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.
The Guardian has crunched the numbers and says the divide in the US is more like the 0.01% v the 99.99%.
Exactly!
It's a HUGE mistake to lump the working class 1%-ers in with the 0.01% rich. The vast majority of those working class 1%-ers come from very modest origins and sacrificed and worked their way to that level. The fact that they're so frequently demonized by Democrats is a total repudiation of the American Dream which still does exist for those who are actually willing to plan and work for it, and eventually earn it.
Having health care is not my definition of rich, maybe it's yours.
You have to work decades to get a pension plan, most government employees have not invested decades in their plan
A good pension is considered 80% of your income, so 80% of 39K is 31K, not my definition of rich, but we all have different standards
My definition of rich, if you can live comfortably off your assets, then you are rich.
Ok, you are jumping assumptions all over the place. Let me put this together for you nice and simple.
Historian Dude says wealth is basically non-house net worth of $1.5M.
Trapper John says oh so government worker with a DB.
He said that because, as I tried to explain to you, a DB plan for a gvmn't employee at retirement with a very nice DB plan can have an actuarial value of $1.5M. Which would give that person a non-house net worth of $1.5M.
So see, the statement was commentary on both the inaccuracy of HistorianDude's blanket statement and a commentary on the messed up nature of the pension world for Government employees.
Now I'm making an assumption here, but I'm guessing that Trapper John was not trying to imply that those employees are rich, but in fact try and point out that they could meet the requirements stated and are still Obviously not rich.
Hopefully you can realize this and stop jumping to conclusions.
Ok, you are jumping assumptions all over the place. Let me put this together for you nice and simple.
Historian Dude says wealth is basically non-house net worth of $1.5M.
Trapper John says oh so government worker with a DB.
He said that because, as I tried to explain to you, a DB plan for a gvmn't employee at retirement with a very nice DB plan can have an actuarial value of $1.5M. Which would give that person a non-house net worth of $1.5M.
So see, the statement was commentary on both the inaccuracy of HistorianDude's blanket statement and a commentary on the messed up nature of the pension world for Government employees.
Now I'm making an assumption here, but I'm guessing that Trapper John was not trying to imply that those employees are rich, but in fact try and point out that they could meet the requirements stated and are still Obviously not rich.
Hopefully you can realize this and stop jumping to conclusions.
Liquid assets are not the same as government pension.
A 30 year old disabled guy getting $1,000 a month in Social Security ($12,000 x 50 years = $600,000) is not the same as a 30 year old guy with $600,000 cash, to suggest it is is ludicrous and absurd.
Liquid assets are not the same as government pension.
A 30 year old disabled guy getting $1,000 a month in Social Security ($12,000 x 50 years = $600,000) is not the same as a 30 year old guy with $600,000 cash, to suggest it is is ludicrous and absurd.
Once again, not what was being discussed
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Income is not the primary measure. Wealth is. I would consider anyone with mean household financial (non-home) wealth greater than $1.5 million to be "rich." That's about the top 20%.
See how he never mentions liquid assets.
A government pension would in fact be counted under a mean household financial (non-home) wealth.
And like I have said, repeatedly, the point of the entire argument of bringing in pensions in the first place was to point out that it IS ludicrous and to show that there was a faulty point in the statement about household financial wealth being used as the measuring stick. And yet you continue to argue.
A government pension would in fact be counted under a mean household financial (non-home) wealth.
And like I have said, repeatedly, the point of the entire argument of bringing in pensions in the first place was to point out that it IS ludicrous and to show that there was a faulty point in the statement about household financial wealth being used as the measuring stick. And yet you continue to argue.
If government pension would be counted, why not Social Security????? How is that different???
If government pension would be counted, why not Social Security????? How is that different???
Are you even really reading my posts, b/c this statement right here is pretty much irrelevant. Like I said in the last several posts, the point of all of this was to fall in line with what you are so incessantly arguing about.
I've agreed with you from before you even started arguing with me for no reason whatsoever. I have simply been trying to kindly help you understand that fact, but yeah I'm done with this merry go round. If you feel the need to misinterpret me again, go ahead.
Valid, but the tiresome point of all of this is that no one is in fact trying to say that government employees are rich, even though Draper repeatedly wants them to.
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.
