nearly all of what was lost from the bottom 80%. But even that is less than 3% and 2% respectively. Again, if you allow for the margin of error, it's yet again possible for a 2% and 1% change in wealth redistribution in over 24 years.
I knew you'd bite on that at the least. However, both of the three year periods in which there was in increase in wealth in the bottom 80% for financial wealth (1.1% rise in 1992 which is statistically insignificant if we are using a 1% margin of error and 2.1% in 1998) came directly after a federal minimum wage increase and within a couple years the slide continues. The Fed has learned how to put speed bumps out but the trend is obvious. Unless....are you suddenly a proponent of minimum wage increases SF? Is that why you don't find this concentration trend alarming?
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 2:
I delved into the source material for the article and found something you might find interesting Big...
(this is page 45 of the .pdf file with the periods in for formatting)
Now, add that to two little facts:
U.S. Population in 1983: 233,791,994 U.S. Population in 2007: 302.2 million (est)
That's an approximately 30% increase in population. Compare that population increase to the percentage increases in households with worth higher than 1, 5, and 10 million dollars: 201.7%, 493.8%, and 598.3% respectively.
Look at that, Big. More people are getting wealthy (as a percentage of the population) instead of less as a superconcentration of wealth model would suggest.
Add this to the 'death tax' data you cited, that only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000 from parental demise. That means the rest of the wealthy are making their wealth during their own lifetime.
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
Huh? Since when does 20% represent more than 20%? There are more millionaires on that we agree. There are also more $100aires. For every 1 that has joined the top 20% in the population 4 have joined the bottom 80. That's statistics for you.
Indeed, you make my point of wealth concentration for me. Based on the very chart you post it is easy to see that those who have millions are growing in millions much quicker than those who have $100,000's are. There is a chevron of acceleration (similar to what you find in Mario Kart) where once you pass your first million wealth accumulation becomes much faster and easier. I do not begrudge that. However, once you pass that marker as your ease of making money increases so should your tax burden. Lets face it. You aren't working harder for that money, your money is working harder for that money. If anything it has allowed you to work less.
sure. Productivity is the supposed goal, or guidepost. And once that worked. That is, productivity increased and peeps got rewarded.
But then, sometime in the 70s I think, productivity was still going up, yet income went flat then decreased.
So what our economy rewards now is control of money; ie, not only cash but also how much margin can you swing.
posted
Sorry, Big, it seems I'm not making my point clear, let me try to put it another way. First, let's set up some 'givens' to work with. If you disagree with one of my 'givens' let me know so we can use them clearly in our discussion.
Given 1: In the 24 years represented on the above data chart the top 1% stayed aprox. the same. (given a 1% moe)
Given 2: The most significant change in wealth distribution was from the bottom 80% to the second 19%. Using financial wealth(non primary residence wealth) as an indicator, this is less than a 2% (or as low as 1% given a 1% moe) change in wealth distribution.
Given 3: Population in America grew by 70 million people or roughly 30% during that time.
Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
Given 5: Those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars are well within the top 20% category.
posted
Given 3: Population in America grew by 70 million people or roughly 30% during that time.
Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
wealth is realtive tho,
and how much value did the dollar lose?
in 1960 a loaf of bread was literally a nickle....
in 1966 my parents bought a house for 16,000 that recently sold for a half million...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that's relevant to this discussion, Glass. We're working with percentages of total U.S. wealth. The millionaire listings were supposedly 'equalized' to value in '95 dollars if I remember correctly.
posted
Depending on how it is calculated, a million US dollars in 1900 is equivalent to 2006 US dollars of [8]
* $24,766,584.77 using the Consumer price index, * $21,224,697.05 using the GDP deflator, * $114,128,571.43 using the unskilled wage, * $162,813,054.25 using the nominal GDP per capita, * $641,531,874.47 using the relative share of GDP,
Thus one would need to have a little over twenty million dollars today to have the purchasing power of a US millionaire in 1900, or more than a hundred million dollars to have the same impact on the US economy.
posted
I'm not disputing any of that, Glass. However, the current 'wealth distribution' discussion is based on a percentage of over all wealth. True, a millionaire isn't what it used to be; but being a millionaire still puts you above 80% of the population, economically speaking. That is what my given #5 is all about.
posted
being a millionaire puts you in the 2.5 % bracket:
The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including first homes, fell by 2.5 million to 6.7 million in 2008, according to the Spectrum Group report, as reported by Reuters.
After the 27 percent drop, the number of millionaires is at the lowest level since 2003, when the millionaire population stood at 6.2 million.
posted
Household net worth fell from 2007 to 2009 by a total of $17.5 trillion or 25.5%. This was the equivalent loss of one year of GDP.[5] By the fourth quarter of 2009, the household net worth had recovered by a growth of 1.3 percent to a total of $54.2 trillion. An additional growth of 21 percent is needed just to bring the value to where it was before the recession hit in December 2007.
In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile.[3]
now consider that only the top 6% actually has 1 million in net worth and you begin to see how wide the top 25% is....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
