That, according to the "Economist" (April 4, 2009), in 1982, only 84 (21%) of the 400 richest people in America (according to "Forbes") had inherited their fortune, and that by 2006, that figure had shrunk all the way to less than 2% (7)? Youza, huh?
39 comments:
There ya go again Will. Spoiling the fun for the class warriors.
Les, the left has to figure out what they're truly interested in. Are they interested in abstract categories or are they interested in actual living and breathing human beings? 'Cause they clearly aren't the same.
Rather than going to a secondary source, let's go to Forbes itself. According to Forbes in 2011 they define 277 out of the top 400 as self-made. That leaves 123 that inherited a substantial portion of their wealth, or approximately 30% of the top 400.
A lot depends on how you define the terms, Jerry. "Self-made" isn't exactly the same as "not inheriting their entire fortune". Yeah, maybe some of these people came from the top 1-5% of families in America but there's a hell of a big difference between that ending up on the Forbes 400 list.
"Two-thirds of the members of The Forbes 400 have fortunes that are entirely self-made, while only 19% of the group inherited their entire fortunes."......http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_105762.html
Well, I guess you have blown your 2% number out of the water...and basically confirmed what I wrote. Thanks!
It wasn't my 2% number. It was the "Economist"'s number. And the 19% figure from Yahoo is significantly less than the 30% number that you were touting.......But let's take the 30% number. That means that 70% (70%!!!) of the people in the "Forbes" richest 400 totally made it on their own. That absolutely obliterates wd's fully absurd notion that the system is "rigged" for the benefit of a few.
Will, what you said in your last comment...
With CEO compensation increasing nearly 300% while at the same time worker wages having remained stagnant, I think I've got to agree with w-d.
What is wrong with inheriting?
We know that it has made liberal American royalty The Kennedy's stupid and decadent, but isn't that their right?
Jerry, the top 1%'s share of the total AGI actually went down 15.5% from 2008 to 2009 (from 20.00% to 16.93%). Yeah, there may be a handful of lunatics that have done exceedingly boffo but, again, you're strictly looking at categories and not actual human beings. The actual people (as opposed to the category, 1%) in the top 1% saw their actual earnings go down from 1996 to 2005. The fact IS that we have social mobility in this country and it totally goes in both directions.
Nothing is wrong with inheriting. In fact, if the system was not rigged, probably all of the Forbes 400 would have inherited their wealth. Virtually no one would be able to accumulate such vast wealth otherwise.
Personally, SF, I don't have a problem with people inheriting money. It was just for the point of this debate that I mentioned it. Guys like wd think that its the system that creates wealth and poverty and I say that it's at least partly the end result of industriousness and perseverance.
Good point. That's completely honest too. Parents providing for their children. Giving their own property and no-one else's.
Of course there is mobility. Someone has to leave the 1% for someone else to enter the elite group. There is probably less mobility when you look at total wealth, including the transfer of that wealth through inheritance, than looking at income.
Will: That absolutely obliterates wd's fully absurd notion that the system is "rigged" for the benefit of a few.
Sure it does... if you look at only some of the facts and ignore others. A 2010 study by the Corporation for Enterprise Development found "that most federal subsidies aimed at building wealth, such as certain tax deductions (officially called "expenditures"), credits, and preferential rates, go to the richest taxpayers".
The article regarding the report (on csmonitor.com) is titled, "Is the US system rigged for the rich?".... the conclusion is YES, and, in closing, the author asks, "So why is there no political revolt?"...
That was in 2010... and now there is a revolt. It's called the 99 percent movement. They oppose our CLEARLY rigged system... the one Will is in complete denial regarding. Obviously when you worship the wealthy inconvenient truths regarding how the system is rigged in their favor MUST be ignored.
btw, the article also discusses the "transfer payments" Will objects to in his post "Stacking the Decades"... the article REFUTES Will's claims, saying "Those with low incomes get Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc., adding up to about $365 billion. But Uncle Sam's subsidies for building wealth – of little use to the poor – were even larger: $384 billion last year".
Will's claim that the system ISN'T rigged? Absolutely obliterated.
I'm for eliminating all loopholes, wd. But your main point (nice diversion attempt, btw) was that the system is rigged so that only certain people can succeed in it. The evidence here is that AT LEAST 70% of the people in the Forbes 400 were totally self-made and hence didn't benefit in any way from a rigged system. Ergo, your theory is shit.......And the vast percentage of people in the top 1% don't get transfer payments, fella'. They predominantly go to crony capitalists in the areas of agriculture, energy, etc. and in which I am totally in favor of doing away with.
And, Jerry, the income stagnation theory is largely a myth. a) It tends to examine household income as compared to per capita income (households have gotten significantly smaller over time). b) Per capita income has actually gone up and not down (and this in fact is one of the reasons why families have gotten smaller - young people were able to move out and start up their own household). c) Per capita consumption has also gone up (74%, from 1980 to 2004, adjusted for inflation). d) A lot of people have switched to working part-time and this fact as much as anything can explain why certain groups have plateaued. e) Benefit packages have gotten better and more expensive and are usually not included when tabulating income growth. f) Social mobility. According to the IRS's own data, 58% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 had moved out of it by 2005. This is hardly an indicator of stagnation for these actual living and breathing human beings.
Not inheriting their money isn't the same as being "totally self-made". Yes, they had to work hard to achieve their initial success, but once they did these individuals benefited from the same rigged system that all wealthy people benefit from.
And that was only one example of how absurd your claim that the system isn't rigged in favor of the wealthy is. Another example is corporate welfare.
According to John Stossel (writing for Human Events), "In America today, the biggest recipients of handouts are not poor people. They're corporations".
And then there is the fact that many wealthy people pay a lower effective tax rate than an average middle class citizen... the reason the president supports the so-called "Buffett rule".
According to Will... we should be VERY concerned about welfare for the poor (he certainly is) while pointing out welfare the rich receive is a "diversion". How laughable. Ergo, Will's diversion attempt was shit.
According to here, if the average worker income increased as fast as their CEO's income, they would be making 200,000 per year.
SEVENTY PERCENT were described as ENTIRELY SELF MADE and only NINETEEN PERCENT were described as inheriting their entire fortune. These 2 facts totally obliterate your idiotic notion that the system is rigged to the point that only certain people can succeed.......And the fact that the top 1% still pay 36.7% of all federal income tax and the top 10% still pay 70.05% of all income tax DESPITE these deductions is also quite telling.......Oh, and, yeah, absolutely, let's get rid of all of this bullshit; farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, tax deductions so rich people can buy shitty electric autos (golf carts some of the people bought with their deduction), moronic-assed green energy subsidies, etc.. I am totally on board, wd.......And it was a diversion because you changed the fucking subject. Of course I'm against corporate frigging welfare. But that has precious little to do with the system being "rigged" or the fact that 99% of the people in the top 1% do not in any way benefit from these stupid-assed incentives. And who do you think is responsible for a lot of this corporate welfare? You think that it's strictly the Republicans? I mean, just take a look at that stupid-assed cap and trade bill. If that turkey had passed, it would have represented the largest corporate giveaway in United States history. This according to Obama's own frigging former budget director Peter Orszag.
That's not how the capitalist system works, Jerry. Some people are going to do better than others.
For christ sake....this is absolutly stupid.Jerry and WD continue to talk about this "rigged system." Just how is it rigged?
Are they saying they were banned from buying either Amazon or Apple stock when it was at $20? Did some armed person stop them from getting an education or perhaps a law degree? Did some unknown force stop them from starting a small business,stop them from working 60 hours a week to make it successful?
People like WD and Jerry want to make me puke...they cant get off their ass and do something positive,yet can spend hours bitching about what others have."Rigged?" The only thing appearent is their lack of ambition and willingness to hold their hand out for the next freebie.
WD and Jerry...here's a news flash...if you want it...stop crying and go get it.
What makes you think we don't already have it, Rusty? After all, w-d and I can sit here all day and stick firecrackers up your ass. LOL. I think one just went off.
Class warfare, the haves and the have nots, it's the age old age old. Just a different edition.
Firecrackers or bazooka's the history of history is this... it tends to repeat itself.
Jerry and wd may already "have it " Rusty. They may feel quity about having it as well.
I have a belief that those who have it an feel guilty about having it should become Buddhist Monks and give it all to charity.
RN said: "Class warfare, the haves and the have nots, it's the age old age old. Just a different edition."
And too often it is a "much ado about nothing" about the difference between the haves and the have-mores.
The claim that it is a major injustice and social calamity that one person has two cars, and someone else has 13.
WD said: "That was in 2010... and now there is a revolt. It's called the 99 percent movement. They oppose our CLEARLY rigged system."
This "99% movement" had a name as silly as the "Moral Majority". It never represented more than 40% or so of Americans.... far shy of 99%. And the movement thankfully has fizzled out: just a few filthy slobs waving crazy signs and shoving old ladies in front of banks.
As for this rigged system, the top 10% of earners pay more than 71% of the taxes. It's clear from this who it is rigged against.
Will: SEVENTY PERCENT were described as ENTIRELY SELF MADE and only NINETEEN PERCENT were described as inheriting their entire fortune.
To that I say bullshit. Not inheriting your money doesn't mean you haven't benefited from a rigged system.
Will: These 2 facts totally obliterate your idiotic notion that the system is rigged to the point that only certain people can succeed.
I never put forward the "notion" that social mobility is zero. It's pretty easy to refute my argument when you lie about what my argument is.
Will: And the fact that the top 1% still pay 36.7% of all federal income tax and the top 10% still pay 70.05% of all income tax DESPITE these deductions is also quite telling.
What it tells is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The wealthy pay all these taxes because they "make" such a large percentage of the national income. Your figures only prove that they "make" a lot of money, nothing more.
Will: Oh, and, yeah, absolutely, let's get rid of all of [these] subsidies...
I am talking about the way things currently work, not the way you wish they worked. Corporate welfare exists and is an example of how the system is rigged. It doesn't not count because you're opposed to it.
Will: And it was a diversion because you changed the fucking subject.
No I didn't.
Will: Of course I'm against corporate frigging welfare. But that has precious little to do with the system being "rigged" or the fact that 99% of the people in the top 1% do not in any way benefit from these stupid-assed incentives.
Oh, so billions of dollars are being spent but NOBODY is benefiting from it? That's bullshit.
Will: And who do you think is responsible for a lot of this corporate welfare? You think that it's strictly the Republicans?
Now you're attempting a diversion by changing the subject. Whether or not the system is rigged was the question, not who's rigging it. Although I do hold the Republicans MORE responsible.
Jerry,I could care less if either you or WD "already have it."
Whatever you potato heads do or believe does'nt affect my life in the least.My point was, your constant whining about what others have and how american business is raping the little guy always makes me want to hand you a tissue,tell you to wipe your eyes and get back to work.
wd, I was talking about doctors and lawyers and administrators and architects and engineers and administrators. They're not the ones who benefit from the special tax breaks that go to GM (you can thank Mr. Obama for that one), Solyndra (ditto), ethanol conglomerates (a bipartisan fuck-up), big frigging concrete, big tech, etc., etc.. THAT'S what I was talking about.......And the top 1% makes 16.9% of the AGI and pays 36.7% of the total federal income tax. That's a 2.2:1 ratio. Not good enough for you, wd? What do you think that the ratio should be (please, keep in mind here that, at 16.9%, the highest that the ratio can go is 5.9:1 - them paying all of the taxes at that point)? Seriously, dude, I wonder.
Also, wd, did you happen to support the cap and trade legislation? "Cause if you did, you would have been arguing in favor of the biggest corporate giveaway in United States history. Yes? No?
How does the fact that 280 people made it into the Forbes 400 show that the system is not rigged? It just means that they did not gain access by virtue of their parents death.
Will: YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS BULLSHIT UP!!!!!!
YOU can make this bullshit up. You just did make up some bullshit. I never put forward the "notion" that social mobility is zero. It's pretty easy to refute my argument when you lie about what my argument is.
You said that the system is rigged to the point where it only allows certain people to succeed or benefit. You were wrong!! And, no, 70% isn't zero. You did get that much right. LOL
Come on, Jerry. If the system was truly rigged, then people wouldn't be able to start from scratch and rise to be totally wealthy. The wealth and income would purely stay concentrated and we as a country be a stratified society. We're obviously not (though, no, wd will obviously never succeed).
"If the system was truly rigged, then people wouldn't be able to start from scratch and rise to be totally wealthy. "
I don't see why that"s necessarily true. Wealth and income are two different things. Incomes obviously go up and down, and end when people die, so,others must come up to fill the void. A rigged system allows some people easier access to the top, rather than equal access.
When we talk about a rigged system, I think we are really talking about access and opportunity.
I don't agree with a word that you just wrote. We have people starting with nothing and becoming billionaires. How much more of a difficult access can you have than starting with nothing? And when people move up the income ladder (as they almost invariably do in this society), they are then able to save more of their money and accumulate wealth. And having a high income and a lot of wealth doesn't necessarily ensure future success. More than half the people in the top 1% in 1996 were out of it by 2005 and the actual flesh and blood human beings in that category (not the bracket in which the actors obviously change) had their income literally go down by 26%.
Will: You said that the system is rigged to the point where it only allows certain people to succeed or benefit.
I did not. I'm in agreement with what Jerry said.
Wikipedia/Social Mobility: Research on American mobility published in 2006 and based on collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations looked at the probability of reaching a particular income-distribution with regard to where their parents were ranked. The study... [found that] there is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in the US. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the US...
58% of people in the lowest quitile in 1996 were out of it by 2005 (and the income of that category as a whole went up 91%). Fact. More than half of the people in the top 1% in 1996 were out of it by 2005 (and the income of that category as a whole went DOWN 26%). Fact. The fact that there's more intergenerational mobility in those other countries is probably because they have a higher death tax and a lot more socialism. I would prefer not to live in a country with components such as that. You do - get the hell out of here and live there.
Post a Comment