|
|
#131
08-03-2005, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a link I found from 1999 that states (in 1995 dollars) that the top 5% have pretax income of $276,000 (more than twice the $125,000 figure mentioned here, and it's likely higher now in 2005, than when this study was done) Top 5% Mentioned Here [/ QUOTE ] That sounds about right. [ QUOTE ] If you're in the top 5% of wage earners I don't want to hear any bellyaching that you have trouble affording your million-dollar friggin homes, or that because you make more money you spend more money and thus aren't "wealthy". [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't. I'm simply putting the lie to your notion that the top 5% are all corporate bigwigs who control the majority of assets in this country and keep the little man down. That's simply crap. Here in Los Angeles, a million bucks won't buy you much in terms of a home. The lowest-price house in Santa Monica, California listed on MLS is a one-bedroom, one-bath house a few blocks away from the beach. 728 square feet. And it costs $728,000. That's probably affordable for a guy making $275K, but it's going to be a stretch. And it's not like there's even room for kids. What percentage of the guys making $275K are working in cities where that income doesn't even permit you to buy a house in which you can fit kids? A significant percentage, I'd guess. Would you be willing to hear a complaint that a wage earner at that level can't buy a house with a bedroom for each of his kids in a neighborhood that doesn't require bars on all the ground-floor windows? Your notion that everyone in the top 5% of wage earners is on easy street is a joke. If you want a four-bedroom home with a heated indoor pool and a back yard in this town, you're looking at $3+ million, which is totally out of reach for anyone making $275K, considering that most mortgages at that level require 20% down, or $600K -- and then $10K or so in mortgage payments every month on top of that. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#132
08-03-2005, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Here is a link I found from 1999 that states (in 1995 dollars) that the top 5% have pretax income of $276,000 (more than twice the $125,000 figure mentioned here, and it's likely higher now in 2005, than when this study was done) Top 5% Mentioned Here [/ QUOTE ] That sounds about right. [ QUOTE ] If you're in the top 5% of wage earners I don't want to hear any bellyaching that you have trouble affording your million-dollar friggin homes, or that because you make more money you spend more money and thus aren't "wealthy". [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't. I'm simply putting the lie to your notion that the top 5% are all corporate bigwigs who control the majority of assets in this country and keep the little man down. That's simply crap. Here in Los Angeles, a million bucks won't buy you much in terms of a home. The lowest-price house in Santa Monica, California listed on MLS is a one-bedroom, one-bath house a few blocks away from the beach. 728 square feet. And it costs $728,000. That's probably affordable for a guy making $275K, but it's going to be a stretch. And it's not like there's even room for kids. What percentage of the guys making $275K are working in cities where that income doesn't even permit you to buy a house in which you can fit kids? A significant percentage, I'd guess. Would you be willing to hear a complaint that a wage earner at that level can't buy a house with a bedroom for each of his kids in a neighborhood that doesn't require bars on all the ground-floor windows? Your notion that everyone in the top 5% of wage earners is on easy street is a joke. If you want a four-bedroom home with a heated indoor pool and a back yard in this town, you're looking at $3+ million, which is totally out of reach for anyone making $275K, considering that most mortgages at that level require 20% down, or $600K -- and then $10K or so in mortgage payments every month on top of that. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Yowza, those housing prices are riDONKulous. I live in North Central Mass, and you can get a decent 2-4 bedroom home for around $250,000-$375,000, but then again, most of us in this region aren't making 125K a year, or 276K either.
|
|
#133
08-03-2005, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] People are working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, because employers don't pay as well as they used to and a lot of them look to find ways to reduce benefits and cut costs. [/ QUOTE ] People are working multiple jobs and most families have 2 wage earners instead of just one because of today's tax burden. We are paying far more in taxes than we did back in the "good old days". I am not refering to income taxes as much as I am referring to every other tax that you hardly notice. Gasoline, utilities, phone, sales tax, RE taxes, etc. You wouldn't believe how much you pay in taxes for a pack of cigarettes or a gallon of gas. Or how much tax is built into any item you buy. I must be an idiot to get involved in this discussion... [/ QUOTE ] Temp ... run away, run away. I have already been sucked into the vortex of this thread, but you can be saved. You, my WPT final table, runner-up, friend, have better things to do. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] NCAces
|
|
#134
08-03-2005, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
Oye Vey. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2002 the avg annual wages in the U.S. were $36,764. Here is a link I found from 1999 that states (in 1995 dollars) that the top 5% have pretax income of $276,000 (more than twice the $125,000 figure mentioned here, and it's likely higher now in 2005, than when this study was done) Top 5% Mentioned Here If you're in the top 5% of wage earners I don't want to hear any bellyaching that you have trouble affording your million-dollar friggin homes, or that because you make more money you spend more money and thus aren't "wealthy". Gimme a friggin break. "No sir, I'm not wealthy, I spent all my money on these new BMW's, this four-bedroom home with a heated indoor pool and I'm forced to buy my work shirts at WalMart because of it!" [/ QUOTE ] Here is my source: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls This is 2001 IRS data for adjusted gross income, which would be a little lower than gross income (includes certain deductions, but not the major itemized or standard deducations), but not as much as your numbers seem to make it. Not sure what accounts for the difference, but am open to being so informed. As to your last paragraph, it is difficult to argue with you if you don't understand the difference between income and wealth. Oh, and by the way, you are the one bellyaching, not me. I pay my fair share of the tax burden and keep moving on trying to do better and better. NCAces
|
|
#135
08-04-2005, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
wealthy
adjective Possessing a large amount of money, land, or other material possessions: affluent, flush, moneyed, rich. Slang loaded. Idioms: having money to burn, in the money, made of money, rolling in money. See rich/poor. you can claim that wealth is merely whatever extra you have to spend, but the definition of wealthy is the total amount, and the top 5% of wage earners have more than everyone else, regardless of how mismanaged that WEALTH is. it is still wealth. the smart argument would be to compare your per capita income in your area to what you make, and argue from there. if your per capita income is $300k but the per capita in your area is $250k, then sure, you aren't rolling rich, but compared to the rest of america, you probably have many more belongings and perks. compared to your area though, you're only in slightly better shape than the avg, which is the argument you seem to be trying to represent.
|
|
#136
08-04-2005, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
wealthy adjective Possessing a large amount of money, land, or other material possessions: affluent, flush, moneyed, rich. Slang loaded. Idioms: having money to burn, in the money, made of money, rolling in money. See rich/poor. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, you quote the definition and then totally misinterpret it. The vital part of that definition is the word "possessing." In order to be wealthy, you must possess money, land, or other material possessions (From Merriam-Webster Online: WEALTHY stresses the possession of property and intrinsically valuable things <wealthy landowners). People that make a lot of money but then piss it away on consumables and other goods that rapidly depreciate are not wealthy, they are more aptly described as affluent or rich.
|
|
#137
08-04-2005, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
wealthy adjective Possessing a large amount of money, land, or other material possessions: affluent, flush, moneyed, rich. Slang loaded. Idioms: having money to burn, in the money, made of money, rolling in money. See rich/poor. you can claim that wealth is merely whatever extra you have to spend, but the definition of wealthy is the total amount, and the top 5% of wage earners have more than everyone else, regardless of how mismanaged that WEALTH is. it is still wealth. the smart argument would be to compare your per capita income in your area to what you make, and argue from there. if your per capita income is $300k but the per capita in your area is $250k, then sure, you aren't rolling rich, but compared to the rest of america, you probably have many more belongings and perks. compared to your area though, you're only in slightly better shape than the avg, which is the argument you seem to be trying to represent. [/ QUOTE ] Hey, thanks for telling me what my "smart" argument would be. You might work on your own, and not worry so much about mine. You define wealth, which doesn't in any way mention income, and then state they two are the same. If you can't understand the difference between wealth and income, it is not possible to discuss or debate these issues with you. I certainly understand how the two are related ... you should try understanding how they are different in the context of both the OP and the subsequent threadjack. You simply can't ignore the difference. As to what my argument is, re-read the thread. I am simply saying that grandgnu is misrepresenting the composition of the top 5% of wage earners. He seems to think they are all rich, robber barons who accumulated their wealth through inheritence or other unsavory means that hold everyone else down. Maybe that is true for the top .05%, but it isn't for most of the top 5%. NCAces
|
|
#138
08-04-2005, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] wealthy adjective Possessing a large amount of money, land, or other material possessions: affluent, flush, moneyed, rich. Slang loaded. Idioms: having money to burn, in the money, made of money, rolling in money. See rich/poor. you can claim that wealth is merely whatever extra you have to spend, but the definition of wealthy is the total amount, and the top 5% of wage earners have more than everyone else, regardless of how mismanaged that WEALTH is. it is still wealth. the smart argument would be to compare your per capita income in your area to what you make, and argue from there. if your per capita income is $300k but the per capita in your area is $250k, then sure, you aren't rolling rich, but compared to the rest of america, you probably have many more belongings and perks. compared to your area though, you're only in slightly better shape than the avg, which is the argument you seem to be trying to represent. [/ QUOTE ] Hey, thanks for telling me what my "smart" argument would be. You might work on your own, and not worry so much about mine. You define wealth, which doesn't in any way mention income, and then state they two are the same. If you can't understand the difference between wealth and income, it is not possible to discuss or debate these issues with you. I certainly understand how the two are related ... you should try understanding how they are different in the context of both the OP and the subsequent threadjack. You simply can't ignore the difference. As to what my argument is, re-read the thread. I am simply saying that grandgnu is misrepresenting the composition of the top 5% of wage earners. He seems to think they are all rich, robber barons who accumulated their wealth through inheritence or other unsavory means that hold everyone else down. Maybe that is true for the top .05%, but it isn't for most of the top 5%. NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I don't recall EVER saying that ALL of the top 5% accumulated their wealth in their means. My original arguement was that the wealth in the U.S. is riDONKulously unevenly distributed, and it makes it difficult for the people on the bottom rung to have much hope of advancement or an "average" lifestyle.
|
|
#139
08-04-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Here's an article that's just a few years old, but shows that U.S. residents are working more hours than other nations and not as efficient on a per-hour basis because of it: Study On Worker Efficiency [/ QUOTE ] Did you not even read the article in your link????? Unbelieveable!! " "Since the mid-1990s, U.S. labor productivity has grown considerably faster than most other developed (industrialized) economies," says Johnson. "Between 1995 and 2000, the average annual labor productivity growth rate in the United States was 2.6 percent, up from 0.8 percent between 1990 and 1995. Within the European Union, the labor productivity growth rate was 2.4 percent from 1990 to 1995. It decelerated to 1.2 percent from 1995 to 2000." " The US economy is the strongest in the world. Why? Because we have less people like yourself and more motivated workers than in other countries. You really should cut your losses in this discussion.
|
|
#140
08-04-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much money do you need?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Here's an article that's just a few years old, but shows that U.S. residents are working more hours than other nations and not as efficient on a per-hour basis because of it: Study On Worker Efficiency [/ QUOTE ] Did you not even read the article in your link????? Unbelieveable!! " "Since the mid-1990s, U.S. labor productivity has grown considerably faster than most other developed (industrialized) economies," says Johnson. "Between 1995 and 2000, the average annual labor productivity growth rate in the United States was 2.6 percent, up from 0.8 percent between 1990 and 1995. Within the European Union, the labor productivity growth rate was 2.4 percent from 1990 to 1995. It decelerated to 1.2 percent from 1995 to 2000." " The US economy is the strongest in the world. Why? Because we have less people like yourself and more motivated workers than in other countries. You really should cut your losses in this discussion. [/ QUOTE ] You're an idiot, and it's not even close, do you see why? "Workers in the United States are putting in more hours than anyone else in the industrialized world." "But we're not the most efficient, when you compare it per hour, looking at the Belgians and the French." "Almost every year we increase the hours of work. American workers put in long hours to make up the gains" in efficiency seen in France and Belgium." I had said we weren't as efficient on a per-hour basis , next time YOU do some reading bucko. *pimp-slap*
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
