Historic High for WAGE earners

[maineman]

not bogus, just because it's available to everyone doesn't mean it's being used by everyone, and that's the point. You noted that at a point you can make so much money that whining about taxes becomes irrelevent because it isn't much of a hit to the pocket book. By the same token, when you're 'uber wealthy' many of those same programs become irrelivent. What difference is $800 a month in SS gonna make to someone that ranking in ten times that? Likewise they will often opt to pay for better options then medicare and medicade.

My Dad always took advantage of his medicare prescription benefits and proudly cashed his social security check every month. He earned those benefits. The point is: they are not programs - like welfare - where the tax dollars of the wealthy go to ensure the standard of living of folks who don't earn any money. They are NOT programs where the "haves" give away to the "have nots". THOSE programs make up a small amount of each tax dollar the wealthy pay in anyway..which was MY point.

 

[Bern80]

Just gonna put this here since you replied before I got done editing:

Now some (well one) have poo, pooed my source about statistics of the wealthy (even though they haven't actually looked at it). It is simply about the habits of the wealthy (which they define as a net worth of a million dollars (if you want to debate whether tha should be considered wealthy, by all means, but I think I have shown that is no small feet)) and how they became so. They got there info by surveying wealthy people. You can read about how they targeted these people and decide for yourself whether or not what they found is representative of the wealthy. I am not claiming as Shogun has suggested that one book is the final word on the topic, however, so far other evidence seems to suggest that the information is accurate and have yet to see anything that contradicts it. And of course the obvious question, since the book is by no means social commentary or political in nature, what possible reason would the authors have for painting a false picture? Some sick joke to make people think they can achieve something they can't?

It's easy to see why people think Paris Hilton is what constitutes your typically wealthy or people that inherited money. That's really all we're exposed to by the media. According to the authors that also did much of their own research, they simply isn't the typical millionaire. It has been suggested by Shogun and the excerpt he has posted half a dozen times that their stats are manipulated. Seeing as he has no context out of a single paragraph, I will try to give some.

Yes the book focuses on a specific group of millionaires (net worth of 1 million to 10 million), the purpose being to show that it is not some impossible dream to become a millioniare. The 80% however refers to everyone with a net worth over a million. At least one reference that someone has posted possibly in the other thread suggests that that number is at the very least in the ball park. The article was from Forbes and used the anology of bases in baseball to describe how people attained wealth, i.e. if you were born on home plate you started with little, third base you were essentially a trust fund baby. Interestingly the percentages of each base did not add even close to 100% however, the ratio of those born on home or first to second to third was 56/13. We could debate I suppose which group those on first should be in, but even then the percentages they cite for people on first, second and third would not be greater than that of home.

 

[Shogun]

1. a survey? I'll take Alfred Kinsey and answers that people give despite reality for 100 alex.

2. OTHER sources? the posted BLOG from the WSJ? bravo.

3. Gosh, why on EARTH do people manipulate stats in order to come to a predetermined conclusion that corroborates their opinions... hmmm.. It probably has nothing to do with validating a specific agenda! I mean, it's not like tobacco companies conducted research during the 50s!


4. Yes the book focuses on a specific group of millionaires (net worth of 1 million to 10 million)

to

It is simply about the habits of the wealthy (which they define as a net worth of a million dollars (if you want to debate whether tha should be considered wealthy, by all means, but I think I have shown that is no small feet)) and how they became so.




At least one reference that someone has posted possibly in the other thread suggests that that number is at the very least in the ball park.

a blog from the wall street journal. How very profound, dude. It's almost as if I had asked you for other supporting sources at the very beginning of this thrill ride. I mean, had I known that you had access to a BLOG with OPINIONS I probably would have shut right the hell up.


what possible reason would the authors have for painting a false picture?

still trying to convince someone, dude.

 

[Bern80]

1. a survey? I'll take Alfred Kinsey and answers that people give despite reality for 100 alex.

Fine, cite some 'reality'.

2. OTHER sources? the posted BLOG from the WSJ? bravo.

No not the blog. Post 60 in the 'thou shalt not....' thread by Rayboy an editorial from The Nation that cited the Forbes 400.

3. Gosh, why on EARTH do people manipulate stats in order to come to a predetermined conclusion that corroborates their opinions... hmmm.. It probably has nothing to do with validating a specific agenda! I mean, it's not like tobacco companies conducted research during the 50s!

And your asumption of course is that their conclusion is in fact predetermined. Your evidence for that is where again?

4. Yes the book focuses on a specific group of millionaires (net worth of 1 million to 10 million)

to

It is simply about the habits of the wealthy (which they define as a net worth of a million dollars (if you want to debate whether tha should be considered wealthy, by all means, but I think I have shown that is no small feet)) and how they became so.

Again if you don't think that range shouldn't count, just say so. For maybe the dozenth time, 80% refers to all with a net worth over 1 million, or do you need the word 'all' defined for you?

a blog from the wall street journal. How very profound, dude. It's almost as if I had asked you for other supporting sources at the very beginning of this thrill ride. I mean, had I known that you had access to a BLOG with OPINIONS I probably would have shut right the hell up.

still trying to convince someone, dude.

You specifically? No. It has become quite clear your not capable of carrying on an objective conversation and that you are far more interesed in insults than understanding. But if you're so convinced I'm wrong (and I don't think you even know what I'm saying in the first place), post something, anything that says otherwise. Though I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Shogun]

I've already bitchslapped you with quotes from your own single source, dude. If you want to pretend that wealthy codgers using a SURVEY, of all testing methods available for christ sakes, that mainly focuses on a narrowed demographic reflects anything about the population of wealthy then be my guest.

after all, why would anyone conduction this kind of research have a reason to achieve desired results, eh joe camel?


Hell, it's probably not obvious why you keep bringing up my name with a big five finger red mark on your left cheek like that. People who soundly trounce my point generally ALWAYS keep trying to defend their position 10 posts after I've stopped taking their logic to task.

Again, still feel the need to convince someone of something?

 

[Bern80]

I've already bitchslapped you with quotes from your own single source, dude. If you want to pretend that wealthy codgers using a SURVEY, of all testing methods available for christ sakes, that mainly focuses on a narrowed demographic reflects anything about the population of wealthy then be my guest.

Your evidence that they are wealthy codgers is where again? And you understand the context of the single paragrpah you cited as well right? thougt so.

after all, why would anyone conduction this kind of research have a reason to achieve desired results, eh joe camel?

Again you're you assumimg that they not only sought to proov a specific theory, but also manipulated the way they reached conclusion. And again I ask where your evidence for that is? They sought to discover commonalities among the wealthy, there is no evidence of any bias in that endeavor.

Hell, it's probably not obvious why you keep bringing up my name with a big five finger red mark on your left cheek like that. People who soundly trounce my point generally ALWAYS keep trying to defend their position 10 posts after I've stopped taking their logic to task.

Again, still feel the need to convince someone of something?

So you're the logical one? Logic is someone who thinks they know a whole book based on one paragraph right? Logic is someone that spends more time being condescending then objectively debateing right? Logic is someone who doesn't even make an effort to listen right?

 

[Shogun]

I've posted my evidence regarding your single source. If you had the conviction to move beyond defending this single lame-assed book then perhaps it wouldn't be clear why you are defending it as if it were the last ark floating in the flood.


As it is, tell me another jokey jokey about how people with an agenda have no reason to produce crafted results. It's almost as funny as asking kinsey-like questions to a narrowed sample while expecting an honest answer about having earned individual wealth. I bet just as many people admit their silver spoon as will also admit to jacking off.

Now, if you don't mind passing me my healthy cigarettes... There was a study done, you know.

 

[Bern80]

I've posted my evidence regarding your single source. If you had the conviction to move beyond defending this single lame-assed book then perhaps it wouldn't be clear why you are defending it as if it were the last ark floating in the flood.

You posted an excerpt from the book itself, which again is not the parameter under which 80% was arrived at. You say that's a manipulative defintion to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Again, what conclusion? Do you want to argue that despite what they say and the range given that it is NOT attainable in one generation? What exactley is your beef and why do you feel it isn't representative of the wealthy? The only way you could come to that conclusion unless you're grossly misinterpreting that paragraph (which you probably are) is that in your mind 1 - 10 million shouldn't count as wealthy . Well ok smart guy, how should we count millionaires are way the come from?

As it is, tell me another jokey jokey about how people with an agenda have no reason to produce crafted results. It's almost as funny as asking kinsey-like questions to a narrowed sample while expecting an honest answer about having earned individual wealth. I bet just as many people admit their silver spoon as will also admit to jacking off.

Now, if you don't mind passing me my healthy cigarettes... There was a study done, you know.

Proove they have an agenda, shouldn't be hard since you're so certain of it. Are you getting this pattern? You make an assumption about something, I ask you to proov it, you don't and istead make another baseless assumption, which I ask you to proov, you dont, etc., etc.

And again Mr. Logical I ask is thinking you understand context or even judging a source of a single paragraph really logical?

 

[Shogun]

You posted an excerpt from the book itself, which again is not the parameter under which 80% was arrived at. You say that's a manipulative defintion to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Again, what conclusion? Do you want to argue that despite what they say and the range given that it is NOT attainable in one generation? What exactley is your beef and why do you feel it isn't representative of the wealthy? The only way you could come to that conclusion unless you're grossly misinterpreting that paragraph (which you probably are) is that in your mind 1 - 10 million shouldn't count as wealthy . Well ok smart guy, how should we count millionaires are way the come from?


I've said over and over that narrowing the SURVEYED (snicker snicker) criteria down to a bracket of 1 - 10 million in personal wealth is in no way reflective of the population of wealthy Americans. Wealthy as an adjective doesn't end at 10 million just because focusing on 80% of a chosen sample sells books to people who want desperately to believe that wealth is merely a matter of personal achievement. The paragraph that I posted indicates exactly why the book focuses on a cropped sample: "Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans."

hey, maybe you can explain why Ann Coulter's "research" sells to the hard right next. Her conclusions are the product of research, you know. the same with Howard Zinn and his book on American History. Now, if only we could prove their agendas.....



Proove they have an agenda, shouldn't be hard since you're so certain of it. Are you getting this pattern? You make an assumption about something, I ask you to proov it, you don't and istead make another baseless assumption, which I ask you to proov, you dont, etc., etc.


yea, dissecting the research method you seem to think is solid gold sure is an assumption, isn't it? Maybe if I take a survey on racism in the south I can expect truthful answers from the men wearing hoods and burning crosses on the weekend.

What I have asked you for repeatedly is a better source for your goofy notion that attaining American wealth is merely a matter of saving more than you spend with a side of relativism to wash it down. Instead of confidently rising to the occasion you insist on creating this tangent. Indeed, remind me which of us is making baseless assumptions again.


And again Mr. Logical I ask is thinking you understand context or even judging a source of a single paragraph really logical?


Yes, it is very logical when you assert such ideals from a single source as mana from heaven and then cry about the attention given to the research method used in order to create a result that is marketable in book form.

I know, when someone whips out a single source that is a book most reasonable people will just nod their heads, accept a premise as fact, and move on. Since what I've posted came from the book itself and you've danced around multiple times around the books method, application and conclusions you are probably the first person who should be doling out lessons on context.

 

[Bern80]

I've said over and over that narrowing the SURVEYED (snicker snicker) criteria down to a bracket of 1 - 10 million in personal wealth is in no way reflective of the population of wealthy Americans. Wealthy as an adjective doesn't end at 10 million just because focusing on 80% of a chosen sample sells books to people who want desperately to believe that wealth is merely a matter of personal achievement. The paragraph that I posted indicates exactly why the book focuses on a cropped sample: "Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans."

Then provide evidence that it isn't. Again not hard. Show me numbers that x percent of millionaires have wealth within this range. X percent have wealth with in another range. At the very least I understand your gripe, but you have to somehow seperate the two things I'm saying, yes they focus on a specific group of the wealthy (assuming again that you accept a net worth as 1 million wealthy). They aren't manipulating anything at all and had you read the book you would understand that the one paragraph you quoted is not the be all and end all of the story. as far as that group not being typical, here is some more evidence you may be interesetd that suprise, surprise does NOT back your claim that the range cited is atypical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

of note would be the following

* Ultra-HNWIs (Ultra-HNWIs Account for 1.0% of All HNWIs) (more than $30 million, in 2006

I'm sure you can't understand that so I'll explain. HNWI stands for High Net Worth Income, Of all High Net Worth Incomes only 1% can be considered Ultra-High NWI, that is in excess of $30,000,000. So surprise, surprise you're the one full of shit....again.

yea, dissecting the research method you seem to think is solid gold sure is an assumption, isn't it? Maybe if I take a survey on racism in the south I can expect truthful answers from the men wearing hoods and burning crosses on the weekend.

How did you dissect the research methods? I told you they did a survey of the wealthy. I didnt' tell how it was done. Several pages are devoted to that topic. You read them and determined that their method was wrong?

Yes, it is very logical when you assert such ideals from a single source as mana from heaven and then cry about the attention given to the research method used in order to create a result that is marketable in book form.

Except I haven't suggested that. Please proov. I'll wait.

I know, when someone whips out a single source that is a book most reasonable people will just nod their heads, accept a premise as fact, and move on. Since what I've posted came from the book itself and you've danced around multiple times around the books method, application and conclusions you are probably the first person who should be doling out lessons on context.

I haven't. You don't know the books methods or how the research was done. The single paragraph you cited is what is. I know you like to think you're some intellectual wiz, but your debate skills leave a little to be desired.

 

[Alpha1]

MM says....They are NOT programs where the "haves" give away to the "have nots". THOSE programs make up a small amount of each tax dollar the wealthy pay in anyway..which was MY point.
-----------------------------

Its sad to see someone so brainwashed by politics that they cease to exercise logic and reason in their thinking.....
Anyway...

By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expense in the federal budget, with 20.9% for social security and 20.4% for Medicare..

Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
The original Social Security Act[1] and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs. The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:

* Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
* Unemployment Insurance
* Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
* Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

* The nonworking spouse of someone entitled to an old-age benefit also became entitled to an old-age benefit. (welfare)
* Survivors (widow(er)s and orphans) became eligible for a benefit. (welfare)
* Retirees who had never paid any FICA taxes became eligible for old-age benefits.(welfare)
This feature was very popular among the millions of elderly Americans hard hit by the Great Depression, and fatefully decoupled benefits eligibility from work history.(welfare)

During the Carter administration, immigrants who had never paid into the system became eligible for SSI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits when they reached age 65. SSI is not a Social Security benefit, but a welfare program
because the elderly and disabled poor are entitled to SSI regardless of work history.

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages.

The fact that present day workers now fund the workers of decades ago....? (welfare)
Because that money put in decades ago, is long gone.....

But my wife and I love it....love getting that check every month....so to all you youngsters....KEEP WORKING-AND KEEP PAYING

 

[maineman]

MM says....They are NOT programs where the "haves" give away to the "have nots". THOSE programs make up a small amount of each tax dollar the wealthy pay in anyway..which was MY point.
-----------------------------

Its sad to see someone so brainwashed by politics that they cease to exercise logic and reason in their thinking.....
Anyway...

By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expense in the federal budget, with 20.9% for social security and 20.4% for Medicare..

Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
The original Social Security Act[1] and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs. The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:

* Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
* Unemployment Insurance
* Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
* Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

* The nonworking spouse of someone entitled to an old-age benefit also became entitled to an old-age benefit. (welfare)
* Survivors (widow(er)s and orphans) became eligible for a benefit. (welfare)
* Retirees who had never paid any FICA taxes became eligible for old-age benefits.(welfare)
This feature was very popular among the millions of elderly Americans hard hit by the Great Depression, and fatefully decoupled benefits eligibility from work history.(welfare)

During the Carter administration, immigrants who had never paid into the system became eligible for SSI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits when they reached age 65. SSI is not a Social Security benefit, but a welfare program
because the elderly and disabled poor are entitled to SSI regardless of work history.

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages.

The fact that present day workers now fund the workers of decades ago....? (welfare)
Because that money put in decades ago, is long gone.....

But my wife and I love it....love getting that check every month....so to all you youngsters....KEEP WORKING-AND KEEP PAYING

so...you're on welfare?

 

[Alpha1]

so...you're on welfare?

Not yet...My wife and I invested over 1/2 million bucks in SS.....(I don't have the early figures) So it will take some time yet for us to collect just the principle.....I don't expect to ever see any interest.....

 

[maineman]

Not yet...My wife and I invested over 1/2 million bucks in SS.....(I don't have the early figures) So it will take some time yet for us to collect just the principle.....I don't expect to ever see any interest.....

I thought you said that SS was a welfare program. The vast majority of SS checks go to people just like you and me who have worked for their whole lives and now get their SS contributions back. It is not a welfare program....

 

[Zoomie1980]

I thought you said that SS was a welfare program. The vast majority of SS checks go to people just like you and me who have worked for their whole lives and now get their SS contributions back. It is not a welfare program....

Funny thing about SS, when it was first enacted the collection age was about two years beyond the average life expectancy.... Today it's about 15 years under that....

And to get everything back in inflation adjusted dollars you'd have to live well past 100.

 

[maineman]

Funny thing about SS, when it was first enacted the collection age was about two years beyond the average life expectancy.... Today it's about 15 years under that....

And to get everything back in inflation adjusted dollars you'd have to live well past 100.

irrelevant. SS is still not a welfare program.

 

[Zoomie1980]

irrelevant. SS is still not a welfare program.

I never said it was. It's a pension program....one with a pathetically lousy ROI.

 

[maineman]

I never said it was. It's a pension program....one with a pathetically lousy ROI.

Alpha did.... read up on the thread before jumping into the middle of it.

 

[Alpha1]

I thought you said that SS was a welfare program. The vast majority of SS checks go to people just like you and me who have worked for their whole lives and now get their SS contributions back. It is not a welfare program....

Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
The original Social Security Act[1] and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs. The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:

Well, actually someone else wrote the above....

but I agree.....many put nothing in the system, some put very little in the system.....and for them....its welfare.....not for me...

 

[indago]

RECESSION?