http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...xes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...to-pay-higher-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...to-pay-higher-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

Low taxes are not a gimmick, they are a really good way to make the economy
boom. Don't forget the spending end of the equation. When they talk about
"making tough choices" in politics, they are supposed to mean that they won't
overspend, but the voters want it both ways.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
John Husvar wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...t-to-pay-highe
r-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

It's true. There just aren't enough filthy rich people.

As a practical matter, the middle class carries the burden, because the poor
don't have the money, and the rich don't have the numbers.

I think the information is at the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the US Census.
What you want is the distribution of income versus number of taxpayers at that
income level. Ed Huntress probably know exactly where to look.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
John Husvar wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...t-to-pay-highe
r-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

It's true. There just aren't enough filthy rich people.

As a practical matter, the middle class carries the burden, because the
poor
don't have the money, and the rich don't have the numbers.

I think the information is at the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the US
Census.
What you want is the distribution of income versus number of taxpayers at
that
income level. Ed Huntress probably know exactly where to look.

Joe Gwinn

The data on actual tax revenues is in the IRS statistics. Census is where
I'd go first to find out how many people are making how much money.

This is not a hard one, and it's good practice for someone to see how to dig
out facts. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:13:35 -0400, John Husvar
wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...to-pay-higher-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

Nope..couldnt find it.

Though I did find an interesting factoid..

If every adult on the planet was given a 1500 sq foot home and placed
all together...it wouldnt fill up Texas.

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The data on actual tax revenues is in the IRS statistics. Census is where
I'd go first to find out how many people are making how much money.

How did the Census find out how much I make? After answering one on how many live at my
residence, I stop filling out the form. Enumerated means counted in my book.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The data on actual tax revenues is in the IRS statistics. Census is where
I'd go first to find out how many people are making how much money.

How did the Census find out how much I make? After answering one on how
many live at my
residence, I stop filling out the form. Enumerated means counted in my
book.

Wes

Census does a lot more than count heads. Here's the personal income page. It
explains how they get income data:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

--
Ed Huntress

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...to-pay-higher-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly,
it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.

On 2010-04-11, Buerste wrote:

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...to-pay-higher-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly,
it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.

There is probably a lot of truth to that stament, but..

Then why are you worrying so much about your personal taxes?

i

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:08:57 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly,
it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.
===========
That's the claim, but I doubt it.

To be sure the money/wealth would again be quickly concentrated
into a few hands, but most likely these would be different hands.

In many cases, the founder of the fortune/dynasty passed on years
ago, and his heirs have no real idea how he did it, only a
collection of family myths/legends.

In other cases the socio-economic/cultural/political
circumstances [and luck] that allowed the growth of the original
dynasty/trust have completely changed, e.g. Rockefeller would be
unable to re-establish an oil monopoly, Sam Walton would be
unable to reestablish Walmart, etc.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 2010-04-11, F George McDuffee wrote:
To be sure the money/wealth would again be quickly concentrated
into a few hands, but most likely these would be different hands.

In many cases, the founder of the fortune/dynasty passed on years
ago, and his heirs have no real idea how he did it, only a
collection of family myths/legends.

Great point and it is something that I completely missed.

I remember how years ago, my girlfriend had a side job and worked at a
house occupied by a rich family, with several adult siblings living
together.

I was invited ones to look and was kind of impressed, these heirs
lived a life of leisure, seemed very kind to one another, I remember
how they sat in chairs and discussed civilly some latest developments
of something. They were just very nice people all around. I would not
terribly mind such life for my kids.

It seemed to be great in very many ways, but for sure they would not
be able to re-earn their wealth, if it was redistributed.

In other cases the socio-economic/cultural/political
circumstances [and luck] that allowed the growth of the original
dynasty/trust have completely changed, e.g. Rockefeller would be
unable to re-establish an oil monopoly, Sam Walton would be
unable to reestablish Walmart, etc.

I would invest, on the spot, into any business that Sam Walton would
open, in this hypothetical scenario.

i

"Ignoramus27467" wrote in message
news snip
There is probably a lot of truth to that stament, but..

Then why are you worrying so much about your personal taxes?

i

So, I hear you were gang raped. Your butt will heal so why would you care
if you were violated and there is nothing to stop you from being gang raped
again and again?

"Ignoramus27467" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-11, F George McDuffee
wrote:
To be sure the money/wealth would again be quickly concentrated
into a few hands, but most likely these would be different hands.

In many cases, the founder of the fortune/dynasty passed on years
ago, and his heirs have no real idea how he did it, only a
collection of family myths/legends.

Great point and it is something that I completely missed.

I remember how years ago, my girlfriend had a side job and worked at a
house occupied by a rich family, with several adult siblings living
together.

I was invited ones to look and was kind of impressed, these heirs
lived a life of leisure, seemed very kind to one another, I remember
how they sat in chairs and discussed civilly some latest developments
of something. They were just very nice people all around. I would not
terribly mind such life for my kids.

It seemed to be great in very many ways, but for sure they would not
be able to re-earn their wealth, if it was redistributed.

In other cases the socio-economic/cultural/political
circumstances [and luck] that allowed the growth of the original
dynasty/trust have completely changed, e.g. Rockefeller would be
unable to re-establish an oil monopoly, Sam Walton would be
unable to reestablish Walmart, etc.

I would invest, on the spot, into any business that Sam Walton would
open, in this hypothetical scenario.

i

Don't you think your kids deserve the fruits of your labor more than the
cheese-checkers? Why do you have ANY assets? There are people with nothing
that DESERVE your stuff? Why should you work hard to provide for your
family...somebody else will.

I once met a staunch Communist. I asked him how it works. "If you had four
chickens and your neighbor had none, would you give him two chickens?" "Of
course! That's how it works!", he said. "If you had two pigs and your
neighbor had none, would you give him a pig?" "Of course! That's how it
works!", he said. "If you had two cows and your neighbor had none, would
you give him a cow?" "NO!" he said, "I HAVE two cows!"

How many "cows" do you have? I'm sure you have neighbors that don't have an
air compressor or a lathe, or a mill or as much money as you.

On Apr 11, 12:38*am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us

I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly,
it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.

===========
That's the claim, but I doubt it. *

To be sure the money/wealth would again be quickly concentrated
into a few hands, but most likely these would be different hands.


Unka George *(George McDuffee)
..............................

I think the claim may be right on. It isn't so much that those with
wealth are so good at gaining wealth. But most of those that had
little money before, would do the same things that caused them to have
little money. Money would be spent with abandon by many of the
population, so gaining wealth would be relatively easy.

I agree that among the wealthy, there would be some new faces. But
Warren Buffet would still be one of the wealthy.

Dan

On 2010-04-11, Buerste wrote:

Don't you think your kids deserve the fruits of your labor more than the
cheese-checkers?

When you say "deserve", it implies some kind of a moral judgment.

So, I hate to say it, but I am not sure why my kids "deserve" this
more than, possibly, somebody else's kids who might be better in some
respects.

Would I like them to get fruits of my labor? Sure, I love them and
want the best for them. I am not even sure, yet, if they are the kinds
of people who would be helped, or hurt, by economic help from
parents. I hope that they would be helped. If so, I would like to help
them get started in life. All of that said, I would prefer if they
could be self sufficient people who can do well on their own.

Why do you have ANY assets? There are people with nothing that
DESERVE your stuff? Why should you work hard to provide for your
family...somebody else will.

Keep in mind that I am still not subject to estate tax, so this is all
abstract. I hope that I will be, later.

I feel that I owe this country for my success because I could never be
as well off, even relatively, where I came from. So, I think, at the
very least, I should not object to sharing some of what I earn or
gain.

I do not think that perpetual dynasties of rich people would help this
society to become better.

Estate tax or not, at this time, will have no effect on how hard
I work.

I once met a staunch Communist. I asked him how it works. "If you had four
chickens and your neighbor had none, would you give him two chickens?" "Of
course! That's how it works!", he said. "If you had two pigs and your
neighbor had none, would you give him a pig?" "Of course! That's how it
works!", he said. "If you had two cows and your neighbor had none, would
you give him a cow?" "NO!" he said, "I HAVE two cows!"

Did you really meet that person or did you make it up?

How many "cows" do you have? I'm sure you have neighbors that don't have an
air compressor or a lathe, or a mill or as much money as you.

I cannot know, maybe my neighbors are wealthier than me. It is hard to
tell. The book "The millionnaire next door" was a big revelation to
me, as it showed that most millionaires live a middle class
lifestyle. Of course, these days, being a millionaire does not amount
to much, due to rise in living standards and inflation.

The bottom line is that I have no objection to some reasonable level
of estate taxes.

i

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 04:35:33 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Don't you think your kids deserve the fruits of your labor more than the
cheese-checkers? Why do you have ANY assets? There are people with nothing
that DESERVE your stuff? Why should you work hard to provide for your
family...somebody else will.
snip
============

Don't set up a straw man.

The discussion was about the reconcentration of wealth by a few
owners.

As indicated, even if the money/wealth {i.e. productive assets}
were equally distributed, in very short order these would again
become concentrated.

My suggestion is that these would most likely be different
owners/controllers, for several reasons, among which are that the
original founders of the large American fortunes/dynasties have
for the most part passed, and their heirs generally have no idea
how the fortune/dynasty was founded.

It should be noted that different personalities are required at
different stages of estate development. The entrepreneur that
founds the fortune is likely not the person best suited to the
maintenance/growth of the dynasty. Conversely, individuals that
may do very well in the maintainer/management of great wealth may
be poorly suited to the creation of the original wealth.

Another problem is that there must be a match between the
[personality of the] founder of a fortune/dynasty and the
times/locations in which they live, in addition to the very
important factor of luck. While "chance may indeed favor the
prepared mind," it is still chance, and how many times can you
draw to an inside straight? One example is Sam Walton/Wal-Mart.
If Sam had been born and raised in a large urban area such as NY,
Chicago, or LA, would/could he have created Wal-Mart?

Now for the straw man. You do however raise an interesting point,
and one that brings into focus the problem that what is "fair"
for the individual may be unfair and even harmful for society in
the long-term or aggregate.

"Mortmain" {literal "dead hand"} has been a legal problem back
into at least the middle ages, and refers to the control of
property by the long dead through the conditions of their wills
and trusts, such as entailed estates that could not be divided
among several heirs, but had to pass as a unit to a new owner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

In the United States the rule against perpetuities has been
abolished by statute in Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, and South
Dakota. Twenty-eight other U.S. states have adopted the Uniform
Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, which validates non-vested
interests that would otherwise be void under the common law rule
if that interest actually vests within 90 years of its creation.

It should be noted where economies have become dominated by
"mainmort" "trusts" and other pools of inherited wealth, progress
of any kind is very slow, wealth distribution tends to become
increasingly unequal, and social stability is increasingly
marginal, e.g. Mexico and most of Latin America.

Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Ignoramus4694" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-11, Buerste wrote:

Don't you think your kids deserve the fruits of your labor more than the
cheese-checkers?

When you say "deserve", it implies some kind of a moral judgment.

So, I hate to say it, but I am not sure why my kids "deserve" this
more than, possibly, somebody else's kids who might be better in some
respects.

Would I like them to get fruits of my labor? Sure, I love them and
want the best for them. I am not even sure, yet, if they are the kinds
of people who would be helped, or hurt, by economic help from
parents. I hope that they would be helped. If so, I would like to help
them get started in life. All of that said, I would prefer if they
could be self sufficient people who can do well on their own.

Why do you have ANY assets? There are people with nothing that
DESERVE your stuff? Why should you work hard to provide for your
family...somebody else will.

Keep in mind that I am still not subject to estate tax, so this is all
abstract. I hope that I will be, later.

I feel that I owe this country for my success because I could never be
as well off, even relatively, where I came from. So, I think, at the
very least, I should not object to sharing some of what I earn or
gain.

I do not think that perpetual dynasties of rich people would help this
society to become better.

Estate tax or not, at this time, will have no effect on how hard
I work.

I once met a staunch Communist. I asked him how it works. "If you had
four
chickens and your neighbor had none, would you give him two chickens?"
"Of
course! That's how it works!", he said. "If you had two pigs and your
neighbor had none, would you give him a pig?" "Of course! That's how it
works!", he said. "If you had two cows and your neighbor had none, would
you give him a cow?" "NO!" he said, "I HAVE two cows!"

Did you really meet that person or did you make it up?

How many "cows" do you have? I'm sure you have neighbors that don't have
an
air compressor or a lathe, or a mill or as much money as you.

I cannot know, maybe my neighbors are wealthier than me. It is hard to
tell. The book "The millionnaire next door" was a big revelation to
me, as it showed that most millionaires live a middle class
lifestyle. Of course, these days, being a millionaire does not amount
to much, due to rise in living standards and inflation.

The bottom line is that I have no objection to some reasonable level
of estate taxes.

i

Very well said! I think we understand each other's points. And yes, that
Communist story is real...and telling.

Old money disappears if it is not handled shrewdly, there is a built-in
mechanism to extract it from stupid people. Being a millionaire is nothing
anymore, one had better be if one has any hope of a retirement that doesn't
include endless meals of cat food and beans and rice, medical trips to the
free clinic and living in squalor in a bad part of town.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
snip
Don't set up a straw man.

The discussion was about the reconcentration of wealth by a few
owners.

As indicated, even if the money/wealth {i.e. productive assets}
were equally distributed, in very short order these would again
become concentrated.

My suggestion is that these would most likely be different
owners/controllers, for several reasons, among which are that the
original founders of the large American fortunes/dynasties have
for the most part passed, and their heirs generally have no idea
how the fortune/dynasty was founded.

It should be noted that different personalities are required at
different stages of estate development. The entrepreneur that
founds the fortune is likely not the person best suited to the
maintenance/growth of the dynasty. Conversely, individuals that
may do very well in the maintainer/management of great wealth may
be poorly suited to the creation of the original wealth.

Another problem is that there must be a match between the
[personality of the] founder of a fortune/dynasty and the
times/locations in which they live, in addition to the very
important factor of luck. While "chance may indeed favor the
prepared mind," it is still chance, and how many times can you
draw to an inside straight? One example is Sam Walton/Wal-Mart.
If Sam had been born and raised in a large urban area such as NY,
Chicago, or LA, would/could he have created Wal-Mart?

Now for the straw man. You do however raise an interesting point,
and one that brings into focus the problem that what is "fair"
for the individual may be unfair and even harmful for society in
the long-term or aggregate.

"Mortmain" {literal "dead hand"} has been a legal problem back
into at least the middle ages, and refers to the control of
property by the long dead through the conditions of their wills
and trusts, such as entailed estates that could not be divided
among several heirs, but had to pass as a unit to a new owner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

In the United States the rule against perpetuities has been
abolished by statute in Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, and South
Dakota. Twenty-eight other U.S. states have adopted the Uniform
Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, which validates non-vested
interests that would otherwise be void under the common law rule
if that interest actually vests within 90 years of its creation.

It should be noted where economies have become dominated by
"mainmort" "trusts" and other pools of inherited wealth, progress
of any kind is very slow, wealth distribution tends to become
increasingly unequal, and social stability is increasingly
marginal, e.g. Mexico and most of Latin America.

Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................

It seems that you, and most people think of wealth as a finite thing. I
believe that it is NOT! More and more wealth CAN be created. When all the
talk is about cutting up the pie...I say make a bigger pie. Yet look at all
the politically motivated restraints on new wealth creation. Why is that?
I see it as schadenfreude by those in power and a way for them to control
political power. They have no power if the masses are prosperous.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The data on actual tax revenues is in the IRS statistics. Census is where
I'd go first to find out how many people are making how much money.

How did the Census find out how much I make? After answering one on how
many live at my
residence, I stop filling out the form. Enumerated means counted in my
book.

Wes

Did you find the answer you're looking for?

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/10/2010 5:08 PM, Buerste wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mee...to-pay-higher-
taxes-2010-04-09

I certainly share their sentiment.

Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who
thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to
the sky, eventually something will have to be done.

i

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly,
it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.



No. That's a fallacy. If the wealth were actually redistributed evenly
it probably would wind up in the hands of a small group of people again
and most people would be back to having little or nothing. The
difference is that the money would not go back to those who were the
original owners. They are just as likely to wind up with nothing as
anyone else. But the rich would like you to believe they have something
you don't that would allow them to become rich again. They don't.

Hawke

On Apr 11, 6:34*pm, Hawke wrote:

No. That's a fallacy. If the wealth were actually redistributed evenly
it probably would wind up in the hands of a small group of people again
and most people would be back to having little or nothing. The
difference is that the money would not go back to those who were the
original owners. They are just as likely to wind up with nothing as
anyone else. But the rich would like you to believe they have something
you don't that would allow them to become rich again. They don't.

Hawke

If you would just throw in a few " I believe's " I would not have any
problem with your statement. But you express your views as if they
are facts.

If you actually have some logical arguments as to why your statement
is true, you really ought to show your logic.

My belief is that those that have little now would soon be back to
having little. Those that are rich now by their own efforts, would
soon be rich again. Those that inherited money and did not fritter it
away, would likely accumulate some money again. Probably not is
much. But that is just my belief. I do not see anyway to verify what
would happen.

Dan

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Did you find the answer you're looking for?

I searched around a bit and went to bed but your post reminded me to look again.

Now how they get the data, looking at your link and learning a couple key words I googled
up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey

Then after that I found this on your link:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_236sa.pdf

There are a certain percentage of non responses, I believe it was ~7 percent or so for the
CPS and ~7 percent for the annual social and economic supplement. I'm surprised they got
~93 percent compliance on the CPS.


I tried to make sense of some of the data but when they use $250,000 and up for the last
group, so I don't have anything to work with, especially when that is a median number that
tends to exclude the outliers and the really big ones on the right side of the chart is
what I was interested in. IIRC, the topic is how would redistributing the income of the
wealthy would affect the poorer members of society.


Wes

Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Did you find the answer you're looking for?

I searched around a bit and went to bed but your post reminded me to
look again.

Now how they get the data, looking at your link and learning a couple
key words I googled up this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey

Then after that I found this on your link:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_236sa.pdf

There are a certain percentage of non responses, I believe it was ~7
percent or so for the CPS and ~7 percent for the annual social and
economic supplement. I'm surprised they got ~93 percent compliance
on the CPS.


I tried to make sense of some of the data but when they use $250,000
and up for the last group, so I don't have anything to work with,
especially when that is a median number that tends to exclude the
outliers and the really big ones on the right side of the chart is
what I was interested in. IIRC, the topic is how would
redistributing the income of the wealthy would affect the poorer
members of society.

An equally interesting one is how it would affect the wealthy.
I know it's counterintuitive but letting the Bush era tax cuts expire would
actually get top earners back on the stick.
All of the talk you might hear about dissincentives is just BS. That isn't
how the world works if you are taxed at the marginal rates American's are.

--
John R. Carroll

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Did you find the answer you're looking for?

I searched around a bit and went to bed but your post reminded me to look
again.

Now how they get the data, looking at your link and learning a couple key
words I googled
up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey

Then after that I found this on your link:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_236sa.pdf

There are a certain percentage of non responses, I believe it was ~7
percent or so for the
CPS and ~7 percent for the annual social and economic supplement. I'm
surprised they got
~93 percent compliance on the CPS.


I tried to make sense of some of the data but when they use $250,000 and
up for the last
group, so I don't have anything to work with, especially when that is a
median number that
tends to exclude the outliers and the really big ones on the right side of
the chart is
what I was interested in. IIRC, the topic is how would redistributing the
income of the
wealthy would affect the poorer members of society.


Wes

I haven't looked. Maybe you'll find an answer at the IRS site. Happy
hunting. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus4694 wrote:

The average guy, come to town, heard hundred dollar bills were just
laying in the streets and sees a nickel there on the sidewalk just
walks right on by. The guy that's gonna get rich picks it up.

Yep. I always pick up pennies.

I hold out for nickels. I don't bend so good.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 4/11/2010 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:34 pm, wrote:

No. That's a fallacy. If the wealth were actually redistributed evenly
it probably would wind up in the hands of a small group of people again
and most people would be back to having little or nothing. The
difference is that the money would not go back to those who were the
original owners. They are just as likely to wind up with nothing as
anyone else. But the rich would like you to believe they have something
you don't that would allow them to become rich again. They don't.

Hawke

If you would just throw in a few " I believe's " I would not have any
problem with your statement. But you express your views as if they
are facts.

If you actually have some logical arguments as to why your statement
is true, you really ought to show your logic.

My belief is that those that have little now would soon be back to
having little. Those that are rich now by their own efforts, would
soon be rich again. Those that inherited money and did not fritter it
away, would likely accumulate some money again. Probably not is
much. But that is just my belief. I do not see anyway to verify what
would happen.

Dan



The reason I put what I said the way I did is because the theory about
all the money winding up in the same people's hands has been around a
long, long time. I heard it over 30 years ago. I also heard all the
arguments for and against it. The whole theory is based on a defense of
rich people and an attack on the poor. It's based on the idea of the
superiority of the rich and that they have attributes that the poor lack
and that is why they are rich. But in actual studies of who is rich it
turns out there is a lot of luck or chance involved in it. It's also a
hypothetical so it can't be tested. No one can take all the wealth and
spread it around evenly so that blows the whole theory. All you have to
remember is that roughly half of all the wealth in the country is
inherited wealth. Of the other half it's not simply a matter of hard
work or brains or any other trait. The world is full of smart, hard
working people who aren't rich and there are plenty of rich idiots out
there. So the whole thing is pretty silly. There is a lot to be said for
the idea that if everyone started from scratch the money would probably
wind up unequally distributed. Who would wind up rich is anyone's guess.
As long as you have a trait society deems "valuable" you would wind up
with more money than the average guy. As long as you are talking about a
free market. In another system who knows what would happen.

Hawke