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.
"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?
"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.
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.
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?
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%...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.