aw shucks, Utah county is not super...at least I'm college educated?
Even in D.C. there are jokes about the 'Beltway culture', but now we
can all understand why.
What a surprise. Doctors and lawyers don't want to live in trailer
parks."These elites live in isolation — and so know little
about how the other half (or maybe even the other 99 percent) live."That is certainly a talking point of the "Wealth Redistribution"
crowd. They want to show how different those greedy rich folks are from average
Americans. It makes it so much easier to convince average voters to jack up
taxes when it is targeted at those "other guys" and they are certainly
not "one of us".The truth is, most of those in the top
income groups know exactly what it is like to live as the other 99% because they
have lived it. Most rich people are self-made. Quite a few of them crawled all
the way up from the bottom 10%. They went to college (often the first in their
family to do so); started a business; and worked their way to the top. More
often than not, they also helped a lot of other people along the way rather than
stepping on others to get there (the other liberal talking point).
Joe Capitalist's claims about most rich people being self-made are
inaccurate.. A study by Acs and Zimmerman in 2008, which looked at income
quintiles found that only 3.5% of people in the bottom quintile were able to
work there way up to the upper quintile over a 10-year period (1994-2004). This
3.5% was worse than the previous 10-year period (4.6%), suggesting
intragenerational mobility is decreasing. Joe seems to be taking his or someone
else's anecdotal experience and suggesting they make the pattern, which is
not statistically supported by actual data on Americans.
Blitz: Way to debunk my claim using irrefutable facts!sarcasm
off.One study in 2008 showing that only 3.5% moved from the bottom
to the top within a limited 10 year period does not prove that the vast majority
of rich people inherited their wealth.Care to cite a study that
shows how many people currently in the top 10% started out in the bottom 60% or
70% vs those who inherited a huge amount from their parents?
Sorry JoeCapitalist2 but you are living in a dream world. We like to believe
that the United States is the most economically mobile country in the world but
the reality is very different. The Gini coefficient is the touchstone for
measuring wealth and income inequality in a given society. According to the CIA,
the Gini coefficient for the USA is worse than the great majority of other first
world countries in the world. Google it if don't believe it. It's
become significantly harder in the last 30 years for the bottom 20% or 40% to
move out of their quintiles into higher income brackets. Why is
that? There are many reasons but a big part of it is the redistributive tax
policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Yes, those Presidents
redistributed income: from laborers to people living off of investments. Growing income and wealth inequality is the biggest threat to the social
and economic stability of our country. Get the facts. Get educated. Then support
policy makers who are committed to returning economic and social opportunity to
regular working people.
Did any zip code in Utah ever meet the Super-ZIP criteria?[$120,000 and
68% college education]The Highest I found was:1. Park
City, Utah 84098$111,000 and 67% college2. Alpine, Utah
84004$102,000 and 50% college======== Blitz
ChomneyHolladay, UTJoe Capitalist's claims about most rich
people being self-made are inaccurate..Joe seems to be taking his or
someone else's anecdotal experience and suggesting they make the pattern,
which is not statistically supported by actual data on Americans.1:32 p.m. Nov. 18, 2013[Joe must be looking at Rush Limbaugh and
Glenn Beck as his only examples -- so it must be true!].
GandalfSince you are into googling try this one "What percentage
of millionaires are self-made". Nearly every study shows a vast majority of
them.You also said: "It's become significantly harder in
the last 30 years for the bottom 20% or 40% to move out of their quintiles into
higher income brackets."Is it really harder? or do just less of
them do it these days for other reasons? Maybe our great big social safety net
and the current war on the wealthy have significantly reduced the incentive for
people to make a better life for themselves and their children.How
many poor people these days show their kids a successful person and tell them
"that can be you one day"? Instead the message seems to be more of
"that person doesn't deserve what they have, we have to find a way to
take it away from them". Which message are you telling your kids?
Joe Capitalist,The bottom 60-70%? That's much too big a group to
bunch together. A person who starts in the low-end of that range has completely
different circumstances (and therefore odds) of breaking into the top quintile
than someone who starts in the 60-70th percentile. Also, it's not just
"one study". There is an entire body of literature documenting decreased
intragenerational mobility and the creation of a permanent underclass. If you
want more stats closer to the home, there is a 'Moving Up the Economic
Ladder' report by the Utah Foundation based on tax return data. After 14
years, 2% of the bottom quintile manage to break into the top 5%. And this is
income, let alone wealth. Also, there are a lot of problems with your
"culture of poverty" explanation. Just look up the critiques online if
you are truly interested.
The only ways to become a self made millionare in America today -- 1. Become a Professional Sports player2. Be elected into Office, or 3. Drug Smuggling. The American Dream has been stolen by
the greedy 1% who now own 80% of all the wealth.BTW -- Most did not
"work hard" or "earned" it.Look up and see what the
Son of God did to the Money Changers in his time --
Honestly! Do we really care? Why are we so obsessed with the super rich? More
and more we seem to slice and dice and dissect who is this and who isn't
that. Is it really that important? And the sad thing is, we seem to talk down
anybody that is different than us. I say, "Hurray for the
super rich!" I hope they spend a lot of their super earned money so they
can help stimulate our super slow economy and employ a lot of our super great
Americans. Thats what I'd get super excited about!
awwww...the class envyand even more disconcerting...the defense of
wealth redistribution (together with all of its unintended consequences)
re: Z"Even in D.C. there are jokes about the 'Beltway
culture', but now we can all understand why."What about the
line that claims DC is "Disneyland along the Potomac"???
re: airnaut"The only ways to become a self made millionare in
America today -"You forgot being a venture capitalist &
working on Wall St. Speaking of, I wonder how many of Mitty's
palatial estates are in the Super Zips???
I can't believe, that in this day and age, there are still people so
ill-informed as JoeCapitalist2, and yet they seem to increase the volume vocally
proportionally to how misguided they are. This is the reason we can do nothing
to fix the unprecedented wealth gap in this nation, that so many on the bottom
(who should be figuring it out) still seem to go along with redistribution
policies that only accumulate more wealth to the 1%. The ultra wealthy have
taken 95% of the wealth since they nearly collapsed the economy in 2007. The 1%
possess more wealth than the bottom 80%, and it goes on (D&C 49:20).As already pointed out, plenty of studies have been done showing just
how destructive to society this concentration of wealth really is, and yet you
have a significant number of dolts on the bottom who seem to go along with it
anyway. The scriptures describe them as the "poor whose eyes are full of
greediness," because otherwise there would be no rationale for their very
vocal defense of the super wealthy.
Me, I'm just hoping to have the powerball kick in.
Wealth distribution has been going on since the Reagan era, and the middle class
has been the loser.
So the solution is for the government to steal the wealth of the wealthy and
then what? We've been redistributing to the poor since Johnson's
administration and as Jesus said "The poor we will always have with us."
The poverty rate is still about the same 60 years later, so that didn't
work? The Marxists are all about class envy and taking from the rich, it really
worked in the Soviet Union where everyone was equally poor (except the party
leadership who were doing the stealing) and eventually the whole fake economy
collapsed because it couldn't compete in a real world. What great scheme
do you re-distributors propose to save our fragile society?
BU52:The Savior said that the poor where always there as an
indictment on their society -- a righteous society would have "no poor among
thme." A simple solution would be to go back to tax rates during
Eisenhower's administration, when the top tax bracket was taxed at 90% rate
and the economy flourished, infrastructure proliferated (Highway system was
built then), and wealth inequality was the lowest it has been from then to now.
The opposite conditions exist now, and we can all see how well that is going for
the vast majority of us!
My political alignment in some issues is farther left than the Democratic Party
and I've lived in several socialist countries. I admire some of their
practices, but have to take issue with some of the ideas here. First of all,
there are FAR bigger threats to the US than wealth inequality. Wealth inequality
is a SYMPTOM, not a ROOT CAUSE of what is wrong with this country. The decline
of stable 2 parent families, a drop in the education levels of our kids, a rise
in teen pregnancies, rise in drug use, a rise in violence as entertainment and
other factors CAUSE and COMPOUND wealth inequality. Yes, there are people who
don't have an opportunity who need help, but with the poorest of the poor,
the lack of good parenting and quality education keeps these people at the
bottom. With Clinton, Carter and Obama in charge 18 of the past 34 years, it
seems a bit silly to pin the problem on Reagan (30 years ago!!). It's time
to stop blaming the problem on others and do more to help those who need a break
to find one. Throwing money at it is a poor solution.
Oh yes that golden age of the 50's, at least it looked golden on
television. Back then the poor were desperately poor, not the poor cell phone,
TV, car owners of today. Being plump was a sign of wealth because the poor were
skinny due to malnutrition (not like today) I think our prosperity of the
50's had more to do with 20 cent oil and the surpluses of the war economy.
And as eastcoast says stable families and a work ethic that encouraged people to
pull themselves up by the bootstraps rather than the attitude of living off the
government that is so prevalent today.
this home looks to be in the 2-3 million range ...perhaps more. Your annual
income would have to exceed 1 million per year to afford such a home as this.
I fear that at some point, like in the Batman movies, we'll have a Bane
show up, stir up the 99% and they will take all of the super rich's wealth
and trash the mansions. The super rich can give a little bit of their own
wealth by their (relatively) free will, or it will be taken some day the ugly
way. And if we do it Bane's way, I think it will be ugly for 100% of us,
so maybe some slight redistribution through higher taxes or whatever on
corporations or the super rich might be the way to go. Like him or not, FDR
might have saved our country from a socialist revolution similar to what
happened in Russia with the New Deal, which did in fact shared the wealth
In other words, we are going backwards! We will have a society of the very rich
at the top who have the wealth and power to control what happens to the rest of
us. This is why it should scare people a little when they start talking about
all the lazy people in our country! Who do you think they are referring to?
People better get a reality check, because the middle class is part of what
others see as users! Look at Walmart, they came out with a charity drive to help
their own employees! Does that tell you something? It wouldn't occur to
them that they should raise their employee wages! Let us all go back to a time
when a person worked 18 hours a day just to barely get by while the royals and
elite at the top took everything! We are putting a worth on people! It
isn't bad to be rich, but when we allow the few to dictate what our work is
worth, it isn't going to be good! How much are we worth? I guess nothing! a
bunch of low class users! And the rich? They don't use anyone?
To those people who keep talking about redistributing the wealth, as if we want
to steal from the wealthy. What, may I ask, do you think the wealthy are
doing!!! You don't think that they position themselves in such a way as to
shift the wealth to themselves? You are a fool if you don't realize it! Go
ahead, let them do it! Don't expect a good wage because that is putting a
demand on the rich. Why don't you go work for nothing if you feel so
strongly about it! We shouldn't get insurance or medicaid or social
security because it is redistributing wealth!!! Gee, I guess we are a worthless
bunch of lower class people! Meanwhile, the wealthy go to work and they earn all
that wealth( By themselves! ) they don't require the aid of anybody? A
factory runs itself with only the rich man doing any work??? So, let them call
you lazy, because I know that I am not! If we, as the working class people,
don't stand up for ourselves, then guess what will happen. People are so
A higher proportion of the 1% (two in five) than the 99% (one in five) has
inherited money, according to the Federal Reserve survey. The top earners got
10% of the inherited wealth in the country. (NYTimes)91.1% of
Americans receive no inheritance. Income is what people earn from work,
but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to
them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may
or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their
wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually
have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most
of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the
income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million
came from wages and salaries.The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker
pay in 1960 was 42:1 In 2000, 531:1.From 1990-2005, CEOs' pay
increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation). Production workers, 4.3%. (Who Rules America)
The top 1% paid an average income tax rate of 24% in 2009, IRS data shows. That
is almost exactly the rate paid by those making $500,000 to $1 million. Those
who made $1 million to $10 million paid a higher rate, 26 percent. But those
making more than $10 million paid a significantly lower rate, 23.3%.The top 400 taxpayers paid a much lower rate. On an average income of $270
million each, their effective federal income tax rate was 18.1% in 2008, the
latest year for which we have IRS data. A single worker earning less than
$90,000 pays a higher rate than that.(David Cay Johnston "Beyond the
"There's class warfare, all right, But it's my class , the rich
class, that's making war, and we're winning"- Warren Buffettand just for fun"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
truth is putting on its shoes"- Mark Twain
It's interesting that the most democrat and liberal places have the super
rich in their midst. The same people that keep voting for change, yet keep
getting richer....Hmmm.... the problem is the poor, minority voters
that they rely on not only for their labor but also for their votes, won't
be given access to this information. Thus they keep voting for the very people
that will keep them in poverty and dependent on their paycheck being
redistributed to them as they see fit.