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.
If we want to talk capital gains, then I can only conclude that there is not inherit problem with the 1%. And the entire 1% number is really no indication of wealth inequality. Or at least it is wealth inequality, but only for short periods of time, but not for a sustainable period of time. So can we all agree that based on the agreed method for calculating 1% which is the 95th-99th percentile of all annual capitals gains is actually not an indication of wealth inequality.
I'm not even going to try to dive into this with details (some others have already pointed out the absurdities of the OP), but I will take a moment to point out how the OP claim fits into a larger pattern. A general sentiment of anti-science/conspiracy-theory rhetoric has arisen in a major portion of the right-wing (which is highly unfortunate because some key elements of right-wing political thought are worthy of deep contemplation and are valuable for balancing out some left-wing pie-in-the-sky thinking).
The general argumentative style is this: X is not really a science and/or scientists can't really measure X, or scientists and academics are part of a left-wing conspiracy, therefore we should ignore science and just say whatever we want in order to push our political and/or spiritual agenda without bothering to cite scientific findings or give references to any credible scientific or academic sources. It seems to me that Creationists started this trend, and climate deniers have taken it to grand new heights. The OP is now applying the same technique to economics. Economics is a science that studies wealth. Those who don't like to hear that the vast majority of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small portion of the human population will now decide, on the basis of nothing more than their own personal intuitions and preference, that the vast science of economics is simply worthless because "scientists can't measure wealth." And, or course, if anyone asks for scientific citations or academic references to the OP's assertions, they will be scowled at with great intensity because science and academia are just all a bunch 'o damn left-wing hogwash anyhowz.
Despite the futility, I will ask anyway: Can anyone here cite any respectable economist who agrees that we can't even roughly measure the concentrations of wealth in the world economy? If so, I will be very curious to hear their arguments and evidence.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-11-2016 at 12:40 PM..
We hear the buzzword 1% thrown around quite a bit. But what does 1% actually means. Well let's look at percentage.
If I have a quantity of something, and I have 1% of it. Then that tends to mean that this quantity is finite and measurable in some way. Right? I mean I'm not saying anything that's not making sense so far right?
Some how does someone measure wealth? Well one has to ask where does wealth even come from in the first place. Wealth comes from capital and capital comes from markets. There are plenty of markets that generate revenue, and no 1 person or 1 group of people control every conceivable market (the government COULD but doesn't). And even then, seems like "wealth" is a living number subject to all sorts of fluctuations. So there is volatility in wealth.
But how would one even go about even calculating the total wealth in the first place? Perhaps taking the overall volume of all markets combined? But geez, how would someone do that. Considering some markets intersect, and there are markets within markets. For example if I offer financial consultation and financing to restaurant businesses. Then in effect aren't I in two markets at the same time? So how do we measure that?
The bottomline is that markets are WAY too dynamic to even measure. So how is a person part of the 1% when we don't even know what it's one 1% of?
Now let's talk about income, and how that can also fluctuate as well. Now I don't think anybody has an actual yearly take home salary of over $1 million a year. What they have is over a million dollars in options. But does this actually play into yearly income? Well of course not. The base salary of most senior management at big companies is somewhere around 250k to 300k. That's it. But yes they would have over a million dollars in possible options.
So this only means that someone has the potential to fall into the 1%. How about people who sell their house? They go into the 1%. How about people who get an inheritance. They would be part of the 1% as well. But that's the key, the 1% is a pretty volatile number. People don't seem to generate 1% type of income every year. These are spikes in income at best.
So what we've learned that wealth is not a finite number (obviously). And we've also learned that there is not really a 1%.
You are making something that is simple appear as if it is complicated. The "top 1%" refers to those in the top 1% of the income bracket in any particular year.
If we want to talk capital gains, then I can only conclude that there is not inherit problem with the 1%. And the entire 1% number is really no indication of wealth inequality. Or at least it is wealth inequality, but only for short periods of time, but not for a sustainable period of time. So can we all agree that based on the agreed method for calculating 1% which is the 95th-99th percentile of all annual capitals gains is actually not an indication of wealth inequality.
Absolutely not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Great, then wealth inequality myth debunked!
No.
I wish you the best of luck in your continuing education.
Just as those categorized as being in the top 1% OR 99th percentile change DAILY.
Anything else is just historical data. Like today's volatile trading session.
This is not a fly-caught-in-amber financial snapshot.
Except that it's like measuring millionaires. We typically don't have someone with a $100,000 on year being worth a million the next year. We have someone worth $950,000 moving across the line and someone with $1.1 million moving down the line. With the top 1%, someone might be in the top 1.02% one year crossing the 1% line and someone in the top 0.995 moving down.
Either way, it doesn't discredit the argument that there is huge income and wealth concentration in the U.S.
A large part of the rising share of the top 1%, about 60%, according to the Piketty-Saez data, is actually attributable to the top 0.1%. This group is not diverse at all, according to Heim et al (pdf).
You are making something that is simple appear as if it is complicated. The "top 1%" refers to those in the top 1% of the income bracket in any particular year.
It is very measurable. The end.
Great, but is it an actual indication of wealth inequality? Apparently the 99th percentile of all capital gains, which changes constantly is how the 1% is calculated. So how is THIS an actual measurement of wealth inequality?
Great, but is it an actual indication of wealth inequality? Apparently the 99th percentile of all capital gains, which changes constantly is how the 1% is calculated. So how is THIS an actual measurement of wealth inequality?
Well, 50% of all capital gains income is earned by the top 1% and of that 50%, 50% is earned by the top 0.1%. That means that the top 0.1% of people in the country earn 25% of all the capital gains.
What's worse, is that the numbers are being concentrated over time. This shouldn't be staggering news. Piketty and Saez have been doing this research for years.
Except that it's like measuring millionaires. We typically don't have someone with a $100,000 on year being worth a million the next year. We have someone worth $950,000 moving across the line and someone with $1.1 million moving down the line. With the top 1%, someone might be in the top 1.02% one year crossing the 1% line and someone in the top 0.995 moving down.
Either way, it doesn't discredit the argument that there is huge income and wealth concentration in the U.S.
A large part of the rising share of the top 1%, about 60%, according to the Piketty-Saez data, is actually attributable to the top 0.1%. This group is not diverse at all, according to Heim et al (pdf).
I agree.
And it would be interesting to see a Bakija & Heim update their study.
Data after '06 would make for even more parity.
So capital gains come from from the Congressional Budget office. I would love to see historical data in regards to this. I think I'm going to write a computer program that calculates this for the last 10 years, if this much data exist. I wonder do they offer a public API like the US Census does.
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.
