Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'll put it on the list, however, I am betting that i'll find it as convincing as you do Zinn's take on Us Hisotry.
So, let me ask, if you are freely admitting that the book is "actual proof" then why insist on a making a tangent issue out of insisting in the validity of your source? Indeed, remind me which of us has been making excuses while having failed to post even ONE example of evidence supporting your position then.
Also, as is the case with pliable statistics, I just read where the author of your book has to wrangle the vocab to fit the premise of his thesis. Gosh, I'm just ASTOUNDED by a source that finds it necessary to mold the equasion to fit the answer!
THE NOMINAL DEFINITION OF WEALTHY
One way we determine whether someone is wealthy or not is based on net worth--"cattle," not "chattel." Net worth is defined as the current value of one's assets less liabilities (exclude the principle in trust accounts). In this book we define the threshold level of being wealthy as having a net worth of $1 million or more. Based on this definition, only 3.5 million (3.5 percent) of the 100 million households in America are considered wealthy. About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million. Much of the discussion in this book centers on this segment of the population. Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
yea, golly gee mr. obvious, do you think this book is really any more profound than Birth of a Nation was to blacks movie lovers?
it looks like the thesis is that merely spending less than you earn creates millionaires. When, outside of manipulated vocab and narrowed application, is a total fucking joke. You know, I could probably achieve a number like 80% and insist that drunk driving is not a public safety issue if I wanted to narrow my observation criteria to only consider drunk driving among the 50+ age bracket.
so, again, why have you insisted on this tangent when you freely admit that your single book example is not valid evidence that supports the stats you've tossed into this thread?
If you can't see how weighting his sample with a million dollar bracket will have a specific affect on the outcome of his stats then I am probably wasting my time in this thread.
No. Your just gonna be diggin yourself deeper into the stupid hole if you make assumption about things you know nothing about.
riiight right.. NOW it's the personal insults! Clearly i'm standing on your neck.
Notice how I took the time to dig up an actual piece of evidence for my criticism instead of crying about how you didn't go read it yourself. Maybe you should be taking notes.
For someone who is pointing a finger at what you think people know nothing about you are sure as hell light in the evidence pile proving your own assumptions. Again, Attack mode must be easier than Prove mode.
Why have you spent this tangent comeing up with baseless excuses as to why it must not be true? By the way you will see that Steerpikes link supports that number.
This is what we call critically thinking about what is presented, ignorantly enough, as viable evidence after you started slinging stats that require a fair amount of manipulation.
Do you think that steerpike put much effort into finding that source? Was it so fucking hard to dig up a secondary source? I notice that you never quoted a single line from me condemning your source so much as the fact that you refused to offer anything other than a single book. but..
as far as steerpikes link... a blog at the Wall Street Journal.
BRAVO. Clearly this is the standard by which we hold our valid sources.
What less arbitrary way do you have of defining wealthy?
um, perhaps the standard definition that was mentioned BEFORE the definition became manipulated.
What do YOU think will happen to the "wealthy" stat when the author manipulates his sample to only focus on those who have 1 million in assets, as opposed to say, 500 million? Can you fathom how your 80% stat might just be a fabrication of bias if the author REQUIRES that the applicable sample be cropped down to an "acceptable" range of wealthy Americans instead of considering the entire population of wealthy Americans?
Like I said, I can create stats that suggest that the poor would rather have rims and drugs than food and clothes if im allowed to crop my sample any which way I might need to in order to reach a target statistic. Does this say anything valid about the state of poverty? of course not. But then, i'm not the kind of person to insist that a single source proves as much without asking a few question about how such conclusions were made. I dunno, dude. Maybe you are a different kind of person.
yes there defintion makes it is easier for far more peope to be considered wealthy. And it certainly isn't what you and I think of when we think filthy stinking rich. But that is one of the many points the book makes. That statistical asset terms just haveing a networth of a million dollars is statistically speaking considered wealthy in this country. It is also meant to point out that the Trumps and the Hilton's are not mold from which all rich people are cut from. People like that, the hollywood elites, the athletes, they are the exceptions in the class of the wealthy, not the rule in terms of how people go there.
Is that result "statistically" speaking? Again, if you can't see how manipulating the criteria enough to ignore the top tier while pretending that some PERSPECTIVE argument about individual wealth says nothing about the nature of America's social classes then so be it. I guess I'll just have to wait for you to read Zinn's book and tell me about how correct is the premise of his book. I can even probably find a blog at the New York Times to support his book!
ps, I guess the trumps and the hiltons would certainly NOT seem reflective if you cut them from the fucking sample population being considered, dude. Hence the necessity for a manipulated definition of "wealthy" in order to narrow the sample. This really is first year statistic or second year research methods material.
In of itself no. Because you are makeing many assumptions. The main one being that people will take full advantage of opportunities. As I said before people that sit and wait around for opportunities to come to them aren't very likely to succeed no matter what you throw at them. You can't be that 'far gone' to think that wealth just 'happened' to the wealthy.
Middle class people are not allowed the same opportunities as the rich. That's indisputable. And I know many middle class people would absolutely take advantage of such opportunities.
I believe that some wealthy people got there by hard work and determination, and some got there by exploiting others and cheating. And then there's the worst group of all, the wealthy people who were born into it. They don't just inherit the money, they inherit a fat fucking superiority complex too.
Okay, I'm middle class. Please enlighten me as to the opportunities I am not allowed.
And which group do you believe is the biggest?
You do not have the business connections that rich people have, nor the knowledge of how to run a business. For that, you'd have to go to college. And many people are not able to afford college, esp. if they aren't bright enough to get scholarships. You know the old saying "it takes money to make money"? Yeah, it applies. A wealthy person automatically has access to the best education, thus giving that person a considerable advantage, both in knowledge and in credibility. What looks better on a 100k/year job application: Harvard degree or PCC degree?
I would say it is around 40/60 split between people who inherited vs. worked for their money.
You do not have the business connections that rich people have, nor the knowledge of how to run a business. For that, you'd have to go to college. And many people are not able to afford college, esp. if they aren't bright enough to get scholarships. You know the old saying "it takes money to make money"? Yeah, it applies. A wealthy person automatically has access to the best education, thus giving that person a considerable advantage, both in knowledge and in credibility. What looks better on a 100k/year job application: Harvard degree or PCC degree?
I would say it is around 40/60 split between people who inherited vs. worked for their money.
I know a lot of pretty successful people who never went to college. My son's best friend's father is a successful carpenter who never finished high school and now runs a large residential construction business. My nephew never took a college class, drove and oil field truck for 15 years, scrimped and saved, until he could finally afford his own excavating truck. He now runs a successful trucking company and owns 52 trucks and employs over 100 people at his company.
And the ratio is actually about 85/15 in terms of people with net worths over $1,000,000.
Anyone have a source to corroborate the split? Mine was just a guess.
According the Forbes using data from the US Census, the GAO and the IRS
The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all US taxes
The top 5% pay 58%
The top 10% pay 72%.
And the number of households with greater than $1,000,000 of net worth is about 85% of all households at that asset level. There are literally MILLIONs millionaires in the US these days.
According the Forbes using data from the US Census, the GAO and the IRS
The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all US taxes
The top 5% pay 58%
The top 10% pay 72%.
And the number of households with greater than $1,000,000 of net worth is about 85% of all households at that asset level. There are literally MILLIONs millionaires in the US these days.
Link please
And quite honestly $1,000,000 in net assets is not all that much these days.
This is just federal income tax. It does not count state and local taxes and the really big one, who pays sales tax which skews the numbers to mine above, as the burden of sales tax is even more skewed towards the higher income brakets (duh....those who consume the most are going to pay an overwhelming majority of any consumption based tax...). Charts the IRS's numbers pretty well.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
That was from 1999. this is from 2006, under Bush it's gotten EVEN WORSE for the top income earners. This again, is just Federal Income Tax, and again the data source is the IRS:
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
These are just income taxes. If you include sales tax it gets worse. Would not surprise me if in 2008 the top 1% will incur over 40% of the tax burden.
And quite honestly $1,000,000 in net assets is not all that much these days.
