Income Inequality: Another Aspect

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,147
Reaction score
32,993
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Just a few considerations beyond the usual political claims about what may or may not be a problem, a crisis...an emergency that government must deal with.....




1. The much bemoaned 'income inequality' is really an interesting phenomenon....
Let's look at some facts.
According to the Michael Medved Radio Show, (12/18/2013):
the middle 20% of earners- below the top 40% and above the bottom 40%- earned 15% of the nation's income in 1947.
In 1979, the middle 20% earned 16% of said income.
But in 2013, the same statistical group earned........14%.
What does that say about the 'growing income inequality'?





2. CNBC had an interesting title to an analysis...."The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

3. ... the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.... The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.

4. ... the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since thestock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent.




5. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

6. "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."

7. The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters.





8. ...the greatest disparity in the report is the one mentioned above, regarding the share of individual income taxes paid by various income groups.

9. The report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

10. ... about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent."





There doesn't seem to be an aspect of illegality in the earnings of the highest income group...
...is there any real argument that the wealthiest are 'stealing' their wealth from the lowest earners? Often, that is implied.....
How about consequences of one's actions, and life decisions?



And....what is the role that 'envy' plays in the discussion of 'income inequality'?
 

Spoonman

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
18,163
Reaction score
7,661
Points
330
Democrats claim to be all about the poor. but where is all of the availble money going? to the rich who are investing in the market. and the market is rising. but who is getting rich off it? well the rich. and the gap continues to grow
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,473
Points
1,830
In a free country there will always be income inequality and there will always be a 1% at the top.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,147
Reaction score
32,993
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Democrats claim to be all about the poor. but where is all of the availble money going? to the rich who are investing in the market. and the market is rising. but who is getting rich off it? well the rich. and the gap continues to grow






Now just one dang minute, Spoonster!!


You're not suggesting that all the palaver from the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats is just a ploy to get the envious to vote for 'em?????


Why....I never!



I may just have the vapors.......
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
I do not know that we can solely place value judgments on labor prices by nagivating taxation alone. There are a plethroa of variables to consider when consdiering labor vs. capital venture.

To my understanding, a big portion of the chasm can be identified through few indicators.

1) Inflation, regulation and taxation
2) Supply and demand in the labor force
3) Technology

the first one the OP touches on. While it is certainly true that "the rich" pay a hefty tax burden compared to other income levels in society, they also endure government regulation (another tax essentially) on production and overhead, as well as the effects of consistent monetary inflation, which always favors "the rich". And in general leads to resource misallocation, including labor forces.

We are currently at a 35 year low in labor force participation. But this isn't due to an aggregate rise in wealth (things such as the need for only one household income) Instead, it is the result of the destruction of real wealth and investment, and replaced with speculative gambling and legislative covenance in industries. Along with automation replacing the need to expend on workforce skill upgrades. Which is the third area.

Stagnated wages is a byproduct of these things, along with other variables in labor market forces.
 
Last edited:

Kimura

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Location
Bassano del Grappa
I’d like to add a caveat: the rich aren’t more productive like some people say. My problem is with the ridiculous statement that the wealthy are more productive then everyone else and we should genuflect to the owners of capital.

Take a look at the Forbes 400 of the wealthiest Americans. The MAJORITY owe their massive wealth to inheritance, speculation, real estate and stock investments. They don’t produce anything. All they do is collect rents off of their assets. They haven’t contributed any capital to the economy.

Are we saying that some landlord collecting rents off of a portfolio in NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle or Chicago is more productive than the engineer, pharmacist, plumber, electrician or garbage man? Is some equities guru more productive than school teachers or firemen? Are they more important than RNs who take care of the sick or the guy fixing our highways?

The OP has it backwards. We are taking money away from the productive folks, just not the people the OP thinks are productive. Any type of budget cuts, education, Medicare, SS, etc are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since $$$$ is being taken away from the most productive in our society. A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since both remove income from the economy.

I’m not knocking the “rich” or those who made their fortunes adding to our supply of real goods and services. These are things which improve our standard of living. It’s just time to stop with this delusional belief that people who have a ton of $$$$ are somehow more important or productive than citizens who have less $$$$.

We should tax economic rent (profits from non-productive sources) as a disincentive. We should incentivize production/productive investment as opposed to taxing workers and incomes while giving rent extractors an exemption. The breakdown of capitalism has handed over our political process to a financial oligarchy.
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
It's rather interesting to read these things. on the one hand you advocate government intervention and subsidy, then blame the breakdown of capitalism for throwing us under the corporatist bus.

it's like saying, "man, the government is corrupt and has destroyed our economic freedoms through protectionism and favoritism. So what we should do, is ask for more government intervention on behalf of other special interests."

It's one hell of an interesting cognitive display. one I've seen quite often yet never been able to identify with.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,147
Reaction score
32,993
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I’d like to add a caveat: the rich aren’t more productive like some people say. My problem is with the ridiculous statement that the wealthy are more productive then everyone else and we should genuflect to the owners of capital.

Take a look at the Forbes 400 of the wealthiest Americans. The MAJORITY owe their massive wealth to inheritance, speculation, real estate and stock investments. They don’t produce anything. All they do is collect rents off of their assets. They haven’t contributed any capital to the economy.

Are we saying that some landlord collecting rents off of a portfolio in NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle or Chicago is more productive than the engineer, pharmacist, plumber, electrician or garbage man? Is some equities guru more productive than school teachers or firemen? Are they more important than RNs who take care of the sick or the guy fixing our highways?

The OP has it backwards. We are taking money away from the productive folks, just not the people the OP thinks are productive. Any type of budget cuts, education, Medicare, SS, etc are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since $$$$ is being taken away from the most productive in our society. A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since both remove income from the economy.

I’m not knocking the “rich” or those who made their fortunes adding to our supply of real goods and services. These are things which improve our standard of living. It’s just time to stop with this delusional belief that people who have a ton of $$$$ are somehow more important or productive than citizens who have less $$$$.

We should tax economic rent (profits from non-productive sources) as a disincentive. We should incentivize production/productive investment as opposed to taxing workers and incomes while giving rent extractors an exemption. The breakdown of capitalism has handed over our political process to a financial oligarchy.





1. "Take a look at the Forbes 400 of the wealthiest Americans. The MAJORITY owe their massive wealth to inheritance, speculation, real estate and stock investments. They don’t produce anything. All they do is collect rents off of their assets. They haven’t contributed any capital to the economy."


I have 10 seconds....that should be enough for you to tell me all you know.


"The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows."
How Most Millionaires Got Rich


There are 400,000 millionaires in NYC alone.
?Two cities?: Debunking De Blasio | New York Post


The Forbes article was about 400 billionaires.....273 of whom didn't inherit wealth.





2. "The OP has it backwards. We are taking money away from the productive folks, just not the people the OP thinks are productive. Any type of budget cuts, education, Medicare, SS, etc are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since $$$$ is being taken away from the most productive in our society. A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since both remove income from the economy."


Puh-leeezzzzeeee....don't spend any more time trying to convince me that you are a moron!!!
Mission accomplished.



1. The devil, as usual, is in the details. The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

b. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.

c. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia.




2. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
From David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
 

Kimura

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Location
Bassano del Grappa
It's rather interesting to read these things. on the one hand you advocate government intervention and subsidy, then blame the breakdown of capitalism for throwing us under the corporatist bus.

it's like saying, "man, the government is corrupt and has destroyed our economic freedoms through protectionism and favoritism. So what we should do, is ask for more government intervention on behalf of other special interests."

It's one hell of an interesting cognitive display. one I've seen quite often yet never been able to identify with.
It boils down to regulatory capture and special interests controlling decisions. We provision government for the public purpose. Regulatory capture has turned government into a subsidy machine for a literal oligarchy.

The problem with capitalists, if we look at history, is that they are compelled to seek economic rent to get a larger percentage of value than is give to their workers, even though workers make a substantial contribution to production.

If all people were allowed to pursue their self-interests without any type of restrictions we would see serious macroeconomic problems since all people can't succeed in an equal way. Inequality results in inefficiency due to wealth aggregating at the very top. The result is an economic straight jacket which creates a deficiency in demand. We also see that those at the very top end up as net savers and the middle and lower classes end up as debtors paying out rents.

We can see this played out in modern day society. A bigger percentage of productivity gains going to CEOs, upper management, shareholders, and regular workers have no type of bargaining power. This results in perpetual stagnant wages. They are then forced to borrow (increase personal debts loads) to maintain a decent standard of living.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
145,014
Reaction score
15,100
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
huh!? I've never had a rich boi pay my sales taxes, real estate taxes, federal or state, FICA or SS.
Me thinks somebody is lying.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,256
Reaction score
7,404
Points
280
Location
On a hill
I split from some of my conservative friends on this issue.
There is, IMO, no doubting the fact that there is absolutely an earnings inequality in America.
The top 10 wealthiest Americans in 2013 will earn the equivalent of 1.8 million Americans making $60,000 a year. Please note I use $60k earnings.
Worth saying again - 10 people earned more money, than the TOTAL income of 1.8 million people...with full time employment earning about $30 per hour.
That is absurd. It is also inexcusable. It is also anti-free market.
What?? - Anti-free market??? Damn straight. Only in a system that heavily favors investors and conglomerate wealth could any one individual make that kind of money.
In this country we have a very serious problem of wealth concentration. Corporatism in America has successfully taken our system from a Democratic Republic to an oligarchy.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
The problem with capitalists, if we look at history, is that they are compelled to seek economic rent to get a larger percentage of value than is give to their workers, even though workers make a substantial contribution to production.
Labor is a commodity that has its own market forces. A sweeping generalization like this doesn't really give any noteworthy additions to the subject. For instance, and this is common, I posted in here a link to labor markets in the 1800s. If you read it, you'll realize that labor demand can significantly determine the price of labor. For instance, mill labor required in some instances long distance reaches to secure labor. Which in effect made supply smal but demand very high. This created the condition for much larger wages from businesses in need of securing said labor.


If all people were allowed to pursue their self-interests without any type of restrictions we would see serious macroeconomic problems since all people can't succeed in an equal way.
What nonsense. That's the nature of competition. It doesn't casue any macro problems to have market selected winners and losers. On the other hand,. the results of diminished competiton thorugh protectionism/favoritism shows a clear correlation of macro related problems. One such as is the the stagnation of wages. And i addressed some of these in my first post in this thread.

We can see this played out in modern day society. A bigger percentage of productivity gains going to CEOs, upper management, shareholders, and regular workers have no type of bargaining power.
And a large protion of this problem stems from the exit of real wealth creation to the illusion induced by monetary policy.
 

Kimura

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Location
Bassano del Grappa
I have 10 seconds....that should be enough for you to tell me all you know.


"The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows."
How Most Millionaires Got Rich


There are 400,000 millionaires in NYC alone.
?Two cities?: Debunking De Blasio | New York Post


The Forbes article was about 400 billionaires.....273 of whom didn't inherit wealth.
Reading isn't your strong suit.


From your link:

The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows.

The study by Fidelity Investments found that 86 percent of today's millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up. Overall, the research revealed current millionaires are, on average, 61 years old with $3.05 million in assets.

While nearly three-quarters of millionaires feel rich, those who do not said they would need an average of $5 million of investable assets to begin feeling wealthy.

"Today’s millionaires are multi-dimensional, and to really understand them, you need to look not only at their outlook, but also at their path to wealth and their financial goals for the future," said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a Fidelity Investments company.

Of those who are self-made millionaires, the study revealed their top sources of assets included investments/capital appreciation, compensation and employee stock options/profit-sharing. Those who were born wealthy were more likely to cite inheritance, entrepreneurship and real estate investment appreciation as an asset source.

When it comes to investment strategies, those who are self-made millionaires were more likely to add equity investments, while those who were born wealthy typically had more real estate investments.

The research shows that when considering their financial future, 30 percent of today's millionaires were concerned with preserving their wealth, while 20 percent were focused on growing their fortune.

[The Best Age to Become a Boss]

This year’s study found that millionaires' outlook of the future financial environment continues to improve, with their optimism reaching the highest level since the survey’s inception in 2006.

"One trend has held true throughout the life of this study – the millionaire investor’s outlook has been consistently pragmatic about current market conditions and pervasively optimistic about a future recovery,” said Michael R. Durbin, president of Fidelity Institutional Wealth Services.. "In many ways, what millionaires have been thinking and doing can be a strong indicator for financial trends."

Once such trend is millionaires' current interest in the stock market. The millionaires surveyed ranked individual domestic stocks as their top investment added in the last year, followed by certificates of deposit/money market accounts/cash equivalents, equity exchange traded funds, individual domestic bonds and domestic equity mutual funds.

The study was based on surveys of more than 1,000 millionaire investors.
Like I said, the wealthy are involved in real estate, stock, and commodity speculation and other types of rent seeking. What do they PRODUCE? The rich are idle while REAL WEALTH is created by workers in factories, construction sites, laboratories, schools, and other sectors of the economy that a given little attention.

Puh-leeezzzzeeee....don't spend any more time trying to convince me that you are a moron!!!
Mission accomplished.
From a fiscal standpoint, they are identical. Sorry to burst your bubble.


1. The devil, as usual, is in the details. The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state.
Right. SO pointing out rent seeking/extraction is clearly totalitarian. Newsflash: the wealthy don't produce the majority of goods and services. They're rent extractors which add costs to your life on a daily basis.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

b. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.

c. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia.
Right, I'm clearly a Marxist. I doubt you even read Das Kapital given your incoherent diatribe.

2. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
From David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
Riiiiight...Because the teacher, plumber, engineer aren't skilled workers. It's the hedge fund manager and other rent extractors that produce nothing who have actual skills. Thanks for the clearing that up!!!! Next you'll be telling me how the rich are "job creators".
 
Last edited:

Sunshine

Trust the pie.
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
19,377
Reaction score
3,363
Points
183
I split from some of my conservative friends on this issue.
There is, IMO, no doubting the fact that there is absolutely an earnings inequality in America.
The top 10 wealthiest Americans in 2013 will earn the equivalent of 1.8 million Americans making $60,000 a year. Please note I use $60k earnings.
Worth saying again - 10 people earned more money, than the TOTAL income of 1.8 million people...with full time employment earning about $30 per hour.
That is absurd. It is also inexcusable. It is also anti-free market.
What?? - Anti-free market??? Damn straight. Only in a system that heavily favors investors and conglomerate wealth could any one individual make that kind of money.
In this country we have a very serious problem of wealth concentration. Corporatism in America has successfully taken our system from a Democratic Republic to an oligarchy.
You could redistribute every cent of money in this country evenly between every person and the same thing would still happen. The same people would end up with most of the money. It's not hard to see why if one thinks about it.

Whatever you earn, think about where it goes, and who gets it after you.
 

Sunshine

Trust the pie.
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
19,377
Reaction score
3,363
Points
183
I have 10 seconds....that should be enough for you to tell me all you know.


"The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows."
How Most Millionaires Got Rich


There are 400,000 millionaires in NYC alone.
?Two cities?: Debunking De Blasio | New York Post


The Forbes article was about 400 billionaires.....273 of whom didn't inherit wealth.
Reading isn't your strong suit.


From your link:

The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows.

The study by Fidelity Investments found that 86 percent of today's millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up. Overall, the research revealed current millionaires are, on average, 61 years old with $3.05 million in assets.

While nearly three-quarters of millionaires feel rich, those who do not said they would need an average of $5 million of investable assets to begin feeling wealthy.

"Today’s millionaires are multi-dimensional, and to really understand them, you need to look not only at their outlook, but also at their path to wealth and their financial goals for the future," said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a Fidelity Investments company.

Of those who are self-made millionaires, the study revealed their top sources of assets included investments/capital appreciation, compensation and employee stock options/profit-sharing. Those who were born wealthy were more likely to cite inheritance, entrepreneurship and real estate investment appreciation as an asset source.

When it comes to investment strategies, those who are self-made millionaires were more likely to add equity investments, while those who were born wealthy typically had more real estate investments.

The research shows that when considering their financial future, 30 percent of today's millionaires were concerned with preserving their wealth, while 20 percent were focused on growing their fortune.

[The Best Age to Become a Boss]

This year’s study found that millionaires' outlook of the future financial environment continues to improve, with their optimism reaching the highest level since the survey’s inception in 2006.

"One trend has held true throughout the life of this study – the millionaire investor’s outlook has been consistently pragmatic about current market conditions and pervasively optimistic about a future recovery,” said Michael R. Durbin, president of Fidelity Institutional Wealth Services.. "In many ways, what millionaires have been thinking and doing can be a strong indicator for financial trends."

Once such trend is millionaires' current interest in the stock market. The millionaires surveyed ranked individual domestic stocks as their top investment added in the last year, followed by certificates of deposit/money market accounts/cash equivalents, equity exchange traded funds, individual domestic bonds and domestic equity mutual funds.

The study was based on surveys of more than 1,000 millionaire investors.
Like I said, the wealthy are involved in real estate, stock, and commodity speculation and other types of rent seeking. What do they PRODUCE? The rich are idle while REAL WEALTH is created by workers in factories, construction sites, laboratories, schools, and other sectors of the economy that a given little attention.



From a fiscal standpoint, they are identical. Sorry to burst your bubble.




Right. SO pointing out rent seeking/extraction is clearly totalitarian. Newsflash: the wealthy don't produce the majority of goods and services. They're rent extractors which add costs to your life on a daily basis.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

b. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.

c. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia.
Right, I'm clearly a Marxist. I doubt you even read Das Kapital given your incoherent diatribe.

2. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
From David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
Riiiiight...Because the teacher, plumber, engineer aren't skilled workers. It's the hedge fund manager and other rent extractors that produce nothing who have actual skills. Thanks for the clearing that up!!!! Next you'll be telling me how the rich are "job creators".
All of those 'factory workers' are free to leave the jobs and become entrepreneurs. And you know what. Some will.
 

Freemason9

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
280
Points
130
"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
huh!? I've never had a rich boi pay my sales taxes, real estate taxes, federal or state, FICA or SS.
Me thinks somebody is lying.
Nope, you're wrong--'cuz talk radio hosts, Business News Daily, and the New York Post says so. It's quite obvious that the upper echalons of profit retention pay your sales taxes, real estate taxes, federal or state, FICA and SS.

Why, poor folk are tax exempt. Didn't you know that? 'Cuz PC provided numbered lists.

LOL
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,147
Reaction score
32,993
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I have 10 seconds....that should be enough for you to tell me all you know.


"The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows."
How Most Millionaires Got Rich


There are 400,000 millionaires in NYC alone.
?Two cities?: Debunking De Blasio | New York Post


The Forbes article was about 400 billionaires.....273 of whom didn't inherit wealth.
Reading isn't your strong suit.


From your link:

The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows.

The study by Fidelity Investments found that 86 percent of today's millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up. Overall, the research revealed current millionaires are, on average, 61 years old with $3.05 million in assets.

While nearly three-quarters of millionaires feel rich, those who do not said they would need an average of $5 million of investable assets to begin feeling wealthy.

"Today’s millionaires are multi-dimensional, and to really understand them, you need to look not only at their outlook, but also at their path to wealth and their financial goals for the future," said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a Fidelity Investments company.

Of those who are self-made millionaires, the study revealed their top sources of assets included investments/capital appreciation, compensation and employee stock options/profit-sharing. Those who were born wealthy were more likely to cite inheritance, entrepreneurship and real estate investment appreciation as an asset source.

When it comes to investment strategies, those who are self-made millionaires were more likely to add equity investments, while those who were born wealthy typically had more real estate investments.

The research shows that when considering their financial future, 30 percent of today's millionaires were concerned with preserving their wealth, while 20 percent were focused on growing their fortune.

[The Best Age to Become a Boss]

This year’s study found that millionaires' outlook of the future financial environment continues to improve, with their optimism reaching the highest level since the survey’s inception in 2006.

"One trend has held true throughout the life of this study – the millionaire investor’s outlook has been consistently pragmatic about current market conditions and pervasively optimistic about a future recovery,” said Michael R. Durbin, president of Fidelity Institutional Wealth Services.. "In many ways, what millionaires have been thinking and doing can be a strong indicator for financial trends."

Once such trend is millionaires' current interest in the stock market. The millionaires surveyed ranked individual domestic stocks as their top investment added in the last year, followed by certificates of deposit/money market accounts/cash equivalents, equity exchange traded funds, individual domestic bonds and domestic equity mutual funds.

The study was based on surveys of more than 1,000 millionaire investors.
Like I said, the wealthy are involved in real estate, stock, and commodity speculation and other types of rent seeking. What do they PRODUCE? The rich are idle while REAL WEALTH is created by workers in factories, construction sites, laboratories, schools, and other sectors of the economy that a given little attention.



From a fiscal standpoint, they are identical. Sorry to burst your bubble.




Right. SO pointing out rent seeking/extraction is clearly totalitarian. Newsflash: the wealthy don't produce the majority of goods and services. They're rent extractors which add costs to your life on a daily basis.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

b. There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay! The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.

c. Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia.
Right, I'm clearly a Marxist. I doubt you even read Das Kapital given your incoherent diatribe.

2. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
From David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32
Riiiiight...Because the teacher, plumber, engineer aren't skilled workers. It's the hedge fund manager and other rent extractors that produce nothing who have actual skills. Thanks for the clearing that up!!!! Next you'll be telling me how the rich are "job creators".



Wait....I have a reference to you right here:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs.

The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71


When your IQ reaches 60 you should sell.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,256
Reaction score
7,404
Points
280
Location
On a hill
You could redistribute every cent of money in this country evenly between every person and the same thing would still happen. The same people would end up with most of the money. It's not hard to see why if one thinks about it.

Whatever you earn, think about where it goes, and who gets it after you.
Oh I don't want to redistribute one red cent.
What I do want is a fair free market system. We do not have that.
Corporatism has waaaay tipped the balance in their favor, with the help of our government.
There are whole markets, and more and more every year - where an individual entrepreneur could not possibly even fathom of getting into. No way could he/she compete with companies 10,000 times bigger than they are. And the regulations and codes...Jesus...there are an increasing number of avenues you cannot undertake without herculean efforts just to get beyond the red tape and impossibly hard paperwork and requirements - that - some were even WRITTEN BY CORPORATIONS in that business and sponsored the bill to make the regulations in the first place!!! This is a free market system???
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
What I do want is a fair free market system. We do not have that.
I dont know about any talks of fair, but i sure would like to have a free market system.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top