billvon 3,119 #151 September 22, 2010 >Ok, now who is it that ends up paying for it? He does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #152 September 22, 2010 Quote>Ok, now who is it that ends up paying for it? He does. With the money he doesn't have? Wrong.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #153 September 22, 2010 >With the money he doesn't have? Wrong. What the heck are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #154 September 22, 2010 Quote>With the money he doesn't have? Wrong. What the heck are you talking about? Welfare.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #155 September 22, 2010 >Welfare. So you honestly think that some guy on welfare is going to pay lots into the local economy, but someone who has saved wisely for retirement isn't? Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #156 September 22, 2010 QuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing." -Dinesh D'Souza If these numbers are close to true why would you ask that group to pay even more? 10% are paying 70% of the taxes - is it nothing more than a liberal idea that they should pay more no matter how hard they work? Seems to me we have a spending problem not a taxing more problem. Also the number seems to be a 700 billion dollar cost to not tax the "rich" and 2 trillon dollar to not tax the middle class. Does the liberal class (I'm being serious here) really believe that everyone who makes $250k a year got it unfairly? If the above numbers are correct what is the real justification to asking 10% to pay even more than 70%? Is it a simple they have more to give because they have more so they should? They already are giving more. Closing. The middle class does need a break, it is the engine of our country. If the gov. would spend the money wisely (which they won't) and I knew that additional taxes would go directly to a tax break for the middle class....perhaps this could make some sense....but it won't and it doesn't. The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #157 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe bottom 40% combined has .2% of the wealth in the nation. How much do you propose they contribute? The 70% taxes paid by the top 10% corresponds roughly to the wealth they control QuoteBut wealth is not the same thing as cash flow (iow, income). And we're primarily talking about income tax. True, but it's incredibly naive to think income means a wage-based paycheck. Corporate income is also income. Wealth, not income, earns tons of cash with interest, dividends, etc. That makes wealth more essential than income. QuoteA big problem with having half the population not pay incomes taxes means that they have little sense of value of spending. That's moot / irrelevant. The people who don't pay taxes also don't have shit to spend, so you're not even yet arguing in circles, but I'm sure you will. QuoteWhy wouldn't they support deficit spending to go to war or to give college kids 'free' dorms? It's not costing them anyway. Or because they realize at times like this, with a little understanding of history, either deficit spend or crank taxes up; the former works more quickly. QuoteWe saw what happens with home owners (well, mortage owners) that put no money into the investment. They're quite willing to walk away. I bet many of the people who walked put down 10k, 20k or more. You're speculating and the obvious fact you're ignoring is that the false appreciation followed by the real adjustment is what made them walk, not some blind guess on your part that they all or most put zero down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #158 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States. During the so-called roaring 20's where taxes were even lower than under the fascist pig, the top .1% owned what the bottom 40% did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #159 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States. we don't tax wealth directly , yet ! Sure we do, wealth, even with simple interest, which it never is, draws a few % interest, so that gain is taxed. You can try to make them mutually exclusive all you want and I'm sure you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #160 September 22, 2010 Quote>Welfare. Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skipbelt 0 #161 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuote>Welfare.Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is?I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day.by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #162 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>Welfare. Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! poverty is inherited, and THEN earned.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #163 September 22, 2010 "uber-rich" where the hell did you come up with that? So let's take out the "uber-rich" let's just use the "super duper rich" let's say that number is the great one's number of $250,000. You really think that the people that make $250K (jointly) are the "uber-rich" or are they the "SDR" You dorks are going to get enough for the "uber-rich" but you damn sure will screw the "SDR"Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #164 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing." -Dinesh D'Souza If these numbers are close to true why would you ask that group to pay even more? 10% are paying 70% of the taxes - is it nothing more than a liberal idea that they should pay more no matter how hard they work? Seems to me we have a spending problem not a taxing more problem. Also the number seems to be a 700 billion dollar cost to not tax the "rich" and 2 trillon dollar to not tax the middle class. Does the liberal class (I'm being serious here) really believe that everyone who makes $250k a year got it unfairly? If the above numbers are correct what is the real justification to asking 10% to pay even more than 70%? Is it a simple they have more to give because they have more so they should? They already are giving more. Closing. The middle class does need a break, it is the engine of our country. If the gov. would spend the money wisely (which they won't) and I knew that additional taxes would go directly to a tax break for the middle class....perhaps this could make some sense....but it won't and it doesn't. The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed. Your big green monster raises its ugly head yet again You coulc be one of the uber-rich if you want to work hard enough Problem is, you dont, so you want the gov to take from them and give to you Hmmmmm That is a definition of something let me think....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #165 September 22, 2010 Quote Wendy makes several million a year already and smiles as she hands it over Dayum! When did that happen, and why didn't they tell me I made that much Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #166 September 22, 2010 Quote"uber-rich" where the hell did you come up with that? So let's take out the "uber-rich" let's just use the "super duper rich" let's say that number is the great one's number of $250,000. You really think that the people that make $250K (jointly) are the "uber-rich" or are they the "SDR" You dorks are going to get enough for the "uber-rich" but you damn sure will screw the "SDR" Love how yoyu leave off my assertion; shows your inherent dishonesty. The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed. Didn't want to remind others of this fact as you called me a dork? Then frop a PA for lack of anything intelligent to write, and of course drift off into a rage of semantics of terms. 250k earners are not the uber-rich, SDR or whatever you want to call them. The top 20% are the uber-sick-filthy rich, but in order to try to fabricate what appears as a cogent argument you need to try to bring in the average 250k earner. So again, explain how the top 20% are so victimized, so targeted for extortion when they have virtually all cash. Or.....just keep up your inane, lame dissection of, "uber-rich" which I fully expect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #167 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>Welfare. Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! Oh yea, by and large; then show data of how wealth is acquired: - Earned - Stolen - Gained by othr illegal means - Inherited - Gifted - Won in lotteries There are many ways wealth can be acquired, but in order to make your weak argumenbt valid, you must ask us to just accept that it is earned. As for poverty, we are products of our childhood and few deviate from that, it's a form of social conditioning. When I refer to the elitist, conservative model being sociopathic, I think you see why. The same party trying to chop every program designed to help people out of poverty stand there and say, "Gee, I dunno, they just want to be in poverty." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #168 September 22, 2010 QuoteThe top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, I thought we blew up that strawman in the other thread? While your numbers are correct, your labels are not. From your own source: "Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale. Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing." The top 20% hold ~ 85% of the net worth, and ~ 93% of financial wealth. Let's look at how those stocks, bonds, etc break down - also from your source: Investment Assets Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent Business equity 62.4% 30.9% 6.7% Financial securities 60.6% 37.9% 1.5% Trusts 38.9% 40.5% 20.6% Stocks and mutual funds 38.3% 42.9% 18.8% Non-home real estate 28.3% 48.6% 23.1% TOTAL investment assets 49.7% 38.1% 12.2% Housing, Liquid Assets, Pension Assets, and Debt Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent Deposits 20.2% 37.5% 42.3% Pension accounts 14.4% 44.8% 40.8% Life insurance 22.0% 32.9% 45.1% Principal residence 9.4% 29.2% 61.5% TOTAL other assets 12.0% 33.8% 54.2% Debt 5.4% 21.3% 73.4% The numbers don't seem to match your claims, Lucky... Quoteseems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed We've already shown you (several times) where tax cuts shift more of the tax burden onto the higher brackets from the lower brackets - if you still can't comprehend it, it's not our fault.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #169 September 22, 2010 Quote Quote Wendy makes several million a year already and smiles as she hands it over Dayum! When did that happen, and why didn't they tell me I made that much Wendy P. Because then you wouldn't smile when you turned it over!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #170 September 22, 2010 I'm not going to say I smile, but I do pay them without a whole lot of griping. After all, I drive on the roads, have military protection, air traffic control -- a whole lot of stuff that requires a massive infrastructure. While I take care of my own medical and insurance needs (in large part through careful selection of parents and by being in reasonably good shape with a healthy diet), I'm glad that if I'm stuck somewhere with amnesia and no ID that I won't be simply left to rot in the street. Of course, if I get that, it means that others should, too. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #171 September 22, 2010 Quote QuoteWe saw what happens with home owners (well, mortage owners) that put no money into the investment. They're quite willing to walk away. I bet many of the people who walked put down 10k, 20k or more. You're speculating and the obvious fact you're ignoring is that the false appreciation followed by the real adjustment is what made them walk, not some blind guess on your part that they all or most put zero down. The data on loan failures is not hard to find, Lucky. It isn't speculation, nor is the fact that the low downpayment mortgage market disappeared for a while and is still a fraction of what it was in 2007. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skipbelt 0 #172 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Welfare.Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is?I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day.by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned !Oh yea, by and large; then show data of how wealth is acquired: - Earned- Stolen- Gained by othr illegal means- Inherited- Gifted- Won in lotteriesThere are many ways wealth can be acquired, but in order to make your weak argumenbt valid, you must ask us to just accept that it is earned.As for poverty, we are products of our childhood and few deviate from that, it's a form of social conditioning. When I refer to the elitist, conservative model being sociopathic, I think you see why. The same party trying to chop every program designed to help people out of poverty stand there and say, "Gee, I dunno, they just want to be in poverty."earned ray kroccolonel harlen sanderssam waltonbill gatesinherited , gifrted , stolen , sandals to sandals in 3 generationslottery , aka a tax on poor people , one of the worst ways to pursue wealth . 94% of lottery winners bankrupt in 6 years.at some point if you want wealth you have to go back to hard work and discipline .ever read the millionaire next door ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #173 September 22, 2010 ROTFLOL OH your killing me. I was talking about a class of people "YOU dorks" like your constant neo-cons. Hence the dork(S) Such as "You DORKS are mighty thin skin for a group that likes to insult others" You may or may not be in that group. If I had said "YOU dork..." well you could cry all the way to your mother. Read my entire post slowly...a lot of my question was about people who make $250,000. You seem to want to make the them the - LOL what a dumb term - "uber-rich" Really man did you come up with that? BTW the "inherent dishonesty" comment really hurts my feeelings boo-hoo somebody save me from the mean man hiding behind the key board. hahahahahahahahKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #174 September 22, 2010 I'll admit that $250,000 is nowhere close to uber-rich. Pretty doggone comfortable for most people at that level (barring things like health problems or previous overspending), but not uber-rich. Seven figures' income a year is closer; I'd say that uber absolutely applies to someone with an 8-figure income. If I made $15,000 a year and lived on it, I might well count $250,000 as uber-rich; it'd be a fairly unimaginable level. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skipbelt 0 #175 September 22, 2010 income is very closely related to ambition ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #158 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States. During the so-called roaring 20's where taxes were even lower than under the fascist pig, the top .1% owned what the bottom 40% did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #159 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States. we don't tax wealth directly , yet ! Sure we do, wealth, even with simple interest, which it never is, draws a few % interest, so that gain is taxed. You can try to make them mutually exclusive all you want and I'm sure you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #160 September 22, 2010 Quote>Welfare. Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #161 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuote>Welfare.Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is?I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day.by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #162 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>Welfare. Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! poverty is inherited, and THEN earned.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #163 September 22, 2010 "uber-rich" where the hell did you come up with that? So let's take out the "uber-rich" let's just use the "super duper rich" let's say that number is the great one's number of $250,000. You really think that the people that make $250K (jointly) are the "uber-rich" or are they the "SDR" You dorks are going to get enough for the "uber-rich" but you damn sure will screw the "SDR"Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #164 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteCan one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious: "The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing." -Dinesh D'Souza If these numbers are close to true why would you ask that group to pay even more? 10% are paying 70% of the taxes - is it nothing more than a liberal idea that they should pay more no matter how hard they work? Seems to me we have a spending problem not a taxing more problem. Also the number seems to be a 700 billion dollar cost to not tax the "rich" and 2 trillon dollar to not tax the middle class. Does the liberal class (I'm being serious here) really believe that everyone who makes $250k a year got it unfairly? If the above numbers are correct what is the real justification to asking 10% to pay even more than 70%? Is it a simple they have more to give because they have more so they should? They already are giving more. Closing. The middle class does need a break, it is the engine of our country. If the gov. would spend the money wisely (which they won't) and I knew that additional taxes would go directly to a tax break for the middle class....perhaps this could make some sense....but it won't and it doesn't. The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed. Your big green monster raises its ugly head yet again You coulc be one of the uber-rich if you want to work hard enough Problem is, you dont, so you want the gov to take from them and give to you Hmmmmm That is a definition of something let me think....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #165 September 22, 2010 Quote Wendy makes several million a year already and smiles as she hands it over Dayum! When did that happen, and why didn't they tell me I made that much Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #166 September 22, 2010 Quote"uber-rich" where the hell did you come up with that? So let's take out the "uber-rich" let's just use the "super duper rich" let's say that number is the great one's number of $250,000. You really think that the people that make $250K (jointly) are the "uber-rich" or are they the "SDR" You dorks are going to get enough for the "uber-rich" but you damn sure will screw the "SDR" Love how yoyu leave off my assertion; shows your inherent dishonesty. The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed. Didn't want to remind others of this fact as you called me a dork? Then frop a PA for lack of anything intelligent to write, and of course drift off into a rage of semantics of terms. 250k earners are not the uber-rich, SDR or whatever you want to call them. The top 20% are the uber-sick-filthy rich, but in order to try to fabricate what appears as a cogent argument you need to try to bring in the average 250k earner. So again, explain how the top 20% are so victimized, so targeted for extortion when they have virtually all cash. Or.....just keep up your inane, lame dissection of, "uber-rich" which I fully expect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #167 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>Welfare. Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is? I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! Oh yea, by and large; then show data of how wealth is acquired: - Earned - Stolen - Gained by othr illegal means - Inherited - Gifted - Won in lotteries There are many ways wealth can be acquired, but in order to make your weak argumenbt valid, you must ask us to just accept that it is earned. As for poverty, we are products of our childhood and few deviate from that, it's a form of social conditioning. When I refer to the elitist, conservative model being sociopathic, I think you see why. The same party trying to chop every program designed to help people out of poverty stand there and say, "Gee, I dunno, they just want to be in poverty." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #168 September 22, 2010 QuoteThe top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, I thought we blew up that strawman in the other thread? While your numbers are correct, your labels are not. From your own source: "Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale. Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing." The top 20% hold ~ 85% of the net worth, and ~ 93% of financial wealth. Let's look at how those stocks, bonds, etc break down - also from your source: Investment Assets Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent Business equity 62.4% 30.9% 6.7% Financial securities 60.6% 37.9% 1.5% Trusts 38.9% 40.5% 20.6% Stocks and mutual funds 38.3% 42.9% 18.8% Non-home real estate 28.3% 48.6% 23.1% TOTAL investment assets 49.7% 38.1% 12.2% Housing, Liquid Assets, Pension Assets, and Debt Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent Deposits 20.2% 37.5% 42.3% Pension accounts 14.4% 44.8% 40.8% Life insurance 22.0% 32.9% 45.1% Principal residence 9.4% 29.2% 61.5% TOTAL other assets 12.0% 33.8% 54.2% Debt 5.4% 21.3% 73.4% The numbers don't seem to match your claims, Lucky... Quoteseems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed We've already shown you (several times) where tax cuts shift more of the tax burden onto the higher brackets from the lower brackets - if you still can't comprehend it, it's not our fault.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #169 September 22, 2010 Quote Quote Wendy makes several million a year already and smiles as she hands it over Dayum! When did that happen, and why didn't they tell me I made that much Wendy P. Because then you wouldn't smile when you turned it over!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #170 September 22, 2010 I'm not going to say I smile, but I do pay them without a whole lot of griping. After all, I drive on the roads, have military protection, air traffic control -- a whole lot of stuff that requires a massive infrastructure. While I take care of my own medical and insurance needs (in large part through careful selection of parents and by being in reasonably good shape with a healthy diet), I'm glad that if I'm stuck somewhere with amnesia and no ID that I won't be simply left to rot in the street. Of course, if I get that, it means that others should, too. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #171 September 22, 2010 Quote QuoteWe saw what happens with home owners (well, mortage owners) that put no money into the investment. They're quite willing to walk away. I bet many of the people who walked put down 10k, 20k or more. You're speculating and the obvious fact you're ignoring is that the false appreciation followed by the real adjustment is what made them walk, not some blind guess on your part that they all or most put zero down. The data on loan failures is not hard to find, Lucky. It isn't speculation, nor is the fact that the low downpayment mortgage market disappeared for a while and is still a fraction of what it was in 2007. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #172 September 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Welfare.Do you even bother to read the threads you reply to? Or do you just repeat whatever the GOP meme of the day is?I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day.by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned !Oh yea, by and large; then show data of how wealth is acquired: - Earned- Stolen- Gained by othr illegal means- Inherited- Gifted- Won in lotteriesThere are many ways wealth can be acquired, but in order to make your weak argumenbt valid, you must ask us to just accept that it is earned.As for poverty, we are products of our childhood and few deviate from that, it's a form of social conditioning. When I refer to the elitist, conservative model being sociopathic, I think you see why. The same party trying to chop every program designed to help people out of poverty stand there and say, "Gee, I dunno, they just want to be in poverty."earned ray kroccolonel harlen sanderssam waltonbill gatesinherited , gifrted , stolen , sandals to sandals in 3 generationslottery , aka a tax on poor people , one of the worst ways to pursue wealth . 94% of lottery winners bankrupt in 6 years.at some point if you want wealth you have to go back to hard work and discipline .ever read the millionaire next door ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #173 September 22, 2010 ROTFLOL OH your killing me. I was talking about a class of people "YOU dorks" like your constant neo-cons. Hence the dork(S) Such as "You DORKS are mighty thin skin for a group that likes to insult others" You may or may not be in that group. If I had said "YOU dork..." well you could cry all the way to your mother. Read my entire post slowly...a lot of my question was about people who make $250,000. You seem to want to make the them the - LOL what a dumb term - "uber-rich" Really man did you come up with that? BTW the "inherent dishonesty" comment really hurts my feeelings boo-hoo somebody save me from the mean man hiding behind the key board. hahahahahahahahKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #174 September 22, 2010 I'll admit that $250,000 is nowhere close to uber-rich. Pretty doggone comfortable for most people at that level (barring things like health problems or previous overspending), but not uber-rich. Seven figures' income a year is closer; I'd say that uber absolutely applies to someone with an 8-figure income. If I made $15,000 a year and lived on it, I might well count $250,000 as uber-rich; it'd be a fairly unimaginable level. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #175 September 22, 2010 income is very closely related to ambition ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
