- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: People still don't understand net worth/wealth vs income
Posted on 9/15/21 at 8:16 pm to delta saint
Posted on 9/15/21 at 8:16 pm to delta saint
quote:Inequality in Scandinavia is a good bit higher than you are acknowledging. They have a plutocrate class that controls like 70% of the wealth.
Not even close to what we have here, and you know it.
quote:I can agree that inequality is stark in this country. I cannot agree with your blithe assertion that the "poor are getting poorer". This is simply an absurd claim.
Your idea of capitalism raising standards for all classes does not apply to the American form of capitalism. Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer. It really is that simple.
0
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:05 pm to delta saint
quote:No.
poor are getting poorer. It really is that simple.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:36 pm to delta saint
quote:It's crazy how many fall into the fallacy of the "income gap". Wealth isn't defined by comparison to others. Only a mathematic idiot would do such a thing.
Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer. It really is that simple.
Consider two people in year one.
Person A makes $ 80,000.
Person B makes $160,000.
The income gap is Person A makes 50% of Person B.
The next year...
Person A makes $ 120,000.
Person B makes $ 360,000.
Now the income gap has risen. Person A now only makes 33% of Person B. He must be getting poorer, amiright?
Is he poorer? Nope.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:41 pm to delta saint
quote:
Not actually true. The poor have consistently gotten poorer and the richer have gotten richer.
Get real. My folks were poor growing up. They worked in the fields BEFORE going to school. Breakfast was coffee and bread. My dad was 19 when they first got a tv.
They ate what they grew and caught.
Contrast that with the poor today who have tvs, cell phones, cars that they have no trouble buying rims and steroes for and overpriced shoes.
The standard of living in this country has gotten higher. That's a fact and with it even what we call "poor" today would not be considered poor just a few decades ago.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:43 pm to Kino74
Ever notice it's "tax the rich" not "help the poor"?
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:43 pm to delta saint
quote:
You should go to Scandinavia. Their living standards destroy ours
I have been there, and once again, you are retarded
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:45 pm to delta saint
quote:
poor are getting poorer
Every person I see on welfare has the newest iPhone.
Standard of living has increased dramatically for poor people over the last 50 years.
Do you understand that for most of the last 2,000 years people were born into and died in the same conditions.
Now over just the last 50 years “poor” people can go by a 60” flat screen and all have the latest smart phone.
Because of capitalism…. So NO, the poor aren’t poorer.
This post was edited on 9/15/21 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 9/15/21 at 9:51 pm to deathvalleytiger10
Pretty sure she is talking about taxing unrealized gains. Which is 10x more retarded and hurts the entire world.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 10:41 pm to Mootsman
I think you give her too much credit. I doubt she even knows what unrealized gains are. She’s just looking at the bigger number.
But, your point is valid regarding the impact on taxing unrealized gains. The people promoting this are absolutely nuts.
But, your point is valid regarding the impact on taxing unrealized gains. The people promoting this are absolutely nuts.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 10:59 pm to stout
Liberals understand virtually nothing about finance or economics.
It's truly fascinating.
It's truly fascinating.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 11:07 pm to stout
This b*tch is retarded. Imagine caring what other people earn or being jealous of those who’ve figured it out on a large scale.
Posted on 9/15/21 at 11:59 pm to Mootsman
quote:
Pretty sure she is talking about taxing unrealized gains. Which is 10x more retarded and hurts the entire world.
That sounds like Covid is going to kill us all.
Anyway, I’m a dyed in the wool capitalist and think government is best when starved. However, in case you haven’t noticed, the middle/upper-middle class in this country is under assault by the Left (not just economically) and who’s driving this bullshite? It’s not the blacks or trannies or illegals streaming over the border, they’re getting played too.
Add to this the sad reality that we no longer have an economy based on competitive capitalism.
It makes you wonder . . .
Posted on 9/16/21 at 1:33 am to delta saint
quote:Wow.
The poor have consistently gotten poorer
First off let's take a look at US poverty measures. Household income (HHI) of $25K with a couple of kids is labeled as poverty in the US. In Italy, MEDIAN HHI is $26K. US poverty equates to Italian middle class.
Second, although income for the lowest quintile of earners has risen slowly vs inflation, it has RISEN nonetheless. Statements such as "the poor have gotten poorer" are simply ill-informed
Third, your apparent leftist indoctrination notwithstanding, our poverty rate is declining, not increasing. Here is a nice breakdown by folks at Columbia University.
quote:
Long-Term Poverty Trends
Since non-cash and tax-based benefits constitute a much larger part of government assistance than 50 years ago, the official poverty measure’s exclusion of these benefits masks progress in reducing poverty. Trying to compare poverty in the 1960s to poverty today using the official measure yields misleading results; it implies that programs like SNAP, the EITC, and rental vouchers — all of which were either small in the 1960s or didn’t yet exist — have no effect in reducing poverty, which clearly is not the case.
While the federal government has only calculated Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) back to 2009, Columbia University researchers have estimated the SPM back to 1967.[45] Using Census Bureau SPM data starting in 2009 and Columbia SPM data for earlier years, we find that government economic security programs are responsible for a decline in the poverty rate from 26.0 percent in 1967 to 14.4 percent in 2017, based on an “anchored” version of the SPM that uses a poverty line tied to what American families spent on basic necessities in 2018 adjusted back for inflation.[46] (See Figure 7.) Without government assistance, poverty would have been about the same in 2017 as in 1967 under this measure, which indicates the strong and growing role of anti-poverty policies.
FIGURE 7
LINK
File that under things you'll not see on MSNBC.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 1:56 am
Posted on 9/16/21 at 1:51 am to delta saint
One of the more popular Marxist critiques has to do not with income, but with income "inequity".
The premise being that if individuals start a US car company (Tesla) or Internet Retailer (Amazon) from scratch, and become the world's two richest men in the process, that McDonald's should then pay its workers more to close the newly arisen income gap.
It makes little pragmatic sense.
But the US Left does a hell of a job promoting it. Your "poor getting more poor" misperception being a perfect example.
As a messaging aid, they'll publish "quintile" charts showing US "income disparity". For example:
It really is not a quintile chart.
Something unique ONLY TO US charts is the inevitable addition of Top 5% or Top 1% or Top 0.1% growth lines.
Keep in mind, the Top 5% or Top 1% or Top 0.1% growth lines are already a component of the "Top Quintile".
So why break them out?
Because as the sample size diminishes, samples are increasingly distorted by massive FIRST GENERATION WEALTH of new US entrepreneurs (Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Ellison, Bloomberg, etc). The concept of rising from limited means to become one of the world's wealthiest people in a matter of a decade or two defines American Exceptionalism. Yet that exceptionalism is what these US income inequity charts are specifically designed to highlight and criticize.
------------------
Put another way, here is identical data from the chart above, but now only showing quintiles (i.e., without the added "Top 5%" line)
Now compare it with a similar chart from the UK.
The premise being that if individuals start a US car company (Tesla) or Internet Retailer (Amazon) from scratch, and become the world's two richest men in the process, that McDonald's should then pay its workers more to close the newly arisen income gap.
It makes little pragmatic sense.
But the US Left does a hell of a job promoting it. Your "poor getting more poor" misperception being a perfect example.
As a messaging aid, they'll publish "quintile" charts showing US "income disparity". For example:
quote:In accordance with the adage "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," the chart above is misleading.
It really is not a quintile chart.
Something unique ONLY TO US charts is the inevitable addition of Top 5% or Top 1% or Top 0.1% growth lines.
Keep in mind, the Top 5% or Top 1% or Top 0.1% growth lines are already a component of the "Top Quintile".
So why break them out?
Because as the sample size diminishes, samples are increasingly distorted by massive FIRST GENERATION WEALTH of new US entrepreneurs (Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Ellison, Bloomberg, etc). The concept of rising from limited means to become one of the world's wealthiest people in a matter of a decade or two defines American Exceptionalism. Yet that exceptionalism is what these US income inequity charts are specifically designed to highlight and criticize.
------------------
Put another way, here is identical data from the chart above, but now only showing quintiles (i.e., without the added "Top 5%" line)
quote:
Now compare it with a similar chart from the UK.
quote:
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 2:04 am
Posted on 9/16/21 at 2:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
One of the more popular Marxist critiques has to do not with income, but with income "inequity".
Yeah, one of the things America definitely leads the world in is the development of bullshite statistics to fit political narratives. Another thing we’re world class in is graduating retards incapable of seeing through bullshite.
That said, I think the arguments for/against raising income taxes or passing a wealth tax should contemplate the sorry state of “capitalism” as practiced in this country, and even more - the politics of taxation have changed dramatically since Reagan-era debates.
Put another way, I couldn’t give a frick how much money Zuckerberg, Brin, Page, Gates, Bezos, Bloomberg, etc have where “who has how much” is concerned, but I’m not really excited about the new America these assholes are ushering in.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 2:30 am
Posted on 9/16/21 at 5:32 am to AlterEgo89
quote:Right.
Jeff Bezos can borrow a significant level of his wealth through asset-backed financing, which would be an income. It's a very clever way of getting money without needing to pay capital gains tax. If anyone has over $2-3M in stocks, I highly recommend you go to a private bank of a bulge bracket like JP Morgan and get asset-backed loans/financing. It's really convenient to make money without needing to sell stocks and interest rates are so low.
An ABL is most useful where interest is deductible. E.g., If you're capped out on the Mortgage Interest Deduction in an expensive home, an ABL is useful for financing the rest. Rates are low. Interest is deductible against portfolio gains. Meanwhile collateral assets remain invested.
For other purchases car, boat, plane, etc. ABL's function similarly to standard nondeductible loans, albeit with lower rate and an indefinite payoff schedule.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 5:41 am to stout
Jeff Bezos: 200 Billion
Mark Zuckerburg: 135 Billion
Bill Gates: 130 Million
Federal Government 2020 Expenditures: 6.5 Trillion Dollars.
US Govt Federal Debt: 27 trillion dollars. In other words all three of those guys would have to make 54 times their entire combined life’s net worth to put a dent in the federal debt.
You could seize and liquidate take all of the assets from all three of them combined and you’d still need about 15 times that amount to equal one year of government spending.
Three Words: Cut Federal Spending
Mark Zuckerburg: 135 Billion
Bill Gates: 130 Million
Federal Government 2020 Expenditures: 6.5 Trillion Dollars.
US Govt Federal Debt: 27 trillion dollars. In other words all three of those guys would have to make 54 times their entire combined life’s net worth to put a dent in the federal debt.
You could seize and liquidate take all of the assets from all three of them combined and you’d still need about 15 times that amount to equal one year of government spending.
Three Words: Cut Federal Spending
Posted on 9/16/21 at 5:45 am to Nguyener
Here’s a fun exercise:
Let’s say 150,000,000 people work in this country.
Well those people x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks a year = 312 Billion.
Bezos + Zuck + Gates entire net worths = 460 Billion.
So you could seize and liquidate their entire assets and give half the country one extra dollar per hour for one year. Or a check for $2000.
And then you’re out of money and every wage goes back except of course for every employee of Amazon, Microsoft, and Social Media and all of the repercussions that follows all of those suddenly going out of business.
Tax the Rich is an obnoxiously stupid and short sited political slogan that is basically meaningless. But it’s an easily manipulative tactic because the numbers are so big people ignore the actual math and reality.
We desperately need to slash welfare and the federal budget across the board. People are far to incentivized not to work and not to succeed.
Let’s say 150,000,000 people work in this country.
Well those people x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks a year = 312 Billion.
Bezos + Zuck + Gates entire net worths = 460 Billion.
So you could seize and liquidate their entire assets and give half the country one extra dollar per hour for one year. Or a check for $2000.
And then you’re out of money and every wage goes back except of course for every employee of Amazon, Microsoft, and Social Media and all of the repercussions that follows all of those suddenly going out of business.
Tax the Rich is an obnoxiously stupid and short sited political slogan that is basically meaningless. But it’s an easily manipulative tactic because the numbers are so big people ignore the actual math and reality.
We desperately need to slash welfare and the federal budget across the board. People are far to incentivized not to work and not to succeed.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 5:47 am
Posted on 9/16/21 at 5:55 am to delta saint
quote:
The poor have consistently gotten poorer and the richer have gotten richer.
The "poor" in this country live like royalty compared to most of the world, thanks to US taxpayers.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 5:59 am to stout
Wait, I thought we all hated Zuckerburg and Bezos? I'd be just fine if Facebook disappeared and Zuck lost his fortune.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News