Historic High for WAGE earners

[Bern80]

Do I need to quote myself from yesterday? You know, when I posted EVIDENCE from a NYT review that illustrates EXACTLY how the author comes to his silly assed conclusions? Do we need to tangent this thread another 20 posts and argue about a single valid source until you say uncle again? What you WANT to hear is that the wealthy are the product of their own efforts while the lower classes are the product of THEIR own efforts. This is not only a stupid position when considering the FULL range of wealth in the US, inflation, and upper class opportunity but is a total joke when trying to insist that manipulated statistics proves as much.

either scroll up or say the word and I'll repost my criticism of your single source... you know, the one that wasn't as significant as the posted blog.

Actually your quote from the NYT (which many could argue is also far from a credible source of much of anything) was an excerpt from the actual book. How do I know? Oh yeah. I read it. And again you look stupid pretending to know material you've never even looked at.

Yes parts of the book focus on a given income range. However when they cite that roughly 80% of millionaires are first generation rich they are referring to everyone from a net worth of a million and one to whoever to a trillion dollars (or whatever the networth of the richest person in the world).

What is pointless about this discussion (or any) is to debate sources without understanding sources. And you don't understand the source. You have no context for any of your arguments against it. You seem to think it's some political dissertation when it's completely benign in nature.

What it seems you're complaining about is that in your mind that level of net worth doesn't really count as rich. You want to shift to different dollar amount, fine. It wouldn't disprove or change my argument. The loftier the goal the more difficult it will be to achieve, duh.

 

[Bern80]

do you understand that such is the definition for wealth that is specifically NOT used by the author of your amazing source? Apparently not.





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...llionaire.html



taking notes?

Please enlighten me as to the non-arbitrary, universal definition of wealth. The book isn't even claiming to talk about being super wealthy. Repeatedly all they state are commonalities they have found in people with a net worth of a million dollars. If you don't consider that wealthy, what do I care?

 

[Shogun]

oh.. so NOW all of a sudden you are NOT using the entire population of american wealthy in order to come to an 80% conclusion, eh?

Gosh, it's almost like this is what I've been pointing at for almost 20 posts now.


Feel free to keep using it as an example of the nature of America's wealthy class though. CLEARLY this was the most phenomenal single source you could have chosen.

If you can't figure out how dirty are your manipulated stats and willingness to pull a scheme on people who wouldn't otherwise take your source to task then what to I care. talk about a disingenuous, weasel-like low brow slimy tactic in "proving" your position. You should run for office with honesty like that.

 

[Bern80]

oh.. so NOW all of a sudden you are NOT using the entire population of american wealthy in order to come to an 80% conclusion, eh?

Gosh, it's almost like this is what I've been pointing at for almost 20 posts now.

this is not difficult Shogun. yes the book focuses on a specific level of wealth, which you quoted. HOWEVER, when they cite that 80% of the wealthy are first generation rich, they are referring to EVERYONE with a net worth over a million dollars, NOT the definition you cited.

Now if you want to read the book and see how they came to that number by all means, come back and tell me what's wrong with their methods.

Feel free to keep using it as an example of the nature of America's wealthy class though. CLEARLY this was the most phenomenal single source you could have chosen.

If you can't figure out how dirty are your manipulated stats and willingness to pull scheme a scheme on people who wouldn't otherwise take your source to task then what to I care. talk about a disingenuous, weasel-like low brow slimy tactic in "proving" your position. You should run for office with honesty like that.

What is manipulated about it? They chose to define a level of net worth as wealthy. Why do you not consider that level wealthy?

 

[maineman]

Please enlighten me as to the non-arbitrary, universal definition of wealth. The book isn't even claiming to talk about being super wealthy. Repeatedly all they state are commonalities they have found in people with a net worth of a million dollars. If you don't consider that wealthy, what do I care?

can you show what percentage of taxes, the uber-wealthy (old money families) pay?

 

[Bern80]

can you show what percentage of taxes, the uber-wealthy (old money families) pay?

No. Because your question is a little too loaded. Do you want 'uber wealthy'? If so define your terms better. Or do you just want old money families? And what does what you quoted have to do with it? Finally your question is worded such that you seem to assume that only 'old money families' are 'uber wealthy'.

 

[Shogun]

this is not difficult Shogun. yes the book focuses on a specific level of wealth, which you quoted. HOWEVER, when they cite that 80% of the wealthy are first generation rich, they are referring to EVERYONE with a net worth over a million dollars, NOT the definition you cited.

Now if you want to read the book and see how they came to that number by all means, come back and tell me what's wrong with their methods.

Thats about as accurate as calling a little debby snack cake a candy bar.

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.

Yes, clearly the book derives an 80% stat from everyone with 1mm and above. CLEARLY you are not relying on a narrowed sample of the entire population of wealthy Americans, as admitted by the book itself, for the sake of making a prepackaged argument about the nature of (a specific shhh, that's what we want to ignore) wealthy demographics. You are trying to suggest that 80% of America's wealthy have EARNED their monwy due to their own effort alone while using a source that ADMITS that it's specific focus group is hardly the entire population but, rather, a sample that has worked to achieve wealth that is NOT AT ALL reflective of the population of wealthy.


goddamn, dude. you are right. It's NOT that hard. Maybe if you had taken the time to find multiple support for your ideals rather than hope that no one would pink apart the premise of a book...



What is manipulated about it? They chose to define a level of net worth as wealthy. Why do you not consider that level wealthy?

I've been telling you EXACTLY what is being manipulated. Feel free to scroll up and re-read my banana's and oranges example. And, NO, compared to how deep that side of the wealth spectrum is in this day of a crashing dollar market it is a fucking joke to say that a million makes someone wealthy on par with the rest of the creme at the top. Indeed, which is why your author had to add a perspective factor instead of trying to acknowledge wealth outside of his cropped criteria.

By this point you are being purposefully dishonest. I won't neg rep you because Im just not a net pussy like that but you certainly have conveyed a staggering willingness to be dishonest. Enjoy that.

 

[Shogun]

No. Because your question is a little too loaded. Do you want 'uber wealthy'? If so define your terms better. Or do you just want old money families? And what does what you quoted have to do with it? Finally your question is worded such that you seem to assume that only 'old money families' are 'uber wealthy'.

Good grief, I mean, it's not like you are trying to narrow down applicable criteria in order to pad your stats or nothing, eh?

TOO LOADED? His question looked pretty clear to me. For a guy all to quick to insist on 80% being new wealth created on self effort you sure are quick to stutter when asked about the demographics of silver spoon wealth.

 

[Bern80]

this is not difficult Shogun. yes the book focuses on a specific level of wealth, which you quoted. HOWEVER, when they cite that 80% of the wealthy are first generation rich, they are referring to EVERYONE with a net worth over a million dollars, NOT the definition you cited.

Now if you want to read the book and see how they came to that number by all means, come back and tell me what's wrong with their methods.

Thats about as accurate as calling a little debby snack cake a candy bar.

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.

Yes, clearly the book derives an 80% stat from everyone with 1mm and above. CLEARLY you are not relying on a narrowed sample of the entire population of wealthy Americans, as admitted by the book itself, for the sake of making a prepackaged argument about the nature of (a specific shhh, that's what we want to ignore) wealthy demographics. You are trying to suggest that 80% of America's wealthy have EARNED their monwy due to their own effort alone while using a source that ADMITS that it's specific focus group is hardly the entire population but, rather, a sample that has worked to achieve wealth that is NOT AT ALL reflective of the population of wealthy.

Actually a baseline of net worth of a million or more would be a broader sample then what you are proposing. You are the one who is restricting terms to fit your argument.

I've been telling you EXACTLY what is being manipulated. Feel free to scroll up and re-read my banana's and oranges example. And, NO, compared to how deep that side of the wealth spectrum is in this day of a crashing dollar market it is a fucking joke to say that a million makes someone wealthy on par with the rest of the creme at the top. Indeed, which is why your author had to add a perspective factor instead of trying to acknowledge wealth outside of his cropped criteria.

By this point you are being purposefully dishonest. I won't neg rep you because Im just not a net pussy like that but you certainly have conveyed a staggering willingness to be dishonest. Enjoy that.

I haven't been dishonest about anything. I have been totally up front as to what they consider wealthy. Under those terms 80% of millionaires (notice the word millionaires, not wealthy) are first generation millionaires. Your disagreement is that just being a millionaire shoudl not be considered wealthy. On what basis I don't know. Though I'm guessing simply because it doesn't fit your beliefs. And as far as neg repping goes I believe we're one for one.

 

[maineman]

No. Because your question is a little too loaded. Do you want 'uber wealthy'? If so define your terms better. Or do you just want old money families? And what does what you quoted have to do with it? Finally your question is worded such that you seem to assume that only 'old money families' are 'uber wealthy'.

both

my point being: if someone has millions and millions upon millions of dollars, it is no big deal to me - and, from my experience - it is no big deal to them, to have to pay a little more in taxes. It is not like it will actually impact THEIR lives in any negative way, and it will impact the lives of MANY MANY other less fortunate citizens in a very very positive way.

I do not understand why everyone is whining about a marginal increase in taxes on those who have so much and, in many cases, have done so little to earn it in the first place.

I, myself, will be a millionaire upon the death of my elderly mother. But all I ever did to "earn" that was put up with a mean ass father for 18 years. I will have ZERO problem paying a few percentage points more taxes for the good of my country and those less fortunate citizens who share it with me.

 

[Shogun]

Actually a baseline of net worth of a million or more would be a broader sample then what you are proposing. You are the one who is restricting terms to fit your argument.


Dare I even ask how you figure seperating the million dollar wealthy from the old money is not restricting the sample? Which of us is trying to disqualify a certain dempgraphic when trying to suggest a specific result? certainly not me. BUT, if you can show me how you come to the conclusion that considering ALL wealth in the top percentile is more narrow than your cropped sample then lay it on me. Your open dishonesty is making my interest in this conversation wane at an exponential rate.


I haven't been dishonest about anything. I have been totally up front as to what they consider wealthy. Under those terms 80% of millionaires (notice the word millionaires, not wealthy) are first generation millionaires. Your disagreement is that just being a millionaire shoudl not be considered wealthy. On what basis I don't know. Though I'm guessing simply because it doesn't fit your beliefs. And as far as neg repping goes I believe we're one for one.

whatever, dude. UNDER THOSE TERMS is right. Maybe you can take a looksy back at the point where you first dropped that 80% stat and quote yourself making the same UNDER THOSE TERMS clarification. Indeed, people generally only consider those hovering around 1mm when they start comparing economic classes dont they? My disagreement is that you are trying to pass off a narrowed sample of the wealthy class as somhow reflective of the population of wealthy Americans. That, sir, is about as devious as it gets when hiding behind stats. On what basis? I've said it again and again, inflation. Is 10 dollars as impressive to you as it would have been in 1936? No? Then this isn't just a matter of MY beliefs then, is it?


Indeed, I returned your vaginal offering with a neg rep. I don't throw that stone, however, just because i'm being bludgeoned about the head and neck by someone thinking a little too critically about my posted erroneous stats.

 

[Bern80]

both

my point being: if someone has millions and millions upon millions of dollars, it is no big deal to me - and, from my experience - it is no big deal to them, to have to pay a little more in taxes. It is not like it will actually impact THEIR lives in any negative way, and it will impact the lives of MANY MANY other less fortunate citizens in a very very positive way.

I do not understand why everyone is whining about a marginal increase in taxes on those who have so much and, in many cases, have done so little to earn it in the first place.

Again you are assuming the two things are mutually exclusive. Yet so far I have seen no evidence that that is actually how all those people came into wealth. I'm not denying environment is a significant factor where the difficulty in attaining wealth is concerned. At the same time you can't deny that most appeal attained vast wealth simply because it was given to them.

I, myself, will be a millionaire upon the death of my elderly mother. But all I ever did to "earn" that was put up with a mean ass father for 18 years. I will have ZERO problem paying a few percentage points more taxes for the good of my country and those less fortunate citizens who share it with me.

And in becomeing a millionaire in that sense do you believe yourself to be representative of how most other people reached that point or an exception?

 

[Shogun]

I'm not denying environment is a significant factor where the difficulty in attaining wealth is concerned. At the same time you can't deny that most appeal attained vast wealth simply because it was given to them.

is this sentence needing a little bit of formatting or is the second sentence supposed to suggest that MM cant deny that most people attained wealth simply because it was given to them?

Details, Bern, details.

and, check your quotes again since I am not MM.

 

[maineman]

Again you are assuming the two things are mutually exclusive. Yet so far I have seen no evidence that that is actually how all those people came into wealth. I'm not denying environment is a significant factor where the difficulty in attaining wealth is concerned. At the same time you can't deny that most appeal attained vast wealth simply because it was given to them.



And in becomeing a millionaire in that sense do you believe yourself to be representative of how most other people reached that point or an exception?

I would tend to think that many multimillionaires had a little head start from Daddy.

 

[Bern80]

Dare I even ask how you figure seperating the million dollar wealthy from the old money is not restricting the sample? Which of us is trying to disqualify a certain dempgraphic when trying to suggest a specific result? certainly not me. BUT, if you can show me how you come to the conclusion that considering ALL wealth in the top percentile is more narrow than your cropped sample then lay it on me. Your open dishonesty is making my interest in this conversation wane at an exponential rate.

Then I guess we have to redefine what we can agree upon as wealthy. The definition of millionaire is not arbitrary. You either have a net worth of a million dollars or you don't. that's what the 80% corresponds to. Do you have a dollar range in mind, like $1,000,000 - x? Obviously if you raise the threshhold and say we're only going to count people with a net worth of 100 million dollars, that percentage will fall. I'm not real clear on what you think that 80% corresponds to, but so far your argument seems to be that a net worth of a million dollars doesn't count where wealthy is concerned.

whatever, dude. UNDER THOSE TERMS is right. Maybe you can take a looksy back at the point where you first dropped that 80% stat and quote yourself making the same UNDER THOSE TERMS clarification. Indeed, people generally only consider those hovering around 1mm when they start comparing economic classes dont they? My disagreement is that you are trying to pass off a narrowed sample of the wealthy class as somhow reflective of the population of wealthy Americans. That, sir, is about as devious as it gets when hiding behind stats. On what basis? I've said it again and again, inflation. Is 10 dollars as impressive to you as it would have been in 1936? No? Then this isn't just a matter of MY beliefs then, is it?

I don't know what people consider wealthy. I know the things I would need to have in order to have a net worth fo a million dollars and consider it wealthy. Do you even know what you're arguing against anymore? Aren't you trying to pass off the opposite? That they are not representative of the wealthy? Whether you like the evidence I have provided or not, you have provided nothing at all to support your stance.

 

[Bern80]

I would tend to think that many multimillionaires had a little head start from Daddy.

and can you prove it? Why is it so difficult to think that many multi-millionaires didn't get a head start from Daddy? By help from 'daddy' do you mean you think daddy just gave them money? If so, then 'daddy' isn't doing his children any real favor. Further I I woudl think those peolpe are far less likely to maintain their wealth on their own as if their given money they wouldn't have had to work for money.

 

[maineman]

and can you prove it? Why is it so difficult to think that many multi-millionaires didn't get a head start from Daddy? By help from 'daddy' do you mean you think daddy just gave them money? If so, then 'daddy' isn't doing his children any real favor. Further I I woudl think those peolpe are far less likely to maintain their wealth on their own as if their given money they wouldn't have had to work for money.

it is not difficult. I am sure that many multi millionaires made it all on their own...as for trust fund kids.... dad usually sets them up with a good broker/money manager, so their money makes lots more money than they can realistically spend. My mother sits in an assisted living facility and doesn't do DIDDLY all day long and her money makes her more than half a million every year. She's got a high school education and was a steno when she met a young dashing lawyer and has lived in the lap of luxury ever since doing not much more than spitting out babies. I'll tell you this: my Mom does not begrudge having to pay a marginally higher income tax rate on the "fruits of her labors". I don't understand why Americans think that the very wealthy should not do likewise.

 

[Bern80]

it is not difficult. I am sure that many multi millionaires made it all on their own...as for trust fund kids.... dad usually sets them up with a good broker/money manager, so their money makes lots more money than they can realistically spend. My mother sits in an assisted living facility and doesn't do DIDDLY all day long and her money makes her more than half a million every year. She's got a high school education and was a steno when she met a young dashing lawyer and has lived in the lap of luxury ever since doing not much more than spitting out babies. I'll tell you this: my Mom does not begrudge having to pay a marginally higher income tax rate on the "fruits of her labors". I don't understand why Americans think that the very wealthy should not do likewise.

because they are upset about what they pay for. If our tax dollars were only spent on people who simply coudl not help themselves we would have lower tax rates and few complain. But we passed that a long time ago and much of our tax burden goes to people that CAN help themselves but simply wont.

You really can't see how someone might not to be a little annoyed paying for something for someone else, which they payed for on their own? They're essentially asking, 'I did it with my own money, why can't you? If the reason they can't is legitimate fine, more than willing to help. If not, quit complaining.

 

[jillian]

because they are upset about what they pay for. If our tax dollars were only spent on people who simply coudl not help themselves we would have lower tax rates and few complain. But we passed that a long time ago and much of our tax burden goes to people that CAN help themselves but simply wont.

You really can't see how someone might not to be a little annoyed paying for something for someone else, which they payed for on their own?

It's not what *they* pay for that troubles them. Because the same people who whine about the wealthiest 1% paying the same percentage of our taxes as their wealth equals, also complain about estate taxes and will argue ad nauseum for Paris Hilton's right to get grandpa's money tax free.

It's about that whole "let's starve government til we can drown it in a bathtub" mentality.

 

[Shogun]

Then I guess we have to redefine what we can agree upon as wealthy. The definition of millionaire is not arbitrary. You either have a net worth of a million dollars or you don't. that's what the 80% corresponds to. Do you have a dollar range in mind, like $1,000,000 - x? Obviously if you raise the threshhold and say we're only going to count people with a net worth of 100 million dollars, that percentage will fall. I'm not real clear on what you think that 80% corresponds to, but so far your argument seems to be that a net worth of a million dollars doesn't count where wealthy is concerned.

I have no problem at all calling the line at 1 million in assets. Now, if you have a source that suggests that 80% out of the entire wealthy quintile made their own money through saving and hard work alone instead of hand me down wealth then, by all means, post that skinny puppy.


Obviously if you raise the threshhold and say we're only going to count people with a net worth of 100 million dollars, that percentage will fall.

no shit. which leads me to ask why you have tried to insinuate everything else but that logical conclusion for the last two days? Your original arguement that 80% of our wealthy class are the product of their own effort, work and responsibility was mind-numbingly inaccurate and an example of obfuscation behind stats.. Im glad we can both agree on that now.



I don't know what people consider wealthy. I know the things I would need to have in order to have a net worth fo a million dollars and consider it wealthy. Do you even know what you're arguing against anymore? Aren't you trying to pass off the opposite? That they are not representative of the wealthy? Whether you like the evidence I have provided or not, you have provided nothing at all to support your stance.


yes, I know perfectly well what it is I am taking you to task on. It's the same thing that I mentioned when I first asked you to clarify your 80% stat.

My stance is that you have been hiding behind a book as a single source that uses manipulated stats to reach a desired conclusion. I haven't made a single value statement on the nature of wealthy beyond bringing you to the point of admitting that, in fact, your single source's narrow ass sample criteria does not at all reflect the entire population of America's upper class.

Are you going to accept your medicine or make a last effort at dodging behind a tangent?