New Taxes

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

OK lets not use your "Fuzzy" Math again.

If I pay 7k and Arnold pays 9 million - He pays more no matter the percentages no matter where the planets are in the sky.

He gave more, and more people will benefit from it.

And I gave 3.5k in charities, I believe he gave a couple of million.

Again, he gave more and more people will benifit from it.

And it is my goal to end up 1 dollar more than him in 9 years and do the same thing... Give more and help more but don't under any circumstance BLAME people who are doing soooo much already by throwing in %'s as a red herring.

Bear, again, follow the post and see what the discussion was about. It was equating the top 1% as being influential on politicians.

Art's postiton is that the lower 50% have more of a say because they pay less money in taxes, hence more influence.

My positions is that the tax burden of the rich has decreased from 70% to less than half of that in 20 years, hence the influence.

I actually think Art is arguing just for arguments sake, I know he likes to be confrontational, but I honestly don't believe he thinks like this. If he actually does, he's been listening to Hannity and Limbaugh far to long.

If you want to jump in on the thread, go ahead, but stick to the argument points. Trying to trun the debate into oher realms wont work. If you want to speak your mind go ahead, don't single people out in your posts and you won't get burnt.

[Thiebear]

cho... thanks for saying I can jump in on my own thread...

[Thiebear]

any by the way cho, I was referring to your direct quote on the page before... thats ok isnt it?

If I took the quote out of context i apologize but I didnt post anything offensive towards you did i?

can you illuminate me on what you were referring to below then if not the %'s a person pays in relation to their income?

__________________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cskin

Can I get an Amen!!!!

I too did not come from a "life of priviledge". I lost my father at five and my mom raised three kids on her own. Heck, a Republican Ronald Reagan cut our social security checks by two thirds while I was growing up. We almost lost our house several times, and I ate Green Goddess (salad dressing) sandwiches many days.

I'm conservative, although I consider myself independent, and lean towards the republicans because I just don't see the reasoning behind taking more from those who have more because they can afford it. Mechanisms in place for those who have more to VOLUNTARILY give more to those "less fortunate" is one thing... DEMANDING that I pay more because I can afford it is fundamentally wrong. Taxes... medicare premiums... whatever!!! It flys in the face of equality as defined by our forefathers, with slavery and women's positions excluded.

Because I earn more I should pay more taxes?

Because I earn more I should pay my taxes and someone elses?

Because I earn more I should pay a larger medicare premium?

**I've said this many times... I put my pants on the same as everyone else. I grew up surviving, not thriving. To be asked to pay more because I've worked harder and smarter and I earn more is a slap in my face!!!!

qouted and replied by chomerics:

The fact is you actually pay less when you figure it out on a % basis. Didn't we go through this before?

_________________________________________________

[The Wicked Wop]

A Tax Plan for Kerry

By Ted Halstead and Maya MacGuineas

Monday, May 24, 2004; Page A23

John Kerry not only has a message problem, he seems to have conflicting economic priorities. Kerry wants to make job creation and helping the middle class the central theme of his campaign, but he has yet to offer any bold or compelling ideas to back up the rhetoric. At the same time, he has been unable to find a way to square his broader jobs agenda with his commitment to fiscal prudence. Allow us to suggest a solution to both problems: abolishing the payroll tax.

Although you'd never know it from listening to our political leaders, the largest tax now paid by over 70 percent of working American families is not the income tax but the payroll tax. No tax does more to discourage job creation or to reduce take-home pay for low- and middle-income workers. Likewise, nothing could do more to boost both than repealing it outright.

Unlike income taxes, the payroll tax kicks in from the first dollar earned and applies only to wages. It is split equally between employers and employees (except in the case of independent contractors, who bear both parts of the burden). While income taxes have been cut many times in recent decades, payroll taxes have risen steadily: from a tenth of the federal budget in the 1950s to over a third today.

A basic premise of economics is that the more you tax something, the less of it you get. By taxing labor so heavily, we are in effect choosing to have fewer jobs and to drive employment into the informal sector, where workers receive no benefits and often try to hide their wages. The payroll tax is particularly painful for small businesses, which we depend on for job creation. Not surprisingly, the National Federation of Independent Business routinely cites payroll tax relief as one of its top priorities.

As if retarding job growth weren't bad enough, the payroll tax is also highly regressive, meaning that it falls disproportionately on low-income workers. Not only is its rate structure flat, but its largest component (which funds Social Security) applies only to wages up to $87,900 a year. In other words, the fastest-growing tax just happens to fall hardest on those who can least afford to pay it.

Kerry has flirted with the idea of payroll tax relief in the past. During the economic downturn, he suggested a "payroll tax holiday" to stimulate consumer spending and help lower-wage earners. More recently he proposed a temporary income tax credit to offset the cost of payroll taxes incurred by businesses for hiring new workers. But these proposals amount to little more than tinkering at the margins of the problem. If the payroll tax hinders job creation (which it does) and is highly regressive (which it is), why stop at half-measures? Any candidate who is serious about stimulating employment and helping working-class families should propose repealing the payroll tax permanently.

Of course, the roughly $750 billion a year generated by the payroll tax would need to be replaced with a new source of revenue earmarked for Social Security and Medicare. As it is, Kerry's existing proposals are already at odds with his desire to cut the deficit in half. Thus any new funding stream will not only have to generate sufficient revenue, it will also have to avoid the numerous pitfalls of the payroll tax. Better yet, it should be structured to encourage economic growth. The ideal candidate is a national consumption tax.

Conservatives have been championing consumption taxes for decades on the grounds that they would encourage saving -- and, hence, long-term growth -- without discouraging work and enterprise. These are very important benefits. Traditional types of consumption taxes such as sales taxes or the "flat tax," however, are extremely regressive and therefore would be no improvement over the payroll tax on that front.

A better alternative would be a progressive consumption tax, levied not on individual purchases but rather on total spending. Each year, taxpayers would calculate their total income, subtract their total savings and pay taxes on the difference. The first, say, $25,000 of consumption would be tax-free, and from there the tax rates would be progressive rather than flat. The more you spent and the less you saved, the higher your tax rate would be.

Phased in gradually, a progressive national consumption tax could replace the entire revenue stream of the payroll tax. And it would be a far better funding stream for Social Security and Medicare, insofar as a consumption tax would encourage exactly what we most need as the retirement of the baby-boom generation approaches: higher rates of personal savings. Over time, higher saving rates would also boost economic growth and living standards.

By replacing payroll taxes with consumption taxes, Kerry (or his rival) could claim the ultimate policy hat trick: more jobs, higher take-home pay and more personal savings. On top of that, embracing this idea would help Kerry reconcile two strands of his own thinking that have so far been in near-constant tension: his commitment to fiscal rectitude and his penchant for populism.

One can almost hear the new campaign slogans: "balanced-budget populism," "pro-growth populism" -- or both.

Ted Halstead is president and chief executive of the New America Foundation. Maya MacGuineas is director of the foundation's Fiscal Policy Program. They will answer questions at 11 a.m. tomorrow on www.washingtonpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50667-2004May23.html

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by chomerics

Actually, it's funny DH. I just did a quick google on income mobility and the first site is refuting Art's link.

Read this article by Paul Krugman "The Death of Horatio Alger"

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman

It takes to task some of the income mobility stuff Art posted.

Krugman is to Keynes what academics are to Marx - somebody who just can't accept that his ideology (devout Keynesian aka Tax and Spend into prosperity) has been discredited by all empirical evidence.

[Cskin]

Chomerics.... I was talking about paying more ONLY from a percentage point of view. The nature of the thread was that "rich people should pay more taxes and higher medicare premiums because they can afford it".

It's quite obvious I pay more because I earn more.... but the difference should be a firm equation. The same percentage, but the amount will be higher because I've earned more.

What I'm fundamentally against is me paying 28-40% income tax rate while others pay nothing.... or a smaller percentage because they earn less.

Flat tax is what I'm talking about... everyone pays the same percentage. I earn 100K and am forced to pay 20% in income taxes... here's my $20K check.

Someone makes 40K... submit their $8K check. We use the same publicly funded roads, public schools, public water, state parks, etc..etc...etc...

As it stands now, they get tax credits and other rebates that as well as a lower tax rate percentage that brings their tax bill to $0, while I pick up the slack and pay $28K. Fair? Hardly?

I'm not sure, I'm still looking in my mom's attic, but to date I haven't found a certificate stapled to my birth certificate that states that I should in the future pay my taxes and those of others because I'm forcast to make more money due to my "priveledged" family status. My father was a steel rivetor and my mother an insurance accounts receivable worker... I'm quite sure we shouldn't have been put in the "champagne tastes and caviar dreams" pile of applicants.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Krugman is to Keynes what academics are to Marx - somebody who just can't accept that his ideology (devout Keynesian aka Tax and Spend into prosperity) has been discredited by all empirical evidence.

Riggo, are you a supply sider then?

Just curious as to why you would accept such "ideologies". If you do look at empirical data over the past 40 years, a Keynesian approach doesn't differentiate that much from a supply sider interms of growth. It in has morphed into an approach to which there is a moderate level of taxes on all social classes, not just the old tax the rich to feed the poor mentality.

Just curious as to why your approach to non-Keynesian methods, and the fact that the GDP hasn't grown when we've put a non-Keynesian economic system in place.

[BD]

The chief problem with the tax policy that we currently have - at both the state and federal level - is that we've reached the point where these policies are seriously anti-market. The best engine of prosperity is the free market, and we ought to encourage and support small businesses, innovators, and entrepeneurs who seek to create and succeed.

Far too often, tax policy punishes success by putting far too much weight on "wealthy" Americans. The best way to encourage lnog term market growth and prosperity is to encourage wealthy Americans to spend their money - either on products and services (which creates jobs) or through investment (which creates jobs and encourages the development of new products and solutions).

And if you disagree, and think that the wealthy should be more heavily taxed, consider this:

If your household income in 2003 was more than $71,800 a year, you are one of the wealthiest 20% of Americans.

That's a pretty good amount for a two-person home. But anyone who's trying to live making that amount of money in Washington DC with three kids is just going to laugh at the idea that they're in the top 20% of earners in America. But it's true.

Yet still our tax policy takes more money out of the hands of these families through property taxes and car taxes, or worse, they adopt the most regressive tax possible by passing higher sales taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor (see Virginia).

The best tax policy is one that is flatter, simpler, pro-market and pro-family. That's always been the case, but it only occasionally has been pursued.

BD

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by chomerics

Riggo, are you a supply sider then?

Just curious as to why you would accept such "ideologies". If you do look at empirical data over the past 40 years, a Keynesian approach doesn't differentiate that much from a supply sider interms of growth. It in has morphed into an approach to which there is a moderate level of taxes on all social classes, not just the old tax the rich to feed the poor mentality.

Just curious as to why your approach to non-Keynesian methods, and the fact that the GDP hasn't grown when we've put a non-Keynesian economic system in place.

Uh, your chart kind of proves my point.

Nixon began as a fiscally conservative President, producing a balanced budget in 69, then abandoned that approach when he saw little political payoff, and declared "We're all Keynesians now." Result: his 2nd term saw far less growth. It would look even worse had not Ford become president and vetoes nearly every spending bill that came across his desk.

The 2 biggest spenders in post history: Bush 1 and Bush 2, who by no coincidence have also turned out the poorest performance in growth rates.

The most fiscally conservative era: Clinton/GOP congress from 95-98 (when spending per capita adjusted for inflation dropped for the first time since Eisenhower)- end result: Best growth rate since the 60s.

Reagan's first term saw the largest tax increase in inflation adjusted dollars ever (far bigger than Clinton's 93 increase), and spending rose $1.58 for every extra tax dollar raised (Keynesianism at its most supreme). Result: The deepest recession since the dperession. Towards the end of his first term, his tax cuts finally went into effect. This, coupled with the forced spending restraints from Gramm-Rudman produced significantly better results.

Reagan's supply side economics (as well as nearly everything else from his 1980 campaign) was a direct steal from JFK, who proposed cutting taxes to generate more revenue to pay for increases in defense spending.

Stop confusing party names with policies. Dems were for years the party of tax cuts and defense spending. Ike was the one who coined the bit about how many schools could be built for the price of a fighter jet. Nixon was the most socialist "liberal" president in our country's history, while JFK by todays standard's would be labeled a "right-wing extremist."

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Cskin

Chomerics.... I was talking about paying more ONLY from a percentage point of view. The nature of the thread was that "rich people should pay more taxes and higher medicare premiums because they can afford it".

It's quite obvious I pay more because I earn more.... but the difference should be a firm equation. The same percentage, but the amount will be higher because I've earned more.

What I'm fundamentally against is me paying 28-40% income tax rate while others pay nothing.... or a smaller percentage because they earn less.

Flat tax is what I'm talking about... everyone pays the same percentage. I earn 100K and am forced to pay 20% in income taxes... here's my $20K check.

Someone makes 40K... submit their $8K check. We use the same publicly funded roads, public schools, public water, state parks, etc..etc...etc...

As it stands now, they get tax credits and other rebates that as well as a lower tax rate percentage that brings their tax bill to $0, while I pick up the slack and pay $28K. Fair? Hardly?

I'm not sure, I'm still looking in my mom's attic, but to date I haven't found a certificate stapled to my birth certificate that states that I should in the future pay my taxes and those of others because I'm forcast to make more money due to my "priveledged" family status. My father was a steel rivetor and my mother an insurance accounts receivable worker... I'm quite sure we shouldn't have been put in the "champagne tastes and caviar dreams" pile of applicants.

We've been over this befere. You don't in fact pay more on a % basis than the lower people.

O.K. people, here's the real "myth" about taxes and the rich. People like Art and CSkin like to focus on income, why? Because it makes their argument stronger. They can always claim that

"I'm paying more income taxes then everyone else this sucks!!!""

Now, here's what they don't tell you, Income is only part of the money they bring in. Why don't you hear anyone in the top 1% b!tch and moan on their earned dividends any more? Do you want to know why? Because it's only 15%!!! The same with long term capitol gains. You only hear them b!tch about income levels because it "appears" that they pay more. They will NEVER add in SSI and medicade and figure out the %'s on lower income salary, because it destroys thier case. In fact, all they'll talk about is income because it's the only leg they have to stand on for the latest supply side version of econimics which pushes the tax burden to the middle class and the poor.

I am in the top 5% bracket, not the top 1%, but the bottom rungs of the top 5%. Do you know the % I paid in taxes this year? About 23%, less thhan somebody making half of the money I make.

I used to own my own business, do you know what I paid then? Nothing, zip, zilch. This is because of the writeoffs I had. I owned a commercial fishing boat and I grossed about $130K a year, but I paid nothing in taxes because of all of my writeoffs.

Now, because of my accountant (all the poor people have a need for an accountant right Cskin?) I paid about 22% in taxes. Not bad considering I supposed to be paying around 35%. I get to write off my mortgage (big deduction), and a bunch of other items. I don't have to pay SSI when my salary reaches 88K (which is I believe is 12% of your salary).

I'm not at the point where I own enough stock to recieve a sizeable chunk on dividends, but hopefully I will be there some day. I will not however complain that I'm paying too much in taxes. Tax on non-working income makes up 20% of the money made, yet it's tax revenue is only 10%. Income tax pays a higher % than non-working income.

If infact you do pay your full amount, may I suggest you get a better accountant, because if you're paying anything over 25%, your accountant should be shot.

I'm not even going into offshore investments, another scam for avoiding paying taxes, that's a topic for another discussion.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Uh, your chart kind of proves my point.

Nixon began as a fiscally conservative President, producing a balanced budget in 69, then abandoned that approach when he saw little political payoff, and declared "We're all Keynesians now." Result: his 2nd term saw far less growth. It would look even worse had not Ford become president and vetoes nearly every spending bill that came across his desk.

The 2 biggest spenders in post history: Bush 1 and Bush 2, who by no coincidence have also turned out the poorest performance in growth rates.

The most fiscally conservative era: Clinton/GOP congress from 95-98 (when spending per capita adjusted for inflation dropped for the first time since Eisenhower)- end result: Best growth rate since the 60s.

Reagan's first term saw the largest tax increase in inflation adjusted dollars ever (far bigger than Clinton's 93 increase), and spending rose $1.58 for every extra tax dollar raised (Keynesianism at its most supreme). Result: The deepest recession since the dperession. Towards the end of his first term, his tax cuts finally went into effect. This, coupled with the forced spending restraints from Gramm-Rudman produced significantly better results.

Reagan's supply side economics (as well as nearly everything else from his 1980 campaign) was a direct steal from JFK, who proposed cutting taxes to generate more revenue to pay for increases in defense spending.

Stop confusing party names with policies. Dems were for years the party of tax cuts and defense spending. Ike was the one who coined the bit about how many schools could be built for the price of a fighter jet. Nixon was the most socialist "liberal" president in our country's history, while JFK by todays standard's would be labeled a "right-wing extremist."

Actually, I think I misunderstood your point, I agree with everything you said, I thought you were taking the approach that Dems were/are devout Kenyesians in their approach and that the Republicans were anti-Kenesian because of their "tax cuts".

I thought you were looking at it, as most Americans do, as the Dems are for a tax the rich and feed the poor through spending.

[Riggo-toni]

I am first and foremost opposed to government spending. Gov't does not create anything, which is why Keynes' consumption based theories and money multiplier effects are nonsense. The first and primary principle of Keynesians is that spending is healthy for the economy, even though the record shows clearly otherwise. Whatever the gov't spends gets taken out of the primary engine of growth, the private sector, either through higher taxes, inflation, interest rates or a combination of such. Sadly, neither major party believes in or practices fiscal discipline anymore. This is why I'm a Libertarian. You can view my posts and see that I am objectively critical/ praising of people from both parties.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by BD

The chief problem with the tax policy that we currently have - at both the state and federal level - is that we've reached the point where these policies are seriously anti-market. The best engine of prosperity is the free market, and we ought to encourage and support small businesses, innovators, and entrepeneurs who seek to create and succeed.

Agreed, I think business' should be supported and encouraged, but under the system in place right now, there is a strong feeling of favoring big vs. little, I think it's backwards myself.

Far too often, tax policy punishes success by putting far too much weight on "wealthy" Americans. The best way to encourage lnog term market growth and prosperity is to encourage wealthy Americans to spend their money - either on products and services (which creates jobs) or through investment (which creates jobs and encourages the development of new products and solutions).

And if you disagree, and think that the wealthy should be more heavily taxed, consider this:

If your household income in 2003 was more than $71,800 a year, you are one of the wealthiest 20% of Americans.

That's a pretty good amount for a two-person home. But anyone who's trying to live making that amount of money in Washington DC with three kids is just going to laugh at the idea that they're in the top 20% of earners in America. But it's true.

Good point. Boston is the same, unless you make over 100K/year, you can forget about owning a home or getting above in life. You have to work two jobs just to survive and if you have kids, forget about it.

When I talk about wealthy, i'm talking about people making over 250K a year, the top 1%. People who do not have to worry about putting food on the table, where their going to come up with the money for the electric bill or how they're going to pay for little Johnny's tuition.

Yet still our tax policy takes more money out of the hands of these families through property taxes and car taxes, or worse, they adopt the most regressive tax possible by passing higher sales taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor (see Virginia).

The best tax policy is one that is flatter, simpler, pro-market and pro-family. That's always been the case, but it only occasionally has been pursued.

BD

I'm against a flatter tax, but I agree with you on the terms "rich" and "wealthy". I consider myself a middle class citizen, yet I make what considered in the top 5% of all Americans, it sucks. The thing that really pisses me off is the pendulum will swing so far the other way, we'll get screwed again.

[Art]

Originally posted by Die Hard

It's unfortunate when you can perform a random search on the internet... completely unbiased just looking for the truth... and when I posted impartial material it gets dismissed as "socialist" because (1) a Canadian who lives in a socialist country posted it and (2) it isn't consistent with what you believe so it is dismissed as socialist.

I've provided 4 links to 4 different websites. I didn't see "socialism 101" in the url or site headers.

You really can't discuss things with someone who pretends to know it all and doesn't believe he can learn anything from anyone.

The best anyone can do is tell you what you want to hear or agree with you.

What's the social condition for people who spend their whole lives trying to convince every body they know everything... and view everything that isn't consistent with the perceptions a threat?

Is it "insecurity"?

Did you actually bother to read what I wrote, DH, or did you just decide that instead of doing that to ignore it? How about addressing my question. Is income mobility best described by a study that measures yearly payroll information for the top and the bottom, or is it best described by a study following people in various situations and seeing whether they rise or fall?

It seemed a pretty straightforward and fair question I asked and I certainly addressed what the sources I used to ask the questions were -- including their limitations.

It's not that I pretend to know it all, though, DH. It's just that when I see you getting your feet wet in arguing again I noticed two things. First, you've lost your knack and it will take you a while to get back into it. Second, you presented flawed data -- as I did -- yet from mine I was able to render yours meaningless by asking the simple question. How should mobility be measured. The way you put forth, or the way I did. And no one would answer yours is the way to go unless they are socialists writing on socialist web sites.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by Art

Did you actually bother to read what I wrote, DH, or did you just decide that instead of doing that to ignore it? How about addressing my question. Is income mobility best described by a study that measures yearly payroll information for the top and the bottom, or is it best described by a study following people in various situations and seeing whether they rise or fall?

It seemed a pretty straightforward and fair question I asked and I certainly addressed what the sources I used to ask the questions were -- including their limitations.

It's not that I pretend to know it all, though, DH. It's just that when I see you getting your feet wet in arguing again I noticed two things. First, you've lost your knack and it will take you a while to get back into it. Second, you presented flawed data -- as I did -- yet from mine I was able to render yours meaningless by asking the simple question. How should mobility be measured. The way you put forth, or the way I did. And no one would answer yours is the way to go unless they are socialists writing on socialist web sites.

Is USAToday a socialist website?

I did answer your question Art. It just a response inconsistent with your argument... so you've dismissed it.

And I expected as much. that's why this isn't up for discussion.

[Art]

Originally posted by Die Hard

Is USAToday a socialist website?

I did answer your question Art. It just a response consistent with your argument... so you've dismissed it.

And I expected as much. that's why this isn't up for discussion.

DH,

I must have missed it. Can you please forward the answer you provided as I don't and didn't see it in the reply I quoted.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by Art

DH,

I must have missed it. Can you please forward the answer you provided as I don't and didn't see it in the reply I quoted.

And while we're at it.... let's also acknowledge that wealth isn't always directly attributable to "hard work" and "merit". In fact, it's more than likely less than common.

Now we can get into an argument about how wealth is acquired and how we would define "hardworking" and what is truly "earned".

That was the thesis I was arguing.

I offered Paris Hilton. You counter-offered Dan Snyder as "fact".

That's your suplex?

The you offered silly made-up numbers like:

I think of the Top 100 Americans 54 are self-made men where 46 have inheritance money as starting them off.

Hard to argue with numbers you made up in your head.

But when each of those parents die - and trust me... rich people aren't invincible or immortal - their wealth doesn't disappear.

For sake of argument.. there may have at one point been 46 hard-working Americans in the top 100... but in less then 30 years after they've accumulated that wealth... they die.

And they leave behind 100 silver-spooned babies who enjoy the wealth and privilege that their parents couldn't take with them to the grave.

And that 1-10% has had quite a strangehold on the 70% of your nation's wealth. And the disparity grows every day.

And while, in fact, there MAY be a VERY VERY VERY VERY small percentage who cracks that 1% and made it on their own merit... it certainly isn't the norm. As evidenced by the statistics I provided.

And for the remaining 90-99% of the population who has to share the rest of the 30% of the nation's wealth... I don't treat them as indignant as some do.

[luckydevil]

Die Hard,

The links( pg 4) talk about income inequality, not income mobility

My question to you is

Why is income inequality a bad thing?

[Riggo-toni]

I always suspected USA was run by pinko cross-dressers.... Now I have proof

[jbooma]

The ranking of 100 of the world's richest people as estimated by Forbes magazine. Listings include rank, name, home country, age where known, wealth in billions of dollars and source of the money.

1. Gates, William H. III, United States, 45, 58.7, Microsoft

2. Buffett, Warren Edward, United States, 70, 32.3, Berkshire Hathaway, investments

3. Allen, Paul Gardner, United States, 48, 30.4, Microsoft

4. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph, United States, 56, 26, Oracle

5. Albrecht, Theo and Karl, Germany, 25, retail

6. Alsaud, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, Saudi Arabia, 20, investments

7. Walton, Jim C., United States, 53, 18.8, Wal-Mart

8. Walton, John T., United States, 55, 18.7, Wal-Mart

9. Walton, S. Robson, United States, 57, 18.6, Wal-Mart

10. Walton, Alice L., United States, 52, 18.5, Wal-Mart

10. Walton, Helen R., United States, 81, 18.5, Wal-Mart

12. Quandt, Johanna and family, Germany, 74, 17.8, BMW

13. Ballmer, Steven Anthony, United States, 45, 16.6, Microsoft

14. Thomson, Kenneth and family, Canada, 77, 16.4, publishing

15. Bettencourt, Liliane, France, 75, 15.6, L'Oreal

16. Anschutz, Philip F., United States, 61, 15.3, Qwest Communications

17. Kamprad, Ingvar, Sweden, 75, 13, Ikea

18. Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong, 73, 12.6, diversified

18. Redstone, Sumner M., United States, 78, 12.6, Viacom

20. Kirch, Leo, Germany, 74, 12, media

21. Anthony, Barbara Cox, United States, 77, 11.7, Cox Enterprises

21. Chambers, Anne Cox, United States, 81, 11.7, Cox Enterprises

23. Kwok brothers, Walter, Thomas, Raymond, Hong Kong, 11.5, real estate

24. Kluge, John Werner, United States, 86, 10.9, Metromedia

25. Slim Helu, Carlos, Mexico, 61, 10.8, telecom

26. Arnault, Bernard, France, 52, 10.7, LVMH

27. Bertarelli, Ernesto and family, Switzerland, 35, 10.5, biotech

27. Dell, Michael, United States, 36, 10.5, Dell Computer

29. Berlusconi, Silvio, Italy, 64, 10.3, media

30. Johnson, Abigail, United States, 39, 9.1, Fidelity Investments

31. Mars, Forrest Edward Jr., United States, 69, 9, candy

31. Mars, Jacqueline Badger, United States, 61, 9, candy

31. Mars, John Franklyn, United States, 65, 9, candy

31. Rausing, Kirsten and family, Sweden, 48, 9, packaging

35. Ergen, Charles, United States, 48, 8.8, satellite TV

35. Turner, Robert E. (Ted), United States, 62, 8.8, Turner Broadcasting

37. Takei, Yasuo and family, Japan, 71, 8.3, consumer finance

38. Olayan, Suliman, Saudi Arabia, 82, 8, investments

39. Murdoch, Keith Rupert, United States, 70, 7.8, publishing

40. Rausing, Hans, Sweden, 75, 7.7, packaging

40. Saji, Nobutada and family, Japan, 55, 7.7, Suntory

42. Premji, Azim and family, India, 55, 6.9, software

43. Del Vecchio, Leonardo, Italy, 66, 6.6, eyewear

43. Ortega, Amancio, Spain, 65, 6.6, retail

45. Grosvenor, Gerald Cavendish, Britain, 49, 6.5, real estate

46. Kerkorian, Kirk, United States, 84, 6.4, investments

47. Pinault, Francois, France, 64, 6.3, retail

47. Schwab, Charles R., United States, 64, 6.3, Charles Schwab

49. Landolt, Pierre and family, Switzerland, 53, 6.1, Novartis

50. Al-Kharafi, Nasser and family, Kuwait, 58, 6, contractor

50. Soros, George, United States, 70, 6, money manager

52. Lee Shau Kee, Hong Kong, 73, 5.9, real estate

53. Broad, Eli, United States, 68, 5.8, real estate

54. Goodnight, James, United States, 58, 5.7, software

55. Kino****a, Kyosuke and family, Japan, 61, 5.6, consumer finance

55. Son, Masayoshi, Japan, 43, 5.6, Softbank

57. Benetton, Luciano and family, Italy, 66, 5.5, Benetton

57. Pritzker, Robert Alan, United States, 75, 5.5, financier

57. Pritzker, Thomas J., United States, 51, 5.5, inheritance

60. Curt, Engelhorn, Germany, 75, 5.4, pharmaceuticals

60. Halley, Paul-Louis and family, France, 66, 5.4, Carrefour

60. Moore, Gordon Earle, United States, 72, 5.4, Intel

60. Plattner, Hasso, Germany, 57, 5.4, SAP

64. Cisneros, Gustavo and family, Venezuela, 56, 5.3, media

64. Flick, Friedrich Karl Jr., Germany, 74, 5.3, diversified

64. Haefner, Walter, Switzerland, 90, 5.3, software

64. Persson, Stefan, Sweden, 53, 5.3, Hennes & Mauritz

68. Fukuda, Yo****aka, Japan, 53, 5.2, consumer finance

69. Lerner, Alfred, United States, 68, 5.1, banking

70. Newhouse, Donald Edward, United States, 71, 5, media

70. Newhouse, Samuel Irving Jr., United States, 73, 5, media

70. Otto, Michael and family, Germany, 58, 5, retailing

70. Wertheimer, Alain and Gerard, France, 5, Chanel

70. von Finck, August, Germany, 71, 5, investments

75. Dassault, Serge and family, France, 76, 4.9, aviation

76. Herz, Gunter and family, Germany, 60, 4.8, retailing

76. Yanai, Tadashi, Japan, 52, 4.8, Fast Retailing

78. Gerling, Rolf, Germany, 46, 4.7, insurance

79. Johnson, Edward Crosby III, United States, 71, 4.6, Fidelity Investments

79. Latsis, Spiros and family, Greece, 54, 4.6, banking

79. von Holtzbrinck, Dieter and family, Germany, 59, 4.6, media/entertainment

82. Bloomberg, Michael Rubens, United States, 58, 4.5, financial news

82. Davis, Marvin H., United States, 75, 4.5, oil

82. Ito, Masatoshi, Japan, 77, 4.5, retail

82. Johnson, Samuel Curtis, United States, 73, 4.5, S.C. Johnson & Son

82. Mendoza, Lorenzo and family, Venezuela, 35, 4.5, beer

82. Mohn, Reinhard, Germany, 80, 4.5, media/entertainment

82. Omidyar, Pierre M., United States, 44, 4.5, eBay

82. Oppenheimer, Nicky and family, South Africa, 56, 4.5, DeBeers

90. Irving, James, Arthur and John, Canada, 4.4, oil

90. Oetker, Rudolf and family, Germany, 84, 4.4, diversified

92. Bass, Lee Marshall, United States, 45, 4.3, oil, investments

92. Greenberg, Maurice Raymond, United States, 76, 4.3, AIG

92. Knight, Philip H., United States, 63, 4.3, Nike

95. Iwasaki, Fukuzo, Japan, 76, 4.2, real estate

96. Arison, Micky, United States, 52, 4.1, cruise ships

96. Wang, Patrick, Hong Kong, 50, 4.1, micromotors

98. Annenberg, Walter Hubert, United States, 92, 4, publishing

98. Bren, Donald L., United States, 69, 4, real estate

98. Haub, Erivan and family, Germany, 68, 4, retailing

98. Heineken, Alfred, Netherlands, 77, 4, Heineken

98. Warner, H. Ty, United States, 57, 4, Beanie Babies

98. Weston, Galen and family, Canada, 60, 4, retail

[luckydevil]

I am going to post this tidbit again

Only 5% of the 400 richest Americans in 1992 were still in the same category in 2000.

I find that to be pretty amazing.

What do we call that?

Oh yeah, income mobility

[jbooma]

Originally posted by luckydevil

I am going to post this tidbit again

Only 5% of the 400 richest Americans in 1992 were still in the same category in 2000.

I find that to be pretty amazing.

What do we call that?

Oh yeah, income mobility

nah, just got lucky with the stock market

Look in NOVA, we have so many dam AOL millionaires everywhere and they did nothing to earn it :doh:

[Art]

Originally posted by Die Hard

That was the thesis I was arguing.

I offered Paris Hilton. You counter-offered Dan Snyder as "fact".

That's your suplex?

Ok, so you were arguing something I wrote to you before I asked you to assess the appropriate way to measure income mobility. Gotcha. The "suplex", for the record, was you walking into a round-house punch by deciding to brand me as a pampered, privileged man from a wealthy family without knowing the answer. The assessment on Hilton and Snyder was factually based as well. Going by the Forbes lists of wealthiest Americans, most are deemed "self-made" rather than wealthy through inheritance. And as I'm sure you'd agree, as you go lower and lower, you find more and more people who are self-made as we're not talking about such incredible wealth as the Top 400 Forbes looks at.

The you offered silly made-up numbers like:

Hard to argue with numbers you made up in your head.

I did not offer silly or made-up numbers in the slightest. I've told others and I'll tell you, your lack of knowledge is not something I'll apologize for. Again, measured by the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, it lists 54 as being self-made and 46 as having inherited. I said "I think" because I couldn't recall if that was 56 as self-made versus 44 as inherited so I gave the benefit to the number that slights my position the most.

So, this is twice now in this thread that your individual lack of knowledge has hurt you and a factual view has diminished the weight of your words. I understand being stung by that Die Hard. Please, though, don't assume I'm making something up just because you don't know it. As this is three times in recent threads where you lacked factual knowledge I've had to provide you after you've made a foolish comment (the third being the U.N. and veto powers within) I will ask that from here on you assume what I say is a fact until you even things up and invalidate what I say with facts. It's only fair.

But when each of those parents die - and trust me... rich people aren't invincible or immortal - their wealth doesn't disappear.

No, it doesn't. The government takes half of it. The rest goes to the family.

For sake of argument.. there may have at one point been 46 hard-working Americans in the top 100... but in less then 30 years after they've accumulated that wealth... they die.

And they leave behind 100 silver-spooned babies who enjoy the wealth and privilege that their parents couldn't take with them to the grave.

And that 1-10% has had quite a strangehold on the 70% of your nation's wealth. And the disparity grows every day.

And while, in fact, there MAY be a VERY VERY VERY VERY small percentage who cracks that 1% and made it on their own merit... it certainly isn't the norm. As evidenced by the statistics I provided.

And for the remaining 90-99% of the population who has to share the rest of the 30% of the nation's wealth... I don't treat them as indignant as some do.

Ahh, Die Hard, you REALLY are utterly without clue my friend. Your presentation here largely assumes once money is in the economy no one else can ever acquire it. You discount the entirity of the technology boom and all the billions made there. You ignore that entire industries and businesses have formed, creating new wealth within the last generation that didn't exist before that.

Talk Wal-Mart as an example. Five of the top 10 are Walton's family. But this is a recent generational thing. New money, as it happens. Gates, Jobs, Balmer, Dell, Ellison, etc., are all new money folks who got there on their own. Again, the best estimate on your beliefs is the Forbes 400 list itself. The majority of people on that list are "self-made" as assessed by Forbes. And that's only at the VERY top. As you get lower and lower you find more and more people who are largely there through work.

And even those who are there due to inheritance may also be very hard workers who are expanding the fortune -- like the Mars family boys.

The statistics you provided prove absolutely nothing. In fact, it confirms the exceptional income mobility available in America. Bill Gates was once a member of the lowest earning group in America. He's now the top guy there is. All the stats you provided show is in a stagnant view of top earners and lower earners that the gap is widening. That doesn't reflect mobility within the various levels of earning power.

[Art]

JB,

Your list isn't really on point. First, we're not talking about the world's wealthy, just America. Second, if the list says a person's money comes from Wal-Mart, that doesn't mean they built the company and earned it. It could mean they inherited. You have to go into the Forbes list and do something of a manual count to see who Forbes brands self-made versus inheritance.

[Riggo-toni]

Any debate about estate taxes is out of touch with reality.

The Gates, Waltons, etc. of the world have enough $$$ to hire accountants and lawyers to completely avoid paying any estate taxes by transferring shares, setting up trusts, etc.

The people who get hit with estate taxes are far more likely to be business owners and family farmers; and higher estate taxes typically force such family businesses into insolvency - not a good thing imo.

A far better solution would be a modest (ie 8%) flat tax on estates. This would actually bring in more revenue, since it would make it less worthwhile for the wealthiest to push their assets into shelters and such.