AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

Parados,

What is the definition of "financial wealth" in the pie chart you pasted here? Does it include real property? bank deposits? cash? stocks? bonds or loans? put and short options contracts? derivatives? What is in and what is out?

What is the definition of the "Top 1%, etc." ? Is it by income, or financial wealth?

I ask because you didn't identify the source and this has the look of a rather contrived statistic.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

This will get you started george.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

and here
http://www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp_589.pdf&pubid=1235

1 Reply

@parados,

Forbes publishes the richest people in the US; the last one with the top ten are:

Quote:

Browse The List

Rank Name Net Worth Age Residence Source
1 Bill Gates
Bill Gates
$54 B 55 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett
$45 B 80 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Larry Ellison
Larry Ellison
$27 B 66 Woodside, CA Oracle
4 Christy Walton
Christy Walton
$24 B 55 Jackson, WY Walmart
5 Charles Koch
Charles Koch
$21.5 B 75 Wichita, KS manufacturing, energy
5 David Koch
David Koch
$21.5 B 70 New York , NY manufacturing, energy
7 Jim Walton
Jim Walton
$20.1 B 62 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
8 Alice Walton
Alice Walton
$20 B 61 Fort Worth, TX Walmart
9 S. Robson Walton
S. Robson Walton
$19.7 B 66 Bentonville, AR Walmart
10 Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg

Whether they gained their wealth through work or investments doesn't matter much; what does matter is their net worth. Many of the wealthy on this list worked and gained from the success of their own companies. How much money they have in the bank is moot; they have enough investments and probably money in the bank or liquidity to get cash on the fly in amounts none of us are privy to.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And what okie doesn't seem to understand is you could tax everyone of those people at 100% of their income above $1million and they would still end up being richer in 10 years than they are now. It's what investments do. They grow in value. No one expects an income tax to create equality of wealth. That is okie's idiocy, not those who proposed progressive taxes.

1 Reply

@okie,

The education system is failing because right wingers do not believe in education. They dislike having their children read.

4 Replies

@plainoldme,

That's all part and parcel of transferring wealth to the poor and middle class; according to okie. Since many pay no taxes, the poor and middle class takes away wealth from the rich folks.

He just doesn't understand how this country became the most powerful after WWII: with government subsidies to educate our returning soldiers - many who were poor.

That transfer of "wealth" benefited people like okie, but his ability at remembering history is non-existent.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

They dislike having their children read.

They believe their children will get education, the poor will not. They want no abortion and no education so that the poor will grow and slavery will become a fact with lots and lots ofa poor people. Slavery doesn't only exist only in 'no income environments', it also exists when income is inadequate and the supply is large. Keep 'em producing lots of kids, pay 'em little and keep 'em dumb!

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

The education system is failing because right wingers do not believe in education. They dislike having their children read.

That has to be one of the more bizarre posts you have placed, pom, although the competition among your posts for the "most bizarre" is very stiff indeed.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

And what okie doesn't seem to understand is you could tax everyone of those people at 100% of their income above $1million and they would still end up being richer in 10 years than they are now. It's what investments do. They grow in value. No one expects an income tax to create equality of wealth. That is okie's idiocy, not those who proposed progressive taxes.

I proposed taxing everyone's income over 100K at 100% right here on this forum, and nobody would take up the offer, much less you guys. After all, why not be serious about the budget shortfall? My point of doing it was that if this is all about ability to pay and need, who needs more than 100K to live? I certainly made much less than that in 2010, but had enough left over to live comfortably, and I will end up paying probably 20% of it to the government, so that liberals can fritter it away and hire more bureaucrats.

2 Replies

@okie,

That's because it's not only foolish, but also unrealistic. Your understanding of reality doesn't exist in the real world.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Reality is you don't need more than 100K to live, ci. Simply exempt the first 100 K from taxes, then tax the bejeebers out of everything above that. I thought that is what you wanted? Why not do it seriously if you are going to do it? If we have a serious problem, we have it, and simply throwing a few pennies at the budget deficit is like wee weeing into the ocean. Lets get serious. Are you on board or not?

2 Replies

@okie,

That all depends on where one lives, and how much their mortgage, car, and living expenses are.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Move to Oklahoma if its too expensive in the Peoples Republic of California. And you don't have to live in a mansion or drive a Mercedes.

Are you serious about solving our budget problem or not?

2 Replies

@okie,

FYI, the peoples republic of California is the seventh or eighth richest "country" in the world.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Only on paper.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

That's left wing propaganda... bullshit!

Educate yourself or have someone read this to you and explain it.
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I proposed taxing everyone's income over 100K at 100% right here on this forum, and nobody would take up the offer, much less you guys. After all, why not be serious about the budget shortfall?

Your proposal was rhetorical okie so why should we respond? As a realistic proposal it's stupid and not thought out at all so why should we respond?

Quote:

I certainly made much less than that in 2010, but had enough left over to live comfortably

Another of okie's anecdotes that he think proves something.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Reality is you don't need more than 100K to live, ci. Simply exempt the first 100 K from taxes, then tax the bejeebers out of everything above that. I thought that is what you wanted?

As a small business owner you would propose that? You could run your business without any exemptions for expenses?

Are you saying your gross sales are less than 100K okie? I don't think you run the books on your company, do you okie?

2 Replies

@parados,

okie really doesn't understand the economics of running any business, and surely he has no ability to determine tax policy.

0 Replies

Obama really doesn't understand the economics of running any business, and surely he has no ability to determine tax policy.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know