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.
Why? How is wealth creation a bad thing for society? You just don't like that some have more than others. Well, guess what? I don't like that sports stars have better athletic skills than do I. Boo hoo.
Nobody is adding to the wealth creation equivelant to the point that they are rewarded so much at the top. You know that right?
Quote:
I said the largest percentage, and yes, according to UFE's own research, terminology, and baseball analogy designations they were born in the "Batter's Box." They're from the lower- and middle classes.
Is the problem that you don't know how to decipher a diagram? Look at UFE's diagram.
Are you somehow unaware that 35% is greater than 22%, 11.5%, 7%, or 21.25%?
Again, you are attempting to mislead people. 35% is not greater then 65%. LOL. If I break down any statistic into enough parts I can certainly show almost anything, and claim that "the largest %".....if my goal is to mislead people. You attempted to make it sound like the majority of the 400 richest came from the batters box, and now wish to clarify because I called you on it.
this folks is how you misinform people. Your handle here is amazing....but really you seem to want to misinform so that people will consent to your ideas.
Nobody is adding to the wealth creation equivelant to the point that they are rewarded so much at the top. You know that right?
Who are you to judge how others should be "rewarded?" And that's a bad word choice. With the exception of those born on Home Plate, all the others had to turn nothing (35%), less than $1 million (22%), between $1 million and $50 million (11.5%), or more than $50 million but less than $1 billion (7%) into a $1 billion dollar net worth (minimum required to make the list). To do that, a full 68.5% of them (the first three categories combined, which is more than 2/3 of them) had to work, sacrifice, take risks, etc. So, no, they weren't "rewarded" with someone handing them a free $1 billion in wealth. They earned it.
Quote:
Again, you are attempting to mislead people.
I am not. I've repeatedly said the largest percentage of the Top 400, according to UFE's own terminology and baseball analogy designations, come from the lower- and middle classes.
Who are you to judge how others should be "rewarded?" And that's a bad word choice. With the exception of those born on Home Plate, all the others had to turn nothing (35%), less than $1 million (22%), between $1 million and $50 million (11.5%), or more than $50 million but less than $1 billion (7%) into a $1 billion dollar net worth (minimum required to make the list). To do that, a full 68.5% of them (the first three categories combined, which is more than 2/3 of them) had to work, sacrifice, take risks, etc. So, no, they weren't "rewarded" with someone handing them a free $1 billion in wealth. They earned it.
I am not. I've repeatedly said the largest percentage of the Top 400, according to UFE's own terminology and baseball analogy designations, come from the lower- and middle classes.
And who am I to judge? Shrug. I dont find myself endeared to someone who is given a million bucks, and then claims they started with nothing. I dont find someone inheriting money to be especially deserving of it. Nor am I impressed by someone who has made wealth via rent seeking. Do some of the 400 impress me? Absolutely. But I haven't seen a single one thats contributed to our society in ways that are equivalent to their wealth. I do however see consequences from the wealth gap. You ignore them at your own peril.
They earned it. The ones that inherited it? Or the ones given millions? Please. You make it sound like they all started in the batters box, made home runs, and that their contribution to society is equal to their wealth.
As for your comments. I think anyone who says that the largest % started in the batters box, when it was only 35% is misleading. I suspect many people reading this will agree. They should judge your comments accordingly.
And who am I to judge? Shrug. I dont find myself endeared to someone who is given a million bucks, and then claims they started with nothing.
You really have no respect and admiration for someone who can turn $1 million or even $50 million into a $1 billion net worth? If it were so easy to do, there'd be WAY more than 400 billionaires.
Quote:
I dont find someone inheriting money to be especially deserving of it.
Good to know. Guess who inherits the largest percentage of their wealth?
Quote:
"Wealth transfers — inheritances and gifts combined — constitute a small part of the holdings of the rich, whether you define “rich†in terms of income or net worth. For the top income quintile, gifts and inheritances amount to 13 percent of household wealth, according to research published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the top wealth quintile, they amount to 16 percent. For the hated “1 percent,†inherited wealth accounts for about 15 percent of holdings.
...Meanwhile,inherited money makes up 43 percent of the wealth of the lowest income group and 31 percent for the second-lowest."
The bottom 40% are inheriting a significantly larger percentage of their wealth than is the top 1% (net worth of ~$7 million or more). The top 1% is far more likely to be earning/creating their own wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Nor am I impressed by someone who has made wealth via rent seeking.
And there's the key concept: made wealth. Not taking it, not inheriting it. Making it. Why are you so opposed to those who can create wealth?
Quote:
But I haven't seen a single one thats contributed to our society in ways that are equivalent to their wealth.
And I have yet to see the public assistance class contribute to society in ways that are equivalent to the amount of resources they consume which have been taken from others by threat of imprisonment.
Who thinks supporting all those additional poor people (Medicaid, SNAP, public housing, etc., etc.) that are added to our population every year is sustainable, or even possible at all?
Quote:
They earned it. The ones that inherited it?
Less than 1/4 of them inherited $1 billion.
Quote:
As for your comments. I think anyone who says that the largest % started in the batters box, when it was only 35% is misleading.
Only to those who don't understand percentages. Hard to believe there are grown adults who can't comprehend that of the following, 35% is in fact the greatest percentage:
Yes yes, I will go out and tell all the poor people Hey stop complaining! medicaid paid for half of folks to be born, and you bottom 40% (who statistically speaking have virtually no wealth whatsoever) inherit more then the 1% (who own the vast majority of wealth)!
And the misleading misinformation hits just keep coming.
Yes yes, I will go out and tell all the poor people Hey stop complaining! medicaid paid for half of folks to be born
And 70% of them will never rise out of poverty. They're going to need public assistance. For life. What's your plan to support all of them?
Quote:
and you bottom 40% (who statistically speaking have virtually no wealth whatsoever) inherit more then the 1% (who own the vast majority of wealth)!
You know that's not what I said. Yet another instance you not being able to understand percentages.
Which percentage is higher?
43%
31%
16%
15%
13%
Quite surely, since you have such an aversion to inherited wealth, that includes the bottom 2 quintiles who inherit 43% and 31% of their wealth, respectively. Shouldn't that be paid back to the taxpayers who have been forced to support them or face imprisonment?
One of many reasons Scandinavian and European countries have 20-25% VAT taxes. EVERYONE pays. The costs of their governments' benefits and services are shared.
Quote:
And the misleading misinformation hits just keep coming.
No misinformation whatsoever. All of the info I posted is true. You just don't like it.
In a society where there is a massive wealth gap, access to resources becomes more and more limited, and there are strategies to fix that. That's the reasoning behind lowering educational costs, that's the reasoning for expanding small loans.
Even if you lower educational costs, the fact is that not everyone has the ability to achieve economic success at the same level.
For example, most people will never be able to get into medical school and achieve the high lifetime earnings that a physician does. There is no way to fix this no matter what the government does. That is why I say that inequality of outcome is immutable.
I don't need a study to tell me what's obvious. Lower prices save people money.
Huh? How so, do you just 'feel it in your bones' when you shop there? Even Walmart had to stop making it's absurd claims about saving American families "thousands of dollars".
And 70% of them will never rise out of poverty. They're going to need public assistance. For life. What's your plan to support all of them?
You know that's not what I said. Yet another instance you not being able to understand percentages.
Which percentage is higher?
43%
31%
16%
15%
13%
Which is fine when you provide those percentages, not so fine when you try to imply through the lack of data that the majority is the % provided.
Quote:
Quite surely, since you have such an aversion to inherited wealth, that includes the bottom 2 quintiles who inherit 43% and 31% of their wealth, respectively. Shouldn't that be paid back to the taxpayers who have been forced to support them or face imprisonment?
I am absolutely fine with no transfers of wealth via birth lottery. My neighbor Sam will hand back his small TV he inherited from his mom.
Quote:
One of many reasons Scandinavian and European countries have 20-25% VAT taxes. EVERYONE pays. The costs of their governments' benefits and services are shared.
No misinformation whatsoever. All of the info I posted is true. You just don't like it.
Again, its fascinating how many are a-OK with misleading folks.
and its all true...I just dont like it? What? you're informed consents second account? Or just one of the folks who thinks misleading people is great?
Even if you lower educational costs, the fact is that not everyone has the ability to achieve economic success at the same level.
For example, most people will never be able to get into medical school and achieve the high lifetime earnings that a physician does. There is no way to fix this no matter what the government does. That is why I say that inequality of outcome is immutable.
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.
