RDD_1210
Forms his own opinions
- May 13, 2010
- 18,981
- 1,817
- 265
First, this only covered married couples between 60-69. Second, I couldn't find a definition of "wealth," but all the references seemed to be regarding financial investments only and it wasn't clear that it even included 401Ks or IRAs. In order to calculate "wealth" you have to also include pensions, social security and assets. And finally, it did not seem to calculate real estate other then again financial investments in real estate, I saw no references to direct real estate holdings. A lot of the top 50/bottom 50 split is not just income but more rural versus urban areas and in urban areas, they own their homes and have far lower equity then higher income. That the bottom 50 own 3% of "wealth" if you have all inclusive wealth is preposterous and if you don't include all it's an agenda definition.You're chugging the Kool-Aid a little heavy there and getting delirious, my friend. You're not driving home, I'll take you...
That's the best you can reply with?
I'll help you with your research since you seem to not understand how this works.
Google Search
Pick any chart you want.
Admit you were wrong.
If you want me to admit I was wrong, you have to have something that's clearer then financial investments of married 60-69 year old couples only.
LOL, you clicked the first graph only and decided to eliminate ALL the other charts based upon what you deem to be insufficient data size in a single graph that still supports my point. How lazy are you? Pick another graph in the results if you don't like the dataset in the first graph....there are plenty to choose from that support what I said. Pathetic.