Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do not need to pay income taxes to be stimulating the economy.
I invested in apartment complexes. My Net Worth has been primarily in those properties. It is slightly more complicated to extract the capital from those investments. However providing housing to tenants; mortgage payments, insurance payments, property taxes to various municipalities, are all forms of stimulating those economies.
I have never had any visible 'wealth' to flash around. I would not want that anyway. But I have a substantial Net Worth given that I am 'too poor' to pay Income Taxes.
Does your 50% include children, prisoners, elderly living on almost nothing, homemakers?
I think it does and that makes this stat disingenuous.
The statistic refers to "households." Interpret that however you'd like.
Quote:
Facing rates "of up to nearly 40%" is not indicative of effective tax rate. I personally face up to nearly 30%, my effective tax rate has hovered at 10% for years.
Your personal anecdote, while interesting, is irrelevant. That you face a low effective rate in no way means that everyone faces a low effective rate. We can certainly discuss marginal vs. effective rates, but the fact remains that what I posted RE: "40%" is 100% correct.
The statistic refers to "households." Interpret that however you'd like.
Your personal anecdote, while interesting, is irrelevant. That you face a low effective rate in no way means that everyone faces a low effective rate. We can certainly discuss marginal vs. effective rates, but the fact remains that what I posted RE: "40%" is 100% correct.
What's your source? I try looking it up and I see all kinds of broad statements even within the same articles referring alternately to "households" and "Americans" and "individuals" for that figure - it kinda makes a difference to be a bit more precise here.
The rich got that way by not spending. Concentration, not dissipation. Those who spend and then complain they aren't rich want to eat their cake and have it, too.
Uh, "the rich" DON'T spend; that how they become "rich"... Read "The Millionaire Next Door." Old money, especially, drive old cars and wear old clothes. You can call it "hoarding" if you like, but at least they aren't expecting someone else to support them.
Uh, "the rich" DON'T spend; that how they become "rich"... Read "The Millionaire Next Door." Old money, especially, drive old cars and wear old clothes. You can call it "hoarding" if you like, but at least they aren't expecting someone else to support them.
Biased sample...old money may not flaunt their wealth but they certainly spend on real estate, alcohol, leisure, etc. Perhaps not in proportion to their income, but they don't all wear threadbare sportcoats with jeans and 20 year old loafers
Of course not "all" do anything without exception, but as a general rule, you don't get - or stay - "rich" by frittering your money away like the not-rich habitually do (and then wonder why they're not rich). Real estate, to take just one example, would be an investment.
So instead of giving their employees raises or going out and buying things to help a company keeps their employees.. they are hording their money..
A) No it doesn't.
Rich people generally aren't stuffing cash in mattress. They're invested in various financial instruments. That means that, yes, their money is being used. They're not using it, but they're putting it places where other people who have ideas but not the capital to achieve them can use it. In turn they're getting returns on their money.
B) Instead of standing out there with your hat out begging on the street for some rich person to make your life better, try doing something yourself. It's more effective.
I think that comparing 'The Millionaire Nextdoor' to 'old money' is a false narrative.
Most Millionaires in America are first generation wealth, they 'made it' within one generation with little or no inheritance. This is what TMN focuses on and describes. At the end of the book there is a smaller discussion on inheritance, but it is how these first generational millionaires view passing their wealth on to the second generation. It is NOT about how people who inherited wealth do things.
I do not think that anyone can really compare these two groups of people.
The rich already spend a million dollars on 2 bedroom homes in the Bay Area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
