Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,708,320 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You'd have to check with Wolff at NYU.

This is what is known, so far...
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ
"Inherited wealth is down" comes across not as "fewer percentage of people are wealthy due to inheritance" but "size of inherited wealth is down". Anyway, couple of data points presented in that rather useless study...
1- Top 1% inherited only 9% of what they own today... does not tell anything about how policies have affected them.
2- Only 10% have inherited doesn't mean much either.

And you're using these to claim that the middle class is thriving and getting wealthier?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:12 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,603,800 times
Reputation: 14732
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
"Inherited wealth is down" comes across not as "fewer percentage of people are wealthy due to inheritance" but "size of inherited wealth is down". Anyway, couple of data points presented in that rather useless study...
1- Top 1% inherited only 9% of what they own today... does not tell anything about how policies have affected them.
2- Only 10% have inherited doesn't mean much either.

And you're using these to claim that the middle class is thriving and getting wealthier?
LOL

no actually he was trying to use this whole line of argument to prove that "Union Pensions hold a HUGE percentage of American wealth."

if you can't dazzle them with brilliance....

Quote:
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:23 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And you're using these to claim that the middle class is thriving and getting wealthier?
Yes, many indeed are. Here's the money quote:
Quote:
Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous.
Dovetails quite nicely with the stats that the top 1% has LOST wealth share since 1995, and that the upper-middle class has GAINED wealth share.

That's what happens with FACTS. They support related findings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:25 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
LOL

no actually he was trying to use this whole line of argument to prove that "Union Pensions hold a HUGE percentage of American wealth."

if you can't dazzle them with brilliance....
You've lost track of the conversation. Refer back to the thread title.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,708,320 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, many indeed are. Here's the money quote:

Dovetails quite nicely with the stats that the top 1% has LOST wealth share since 1995, and that the upper-middle class has GAINED wealth share.

That's what happens with FACTS. They support related findings.
What was the share of wealth for the top 1% in 2001 compared to 2007 (or later)?
Likewise, since you claim the middle class has gotten wealthier since 2001, you must have their numbers too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:33 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,603,800 times
Reputation: 14732
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You've lost track of the conversation. Refer back to the thread title.
i will oblige; we can go back to the basics.

The 400 Richest Americans Pay An 18% Tax Rate - Robert Lenzner - StreetTalk - Forbes
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf

here's a document produced by the IRS; the most recent year is 2008. According to them, the top 400 taxpayers pay an average rate of 18.11% of their annual incomes.

What rate did the 2008 median income earner pay? 25%...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:36 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
I said 1995, which was the top 1%'s peak of wealth share. There have been minor variances since then as the numbers usually aren't static, and the top 1% has NEVER regained the peak share of the wealth they had in 1995.

Likewise, as previously noted...
Quote:
Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous.
The rich are getting more numerous. Hmmm... MORE are working their way UP from the middle class. Imagine that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,708,320 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I said 1995, which was the top 1% peak of wealth share. There have been minor variances since then as the numbers usually aren't static, and the top 1% has NEVER regained the peak share of the wealth they had in 1995.

Likewise, as previously noted...[Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous. The rich are getting more numerous. Hmmm... MORE are working their way UP from the middle class. Imagine that.
Does your argument not apply to wealth distribution since 2001?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
i will oblige; we can go back to the basics.

The 400 Richest Americans Pay An 18% Tax Rate - Robert Lenzner - StreetTalk - Forbes
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf

here's a document produced by the IRS; the most recent year is 2008. According to them, the top 400 taxpayers pay an average rate of 18.11% of their annual incomes.
Since when is 400 the top 1%? Or even the top 2%, which is the group Obama and the Dems want to ream with extra taxes?

And you aren't really trying to claim that the top 400 only have incomes of around $250k - the income group Obama and the Dems want to tax more, are you?

If not, when have Obama and the Dems proposed raising taxes on only the top 400?

The Effective Federal Tax Rate for those in the top 1% for 2011 is projected by the CBO to be 33.8%
Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:47 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Does your argument not apply to wealth distribution since 2001?
It does, in fact. The top 1% has a LOWER wealth share since 2001 than they had in 1995.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top