Forum Post: Do not believe Scammersworld's outrageous claim that the richest 2% in America owned just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'. I promise to shatter that outrageous claim next week. Update: The claim has been shattered.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 12, 2012, 8:51 p.m. EST by ModestCapitalist
(2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Scammersworld has provided sources which he swears back up his outrageous claim that America's richest 2% combined owned just 21.1% of its private wealth 8 years ago.
A portion of his claim:
"21.1% owned by the top 2% of Americans...not 43% owned by the top 1%....oops, your figures are bullshit......"
As I told Scammersworld, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. I will visit the local library within the next few days, print and scrutinize all relevant data from his sources and return to let you know what forms of wealth and/or debt he left out in order to draw such an outrageous conclusion.
Mark my words: The richest 2% held MUCH MORE than 21.1% of America's private wealth even back in '04'. His assertion isn't even in the ballpark. I have already asked him several times if he considered ALL FORMS of wealth and debt when drawing his conclusion.
He hasn't answered.
I know that his latest assertion regarding the distribution of wealth in '04' is nothing but die-hard conservative head-in-the-sand partisan puppet crap. I know that it is off by around 100%. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. I know it beyond any shadow of a doubt. What I don't know just yet is what forms of wealth and/or debt he excluded in order to spin up such an outrageous lowball estimate.
I promise all of you that I will visit the sites he has provided, print the relevant pages, and prove his assertion regarding the distribution of wealth in '04' to be off by around 100%. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
In the meantime, perhaps Scammersworld will have the guts to answer the question I have asked him several times:
Scammersworld. Did you consider ALL FORMS of private wealth and debt when you drew your conclusion that the richest 2% in America held just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'?
Yes or no.
Update: The claim has been shattered.
FATAL FLAW: Scammersworld's assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Scammersworld's assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
He has already admitted (sort of) that he failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making his assertion. His exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still he implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that he previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of his 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless one also has the ability to think critically.
Scammersworld should take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Scammersworld's original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
Scammersworld's assertion was off by around 100% or more.
Here is another one. A SENIOR ECONOMIST ON THE BOARD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE went on record a few years back with a claim that approximately 1/3 of total US household wealth was held by the richest 1% in 2001.
A SENIOR FUCKING ECONOMIST ON THE BOARD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE! WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT SCAMMERSWORLD?
Let me guess. You don't approve of his methods? Thats what I thought you would say. But as I've told you over and over and over, your 'official data' from the IRS based on the 'reported assets' in a single given year just doesn't cut it.
A SENIOR FUCKING ECONOMIST ON THE BOARD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE WENT ON RECORD WITH A CLAIM THAT APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF AMERICA'S TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH WAS HELD BY THE RICHEST 1% in 2001.
A quote from the report:
"In 2001, the division of wealth observed in the SCF attributed about a third each to the wealthiest 1 percent, the next wealthiest 9 percent, and the remaining 90 percent of the population."
Sorry Charlie. The evidence is stacking up pretty high. You're wrong.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf
well i think its funny that most of us dont even have an ira account, or a 401k savings, or a portfolio, mostly only people who got rich off the backs of others lost their asses on wall street, like the old saying goes, "he that digs a pit for his neighbor he shall fall in the pit". Amen
The Federal Reserve Banking System values their gold at 42.22 per oz. whereas the current market value is about 40 times that. Talk about understating assets!
The real problem with assessing the wealth of the most affluent is that there are banking havens where trillions are hidden, beyond the reach of US government agencies. Consider that one of the largest industries in the US is the illicit drug trade. Drug lords don't typically report their profits to the IRS.
google for N987SA and N900SA. That comes to about 9 metric tons of pure cocaine. I'm not sure what a gram of blow is going for these days, but if it were $100, that's just shy of a billion dollars on those two planes which just happened to accidentally get caught.
We have to assume that this is the tip of the iceberg. In order for that amount of cash to change hands, even if the wholesaler is turning it at 1% of street value, there have to be complicit financial institutions. Guess what happens to the honest players in a rigged game? If this has been going on for decades - and it has - what does that say about the people now at the top?
This is well worth the half-hour or so it will take to read with comprehension:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/narcoDollars.html
And what kind of evil, racist scum was pouring crack cocain into the inner cities of the US while black communities were becoming war zones?
http://www.bushclintonfraud.com/bush_clinton.jpg
they aren't paying taxes or taking part in the Survey of Consumer Finances, either.....you have a good point, but it isn't necessarily on point, in relation to this post....but I'll check out the link
"All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011...." The Federal Reserve Banking System is a collection of Federal Reserve regional banks which are privately owned by member banks which are, in turn privately owned - by whom is not entirely clear. But, in so much as these owners are Americans, that assessment of assets understates their current market value by a factor of 40.
My point is that a lot of big money is hidden, in some cases in plain sight. For other ways kleptocrats hide assets see:
A game as old as empire: the secret world of economic hit men and the web of global corruption
http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Game_as_Old_as_Empire_EasyRead_Edition.html?id=XqEjoy4WLdcC
I've seen those charts scammersworld referred to. They are of tax filers only. The only breakdown by group is that of adult tax filers with reported assets of $1.5 million or more. There are no comparisons of US household wealth by class. Non profits aren't even excluded from the pool.
I agree with your point about big money being hidden. No doubt. The only questions are who? and how much?
I'm really not overly concerned about the specific ratios. There are bigger problems. Your dispute is about the color of the lifeboats on the Titanic. I'm looking at the iceberg and the number of lifeboats.
Why has the US spent the last 10 years at war?
The iceberg is greed. Its also part of the reason the US has spent the last 10 years at war.
Sorry friend...I don't do conspiracy theory...
Next you'll be telling me about the 33rd degree Masons
the Illuminati
the 13 bloodlines
The Rothschild's
etc
etc
Not interested
I have some issues with "Democracy Now", but I'm sure they have some valid insights into the topic of how the wealthy hide their assets. You are aware of so-called "offshore tax havens", yes?
Offshore Banking and Tax Havens Have Become Heart of Global Economy
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/15/offshore_banking_and_tax_havens_have
As millions of Americans prepare to file their income taxes ahead of Monday’s deadline, we look at how corporations and the wealthy use offshore banks and tax havens to avoid paying taxes and other governmental regulations. "Tax havens have grown so fast in the era of globalization, since the 1970s, that they are now right at the heart of the global economy and are absolutely huge," says our guest, British journalist Nicholas Shaxson. "There are anywhere between $10 and $20 trillion sitting offshore at the moment. Half of world trade is processed in one way or another through tax havens." Shaxson is the author of the new book, Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens. [includes rush transcript]
Thats a good point. Do you know of any estimates regarding US funds in offshore accounts or shelters? A ballpark would be helpful.
Not without researching it. I'm sure it's in the $trillions. Perhaps Mr. Shaxson has some figures. The problem is that these accounts are by definition not available for public or government assessment.
I doubt my neighbor has one. Perhaps scammersworld knows someone who does.
Check this out ...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/be-sure-to-spread-this-far-and-wide/#comment-587485
i promise to shatter something next week. most likely the legs of someone
I like that all my comments in response to your nonsense are voted down...can't handle the truth....Oh, I know...you can't see PDF's from your terminal, and your library is closed on the weekends......sounds like a lot of excuses to me....and you insistence on using a web posting with ALL its data based on Wolffs assumptions as fact.....
You accept Wolff assessment, but not the IRS or Federal Reserve....it's interesting to note, when you read his latest paper that he uses some of those same sources but then applies his person spin to it.....
Interesting....
You are waging a one man war against this cause and all those individuals and entities that have reported and spoken out against a growing concentration of wealth. You refer to every independent study as 'fabricated'. You have disputed every relevant claim including those of Einstein, Eccles, Wolff, Reich, and Greenspan, What do you expect?
I told you already. I spent two hours yesterday downloading Adobe reader and 10 PDFs using dial-up. I spent another 2 or 3 hours reading those PDF files. Your sources did not include any breakdown of the lower 98.8 or 97.8 percent. They did not include any side by side comparisons of US household wealth by income/wealth class. They didn't even exclude non profits from the pool.
I have taken every word, point, and reference from you seriously (except for the personal/OWS attacks). Including those of the IRS and Federal Reserve. But none of those references include a side by side comparison of total US household wealth by group. Not one of them.
Which paper are you referring to?
Wolff latest paper.....where he sources all the numbers of wealth distribution to his own calculations.....
also, the Non-Profit section of the Federal Reserve Analysis is the difference between my calculation of 21.1% and the IRS calculation of 20.3%
that's what you get when you remove the Non-Profit assets from the total net worth figure and divide it by the total net worth of those with 1.5M< of net worth.... 20.2855608805457% or rounded to the nearest tenth 20.3%
Then provide a source that makes the comparison of total 'household wealth' exclusively by class or percentile. All groups covered must collectively hold 100% of total US household wealth. This must be made crystal clear in the report. No one sided equations. Provide that source. Give me some reason to believe that your assertions based on 'official data' are more valid than those of Wolff.
I've done that...I've given you several links which contain all those components of data.....all you have to do is assemble them...but I guess you have difficulty with that, huh....you have to have your information digested and regurgitated for you....try using some critical thinking and intelligent understanding
Must everything be laid out for you by others?
My assertion is spelled out in a report by the IRS.....what does that say again?
Oh, yeah:
"In 2004, there were an estimated 2.7 million adults with gross assets of $1.5 million or more, the Federal estate tax filing threshold for decedents from that year. In total, these top wealth hold- ers owned nearly $11.1 trillion in assets. After accounting for debts and mortgages of $850.1 billion, these individuals had a combined net worth of over $10.2 trillion. Although top wealth holders made up only about 1.2 percent of the total U.S. adult population, they held 20.3 percent of the total U.S. net worth in 2004" http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulpw.pdf
No you havn't. You just keep quoting the same old crap from sources that DID NOT make any side by side comparisons of household wealth. Your entire assertion is based on the reported assets of 1.2% or 2.08% of adult tax filers. Not on total household wealth.
Name the source that reports the net worth or shares of total US household wealth held by the top1% or 2% vs the lower 98% or 99%. Do that and I'll drop everything and check it out.
Otherwise, no deal.
Apparently the IRS doesn't share your view....they found the information credible enough to publish a report on it....
I guess they forgot to ask your permission to publish their calculations
this coming from a guy who thinks youtube is a credible source, and that biased websites and partisan hacks are authorities.....official data is incomplete.....even though it's the same data used by your spin meisters before they apply their assumptions
The report was based only on the reported assets of adult tax filers. Not total household wealth. If you have the nerve to claim otherwise, stop stalling and provide that side by side comparison of total US household wealth by class or percentile.
The youtube citation I made a while back was that of prominent economist, current professor, and former secretary of labor Robert Reich. That made it relevant.
Wolff knows better than to consider only one source based exclusively on the reported assets of adult tax filers in a given year. Others do as well. This is why NO RESEARCH GROUP OR NEWS ENTITY ANYWHERE HAS SUPPORTED YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Wow are you dumb....how can you get an overall Net Worth number if you do not compare the wealth of the top Net Worth Individuals to the total net worth of ALL individuals......
The report says "adults with gross assets of $1.5 million or more..." not "tax filers".....it was generated to view those within the estate tax threshold that begins at 1.5 million dollars....
Your link doesn't make a side by side comparison of anything..it just lists percentages...it doesn't list real dollar totals by category, or compare them...which can be done with the data in the links I provided.....until you post the real dollars, by category, your assertion is incomplete...and unless you can source the data used by Wolff AND his method of calculation your assertion is flawed and incomplete....
No "research group" is present in your link either...just two guys, Domhoff and Wolff...both authors trying to sell books based on there assertions....
There is no official study, official record, or even official raw data that backs up the assertions in Domhoffs claim...so why don't you provide those things....
I know why....because you can't...you don't have the slightest clue on where to find such information or how to abstract it...unless someone cuts your information into vague little bits you can't chew it with your pea brain....
Please bring your source up to speed with mine...post the actual dollar figures and explain the method of calculation....
This isn't participation trophy world...you done win because you tried.... Unless you can back up your assertions with ACTUAL DOLLAR amounts, method of calculation, and raw data...you are just a loser basing your contentions on the work and assumptions of someone else
YOU haven't done ANY thinking...you're just a fucking parrot....
The only legitimate point you have made regarding the Wolff study is that the comparisons are made in percentages only. I would also like to see comparisons in value. But it will take a hell of a lot more to convince me that every single published report on shares of total US household wealth which ALL indicate similar concentrations of TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH are ALL WRONG and YOUR assertion is correct.
I told you before. These types of studies are nothing new. I've been reading them for over 6 years. Every published report on TOTAL US HOUSEHOLD WEALTH has indicated similar levels of concentration.
Please bring your sources up to speed with mine. Post the actual shares of US household wealth held by class or percentile and explain the method of calculation.
keep deflecting the fact that you don't know the source or accuracy of the data used in the Wolff study...which IS the one cited in most published reports (Known as news stories to thinking people)......
There aren't any "classes" in the US, that is a figment of you marxist pea-brains.......why don't you try and sell the idea of "class" to the 2/3's of the forbes 400 who created their fortunes from nothing with no advantages.......
You leftists are delusional....clearly
Did you go to school?
Keep deflecting the fact that your assertions are based only on the reported assets of 1.2% or 2.08% of adult tax filers in 2004. Not on total US household wealth.
No classes huh? Tell that to the lower 150 million Americans who's combined net worth is less than that of the richest 500 Americans combined. 400 of which you just referred to with the outrageous claim that their wealth was 'created' from nothing with no advantages.
You die-hard conservatives are delusional. Clearly.
Yes. I did. So did Einstein, Eccles, Reich, Wolff, Greenspan, Krugman, and a dozen more prominent economists who have gone on record with views similar to mine and those of my fellow protestors.
I said 2/3's...and it is a true that 2/3's of the forbes 400 are entirely self made....but, you wouldn't know that...that requires research...
you and your fellow protestors will go down in history as the do-nothings you are...you think you're winners for showing up and yelling out a few lines of nonsense.....your instructors and parents have left you wholly unprepared for the real world and you are trying to recreate the youthful fantasy world you were protected by as younger children...now that you're adult children you refuse to learn the realities of life. But, eventually you will....you'll have no choice
There is no such thing as entirely self made. Not even close unless you were abandoned in the woods as a newborn, took care of yourself, and built your entire life from resources provided by Mother Nature.
There is no such thing as a self-made Capitalist. You can not prosper under Capitalism unless you trade for and accept goods and/or services created by another. Unfortunately, that somewhat noble and productive aspect of Capitalism has been swallowed in an avalanche of greed and corruption.
Thats why we're here.
You can't just scold away human nature. This cause wasn't born from liberalism or leftism. It wasn't taught or instructed. It came about because of injustice. As more and more people worldwide feel stepped on financially, this movement will grow. We can't stop you pigs from hoarding wealth. We probably won't stop you from causing a severe US/global depression. But we can put an asterisk next to your names for future generations to consider.
Again, stupid assumptions about me. Dead wrong stupid assumptions.
There are 4 activities that occupy 90% of my time awake.
I do all the other things that Americans do in their free time. I just don't do them as often. This leaves plenty of time for those 4 activities which occupy 90% of my time awake.
So take your dumfuk assumptions and stick'em.
[Removed]
you should have at least called it Obama's Witty Soldiers or Opportunistic Wondering Socialists or my favorites, Operation Worker Solidarity. see how well the creative mind works. I could go all day. Occupation Worker Subsistence Occupying Washington's Soldiers
"In 2004, there were an estimated 2.7 million adults with gross assets of $1.5 million or more, the Federal estate tax filing threshold for decedents from that year. In total, these top wealth hold- ers owned nearly $11.1 trillion in assets. After accounting for debts and mortgages of $850.1 billion, these individuals had a combined net worth of over $10.2 trillion. Although top wealth holders made up only about 1.2 percent of the total U.S. adult population, they held 20.3 percent of the total U.S. net worth in 2004"
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulpw.pdf
Pretty much speaks for itself..I encourage everyone to go take a look.....
Scammersworld's assertion and quote is based only on the reported assets of 1.2% of adult tax filers in 2004. Not total US household wealth. There is no reference to the lower 98.8% and no side by side comparisons of total household wealth.
My source includes those comparisons.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Pretty much speaks for itself. I encourage everyone to go take a look.
no, my quote isn't an assertion, opinion or assumption...it's copied text, direct from an IRS report on the wealth of Americans with Net Worth exceeding or equal to 1.5 million dollars....NOT tax filers.....
While your link is based on the assumptions and personal calculations of Edward N. Wolff...and is posted on a leftist activist's website who is peddling his own book......
and, it's funny how your "Source" doesn't include any actual dollar figures to back up it's percentages....which are included in the various links I have provided in the various responses on the post......
I think people can judge the credibility for themselves....
The disclaimer on the site you referred to states specifically that all figures are based on the reported assets of adult tax filers in 2004. The breakdown you refer to is that of the richest 1.2% of adult tax filers. There is no reference to the lower 98.8% and no side by side comparisons of total household wealth.
Cite a source that includes that side by side comparison of HOUSEHOLD WEALTH and I'll take a look.
People can judge the credibility of various sources and the reliability of various figures. We can agree on that much.
The Wall Street Journal reported in April of 2006 that the richest 1% of households held 34.3% of total US household wealth in 2004.
Yep...a news story is a fine and credible source.......
and once again you prove that you did not read the report....it is not based on the richest 1.2% of tax filers.....
THE DISTRIBUTION AND COMPOSITION OF PERSONAL WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES ARE TOPICS OF GREAT INTEREST AMONG RESEARCHERS AND POLICY PLANNERS. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE ISSUES ARE DIFFICULT TO RESEARCH, SINCE THERE ARE FEW SOURCES OF DATA ON THE WEALTH HOLDINGS OF THE GENERAL POPULATION, ESPECIALLY THE VERY RICH. Federal estate tax returns (Form 706) provide a unique source from which to study the nation’s wealthiest individuals. The estate tax return contains A COMPLETE LISTING OF A DECEDENT’S ASSETS AND DEBTS, AS WELL AS A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE DECEDENT AND INFORMATION ON THE COSTS OF ADMINISTERING THE ESTATE. A decedent’s estate has up to 9 months to file an estate tax return, but use of a 6-month extension is common. It is, therefore, necessary to combine returns filed over a number of calendar years in order to capture data representative of all estate tax decedents dying in a single year. The estate multiplier technique is used to esti- mate the wealth of living individuals from Federal estate tax return data. The fundamental assumption underlying this methodology is that estate tax returns filed for decedents who died in a particular year represent a random sample, designated by death, of the living population in that year. Estimates of the wealth holdings of the living population are derived by applying a multiplier, based on appropriate mortality rates, to this sample....
That is why the information is compiled for 2004, genius......it is ACTUAL numbers of a sample, not the responses to a survey, or assumptions based on a survey: and I quote (from the IRS):
"SOI has combined Federal estate tax returns filed in 2004, 2005, and 2006 to produce the estimates of wealth for 2004 presented here. One of the strengths of estimates derived from SOI samples of estate tax returns is the large sample on which the estimates are based. The 2004 sample includes more than 25,800 returns."
tell me...where did your hero Wolff get his information? Guess what, he used the Federal Reserve Survey.....and then applies his own spin...
and why don't you list the actual dollar figures of his estimation?
Stop trying to deflect that question....put up the info or accept that you don't know....and that you are basing your assertions on unknown information.....based on raw data which doesn't appear to exist....just like your assertion on the distribution of taxes by income class.....another thing you cannot prove or provide the raw data or calculation methods for.......
I read that twice and found no actual representations of shares of total US household wealth held by the percentiles or classes.
Of course, its difficult to research Sherlock. Thats why I'll take the word of Wolff or the quote from any study regarding shares of total household wealth held by the percentiles or classes over your assertions which are based only on the reported assets of 1.2% or 2.08% of adult tax filers in a given year.
You've made reference to several reports. Those which indicate shares of net worth are based on the reported assets of 1.2% or 2.08% of adult tax filers in a given year. Not total US household wealth.
I told you before. I would also like to see comparisons in value in addition to percentages. But it will take a hell of a lot more to convince me that every single published report on shares of total US household wealth which ALL indicate similar concentrations of TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH are ALL WRONG and YOUR assertion is correct.
I told you before. These types of studies are nothing new. I've been reading them for over 6 years. Every published report on TOTAL US HOUSEHOLD WEALTH has indicated similar levels of concentration.
Why don't you just list the shares of total US household wealth held by the percentiles or classes?
Stop trying to deflect that question. Put up the info or accept that your sources haven't provided it. and that you are basing your assertions on unknown information. Based on raw data which only accounts for the reported assets of 1.2% or 2.08% of adult tax filers in a given year. Just like your assertion on the total Federal, State, and local rates paid by the classes. Another thing you cannot prove with raw data or calculation methods or cite any source that has.
hahaha...you aren't going to provide any information, are you...because you can't...this is the same approach you took to avoid providing information on sales and property tax by income level.....
I shouldn't expect more than that, I guess....you stick to your nonsense...no reason to join the world of intelligent people you can abstract information...you can't even comprehend what I post and respond to that...you're like a blind child....with autism
Hahaha. You aren't going to provide any comparisons of total US household wealth by percentile or class. are you. because you can't (unless you cite my sources). This is the same approach you took to avoid providing any information to debunk the comprehensive studies indicating that the rich and the middle class pay about the same total effective tax rate as a percentage of income.
I don't expect you to. Ever. You just stick to your die-hard conservative head-in-the-sand partisan puppet denial. No reason to join us free thinkers. You can't even comprehend this movement or what we stand for. You're like a blind puppet. With partisan strings.
you even parroted my post...
you are hopeless....
we're done here...keep voting down my comments with your alter-identities......since you can't win on substance...you can only deflect and distort, and NEVER back up your claims with the raw data they are constructed from or the methods of calculations used to create them...go back to your sad little life, there are intelligent people here to have discussions with...you are a hopeless waste of time....claim what you like, the opinion of your sort is unimportant......you wouldn't know or recognize a fact if it was tattooed on your chest.....
here's my youtube video post...
From one of my great mentors...good advice for dealing with people like you....a man who went from pennies to millions..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUKsRQwsbTY
There you go again. Instead of posting that side by side comparison or a reference to one, you simply say "we're done here". Of course, its not true.
Say that reminds me.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you?
The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated..... In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million: 850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000.. NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff... The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them....... Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you?
The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated..... In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million: 850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000.. NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff... The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them....... Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
Here is a detailed breakdown via the IRS Statistics of Income Division for 2004 provided in xls format Here: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=185880,00.html
The link for this breakdown is "All Top Wealthholders by Size of Net Worth"
Number of persons with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million
2,728,000
.
Amount of Total Assets: 11,076,759,000,000
.
Debt and Mortgages(liability): 850,622,000,000
.
Net Worth: 10,201,246,000,000
.
Assets by Category....
Personal Residence: 1,185,941,000,000
Other Real Estate: 1,402,029,000,000
Closely Held Stock: 1,127,194,000,000
Publicly Traded Stock: 2,247,269,000,000
State Local Gov Bonds: 700,114,000,000
Federal Savings Bonds: 13,244,000,000
Other Federal Bonds: 180,708,000,000
Corporate and Foreign Bonds: 109,159,000,000
Bond Funds: 22,678,000,000
Diversified Mutual Funds: 96,627,000,000
Cash: 574,681,000,000
Cash Management Accounts: 414,615,000,000
Mortgages and Notes (Assets): 283,451,000,000
Cash Value LIfe Insurance: 144,481,000,000
NonCorporate Business Assets: 566,615,000,000
Farm Assets: 300,787,000,000
Limited Partnerships: 362,713,000,000
Retirement Assets: 1,048,730,000,000
Art: 49,891,000,000
Other Assets: 246,286,000,000
Total Assets, by category: 11,076,763,000,000
(the 4 million dollar difference is due to the figures being rounded to the nearest million dollars)
If we use the number of taxpayers from 2004: 130,134,000, 2,728,000 represents 2.08% of those persons
Total US Net Worth in 2004: 52,622,300,000,000
Divided by the Total Assets of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million dollars (11,076,759,000,000)
21.1% of Total Net Worth by gross assets
Divided by Assets minus liability (which I mistakenly left out in my own post) (10,201,246,000,000)
19.38% of total Net Worth was owned by 2.08% of Tax Payers in 2004.....
.
I'll do a breakdown of the top 1% later today......
.
Please feel free to verify the numbers for yourself.....
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you?
The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated..... In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million: 850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000.. NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff... The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them....... Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
using Wolff's spin takes only 1.8 trillion from the assets of the highest net worth sector and 17.7 trillion from the net worth of the lower net worth sector......then he still uses mortgage debt as a liability.....clear distortion.....
I missed this one earlier.
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
You and Slammers BOTH appear to be correct but are talking about two different categories of people-slammers about the gross assets of individual filers, and you about the net worth of households.
He's ALSO talking about a group of people whose individual wealth is $1.5 million or more. The group referred to in the article you quoted as the "richest 1%" is much more complex and their "net worth" begins way higher than $1.5 million.
BUT if you want to talk about "households" then you MUST admit that households include "newborns and toddlers" and other minor children as well.
I addressed this in a post before Modcap responded with his latest round of misinformation...
and his info is NOT correct, it's based on an estimate that doesn't use home value in assets of the calculation but does include mortgage debt in the liablity
I told you before:
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
Good luck getting ANYTHING through that thick skull. Apparently another poster named "ebri" is so enamored with him and is version of "truth" that he/she is now insinuating that I am "slammersworld".
As if the great god MC's wisdom (and math skills) are so convincingly and obviously true that there could only be ONE person stupid enough to come up against them-ME. ( I started up with MC months ago...) And so "you" (slammersworldisback) can ONLY be another ID I've set up for myself.
The rabbit hole where MC lives is deep Alice...and filled with idiots.
hahaha...yeah, Modcap has accused me of being someone else, or someone else being me, a couple times too....he's an idiot
He has been reinforced over time by people who get sick of his repetitive nonsense and give up...for which he claims victory...I'm not swayed by it...I've worked with children before, and he is no different....
But, I DO know he will never concede...he's built his world around his own false and limiting beliefs, and to give them up would be the death of his identity....and he probably...as witnessed by his philosophy (and that of the majority of OWS participants) doesn't have much of real value to fall back on...so he must cling and fight for the life of his silly little identity existence...
It is sad really....funny thing is, I've learned an amazing amount of stuff by having these conversations here at this site....he will never learn anything because he begins with an assumption that in immobile and impenetrable....no education will ever get in or out....
I agree completely. But I would however LOVE to see the look on his face when he finds us both online at the same time talking to each other. However he'll end up saying I'm logging off and then back on in order to reply to myself....lol. Or he'll just insist that he was right about me being a "husband and wife team working together to foil him" and say we were on different computers...AND servers then I suppose!
My only hope here is that someone in the future will read my replies to his screed and say "Thank God at least one person here saw right through him". (Now two)
I never said you two were the same person.
Scammersworld whipped up an alternate ID a while back 'andthegoalis'. It was obvious.
Your have whipped up several. One of which is 'Where2Begin'. Again, too obvious.
The two of you shouldn't brag about anything. You've both been caught in some outrageous mistakes.
One. More. Time.
I have ONE ID here and it's the same one I logged on with originally. Period.
I'm sure that is exactly what he thinks....he has a bit of paranoia
I picture him as one of those morbidly obese guys with type 2 diabetes who don't ever leave the house because it's to physically taxing.....He probably never had a girlfriend, and never get's laid....it's kind of funny...in a sad way...he acts all tough and blustery here...but if you met him in real life he'd waddle away in fear if you looked at him intimidatingly...
I think you are most likely correct. BUT he already posted his "self proclaimed bio" in this forum in response to someone called Turak-
"I'm not a loser. I was born 2 months early, spent the first month of my life in a bubble, and the first 17 years of my life sickly and weak. I was on prescription drugs including Darvon when I was 12 years old. I gave up ALL PILLS and got in shape when I was 18. My health gradually improved over the next 15 years. The only setback was a severe back injury when I was 21. It was my fault for lifting out of form, working 80 hours a week, jumping off the roof, ect. But I listened to Mother Nature and corrected those bad habits.
Now, I'm a 40 something martial artist who takes no vitamins, no pills, and no supplements of any kind. I havn't for over 20 years. I've had my share of minor injuries. It happens when you're athletic and work outdoors. But I always make a full recovery because I practice what I preach. My back, joints, muscles, heart, and lungs have been strong for many years now. I still have the same spring in my step that I did when I was 25. I can still climb like a monkey. I'm very quick and accurate. I almost never get sick. We're talking like once every 5 years or so. I am by far, the most healthy man anywhere near my age that I have ever known. By far.
I know what I'm talking about. Another thing. I say all of the above because I care about most people. I want all decent people to live healthy and strong. I don't want people to be miserable. But God damn it. I wont sit here and hold my tongue when I know damn well that most people with 'chronic pain' or any other condition brought it on or made it worse with their own irresponsible habits.
LIKE TURNING OFF MOTHER NATURE'S NATURAL INDICATOR. I know what you're going to say Turak. You're dead fucking wrong. I'm not a loser or a poser. I'm a self employed health/fitness nut with a flexible schedule and bizarre sleep habits who would rather spend his down time on the web trying to make a difference than playing video games or watching brain-rot TV. So take your outrageous and paranoid assumptions and stick'em."
That is helpful but it is absolutely necessary to account for the other 41+ trillion in US private net worth and all debt. This is vital. Absolutely necessary without a doubt. All private US net worth and debt must be accounted for.
You can post that breakdown including all private US net worth and all debt or just name the 'official' source. I'll try to get to the library today.
Make no mistake. All US private net worth and all debt MUST be accounted for.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[14][15][16]
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[17] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[17][18][19] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[20]
Thank you flip. Much appreciated.
Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......
Read it and weep you callow fool.......this isn't from some partisan, biased, un-sourced/cited "independent" study.....this is the IRS...
All your deflections and claptrap are useless against the facts......Go on and accuse the IRS of leaving out information.....
sorry you childish shit, your liberal propaganda is a lie......time to grow up!
here's the full report, which states clearly what the share of wealth of the top is:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulpw.pdf
I TOLD you that you were in over your head....you should have listened....
As proof that you read the report, please post the title of the bar graph on page 288 before you comment....thanks.....
As promised, I will print everything (hopefully today), scrutinize the data, and find the fatal flaws.
In the meantime since you have already reviewed the data, state the gross assets and private debt of the lower 98%.
Like I said, this is vital.
And as with income, so with poverty. As LBO notes with every income and poverty review, a civilized definition of poverty would produce numbers 50–75% higher than the official rate—12.7%, up from 12.5% in 2005. Cobbled together in the 1960s, when Johnson’s War on Poverty needed something in a hurry, it was based on the mid-1950s fact that the average household spent a third of its income on food. To come up with a minimum income, researchers tripled the Agriculture’s painfully minimal survival food budget (one explicitly intended not to sustain a healthy life). Voilà, a poverty line, one that has simply been adjusted for inflation ever since.
That line keeps falling relative to average incomes. Most poverty researchers set a poverty line at a fixed percentage of average incomes, most often 50%. Such a line matches what people tell pollsters they think a poverty line should be. After all, we do judge our status relative to our peers, not some defunct bureaucrat’s arbitrary judgment. Such a relative definition of poverty would probably produce rates of close to 20%—and for children, it would probably be 24% instead of the official 17.8%.
(For a full history of the poverty line, and the concept’s intellectual history, see Doug Henwood’s After the New Economy, which has what is objectively the best review of poverty and income for nonspecialists around.)
One striking thing about the nearby chart is how little progress there’s been even against this highly forgiving standard. Black and Hispanic poverty rates fell decently in the 1990s boom, but they’ve given back some of those gains since the bust. The overall rate, though, has hardly budged since 1970.
It wouldn’t be surprising to see a stable relative poverty rate, because in some imaginable society income distributions could remain stable around a rising average (though not in this one). But against an indulgent absolute standard, it’s a disgrace the U.S. economy can’t do better.
It’s also a disgrace how the U.S. stacks up in the international league tables. The last set of charts comes from the Luxembourg Income Study, an international consortium of income and poverty researchers, which has assembled a splendid database of comparable statistics. Among the thirteen major countries shown, the U.S. has the third most unequal distribution of income, behind Mexico and Russia, and the third-highest poverty rate, behind those same countries. The richer countries can be thought of as falling into three groups:
• The predominantly English-speaking (Australia, Canada, UK, U.S.), which are the most unequal and also have the highest poverty rates (average Gini: 0.322; average poverty rate: 13.8%); Israel’s numbers are similar. These generally have the most minimal welfare states and least regulated economies.
• The continental European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands), with lower poverty rates and less income inequality (Gini: 0.283; poverty: 9.1%). They’re generally more generous and less liberalized than what the French like to call the Anglo-Saxons. Taiwan’s numbers would put it in this class, were it in Europe.
• Scandinavian countries (Sweden, along with two countries not shown in the graph, Finland and Norway), with low poverty rates (average: 6.1%) and the most egalitarian income distribution anywhere (gini: 0.272). They have exceedingly generous welfare states—and quite high-tech economies nonetheless.
for some reason i cannot get the charts to show up on this site - These contrasting material fates are succinctly illustrated by the nearby chart, a history of the Gini index for the U.S. since 1913. The Gini index is one of several stats used to summarize the course of income distribution over time, or to compare it across countries. The Gini is a number between 0 and 1; if a society were perfectly equal, its Gini index would be 0, and if it were perfectly unequal (one person had all the income), it’d be 1. In the real world, the Gini usually falls between .25 (the Swedish neighborhood) and .50 (the Brazilian neighborhood). As the chart shows, the U.S polarized in the early decades of the 20th century, reaching a peak in the late 1920s/early 1930s. The depression and New Deal began a process of equalization, which continued through World War II and into the late 1960s, thanks to unions, tight labor markets, and an expanding welfare state. For a while, it looked like what economists call “depolarization” was a natural feature of a maturing capitalist economy. But that was demonstrated to be false, as the U.S. repolarized, thanks first to the deep recession of the mid-1970s, the subsequent inflation, and then the long wave of social spending cuts, union-busting, factory closures, the explosion of Wall Street wealth and power, and all the other familiar features of the neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s. The Gini index for households was .466 in 2004, tying the level of 2001, which was the highest since the early 1940s.
I know the study you're referring to (One of them anyway). Its a good one. I have it printed out.
slammer is a fool - don't see the point in this - we all know what has been happening in this country for 40 years
i am going to throw things at you use them if you like - Taking a longer view, as the nearby chart does, the most salient characteristic of household income over the last 20–25 years is how much better the rich have done than everyone else. The annual Census income survey overlooks the very rich; they’re mostly missed by the questioners, but even if they’re hit, the Census treats all incomes above $999,999 as equal to that “top-coded” amount, allegedly to protect the anonymity of respondents. That doesn’t affect the broad income distribution picture much, but it does understate the action at the very top, where much of the action has been over the last couple of decades. Despite that limitation, we see that since 1973, roughly the year when American incomes started seriously polarizing, the incomes of the top 5% (average income in 2004: $264,387) are up 73%; those for the middle 20% of the distribution (2004 average: $44,455), 15%; and those for the poorest 20% (2004 average: $10,264), just 10%. Those that have have done more than seven times as well as those that don’t.
And as with income, so with poverty. As LBO notes with every income and poverty review, a civilized definition of poverty would produce numbers 50–75% higher than the official rate—12.7%, up from 12.5% in 2005. Cobbled together in the 1960s, when Johnson’s War on Poverty needed something in a hurry, it was based on the mid-1950s fact that the average household spent a third of its income on food. To come up with a minimum income, researchers tripled the Agriculture’s painfully minimal survival food budget (one explicitly intended not to sustain a healthy life). Voilà, a poverty line, one that has simply been adjusted for inflation ever since.
That line keeps falling relative to average incomes. Most poverty researchers set a poverty line at a fixed percentage of average incomes, most often 50%. Such a line matches what people tell pollsters they think a poverty line should be. After all, we do judge our status relative to our peers, not some defunct bureaucrat’s arbitrary judgment. Such a relative definition of poverty would probably produce rates of close to 20%—and for children, it would probably be 24% instead of the official 17.8%.
(For a full history of the poverty line, and the concept’s intellectual history, see Doug Henwood’s After the New Economy, which has what is objectively the best review of poverty and income for nonspecialists around.)
One striking thing about the nearby chart is how little progress there’s been even against this highly forgiving standard. Black and Hispanic poverty rates fell decently in the 1990s boom, but they’ve given back some of those gains since the bust. The overall rate, though, has hardly budged since 1970.
It wouldn’t be surprising to see a stable relative poverty rate, because in some imaginable society income distributions could remain stable around a rising average (though not in this one). But against an indulgent absolute standard, it’s a disgrace the U.S. economy can’t do better.
It’s also a disgrace how the U.S. stacks up in the international league tables. The last set of charts comes from the Luxembourg Income Study, an international consortium of income and poverty researchers, which has assembled a splendid database of comparable statistics. Among the thirteen major countries shown, the U.S. has the third most unequal distribution of income, behind Mexico and Russia, and the third-highest poverty rate, behind those same countries. The richer countries can be thought of as falling into three groups:
• The predominantly English-speaking (Australia, Canada, UK, U.S.), which are the most unequal and also have the highest poverty rates (average Gini: 0.322; average poverty rate: 13.8%); Israel’s numbers are similar. These generally have the most minimal welfare states and least regulated economies.
• The continental European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands), with lower poverty rates and less income inequality (Gini: 0.283; poverty: 9.1%). They’re generally more generous and less liberalized than what the French like to call the Anglo-Saxons. Taiwan’s numbers would put it in this class, were it in Europe.
• Scandinavian countries (Sweden, along with two countries not shown in the graph, Finland and Norway), with low poverty rates (average: 6.1%) and the most egalitarian income distribution anywhere (gini: 0.272). They have exceedingly generous welfare states—and quite high-tech economies nonetheless.
doug henwood should be a really good source
Posted by: Doug Henwood | December 12, 2011 NYC: more unequal than Brazil
The New York City Independent Budget Office is just out with an analysis (pdf )of income distribution in the city. It’s no surprise that it’s very unequal. The surprise is that it’s far more unequal than Brazil’s.
Full details are available in the letter—which was in response to a request from City Council member James Oddo—but here are some highlights:
Some dollar amounts to make those percentages more concrete:
How does the city’s income distribution compare with that of Brazil, a country with a worldwide reputation for stunning inequality?
The New York and Brazilian comparisons are pretty rough, since the Brazilian figures are based on survey data reported by the World Bank. Rich people don’t answer surveys, so the incomes of rich Brazlians are probably way underestimated by that data. But if you look a little down the scale, to the second-richest quintile (20% slice) of Brazilians, they have incomes about 6 times the poorest quintile. In New York, the comparable ratio is 14 times.
You should use Omaha NE, or Medina WA.....you might get a more hyperbolic result to create a more powerful emotional response.....I'm sure the top/bottom disparity is much more massive in those cities.....
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[14][15][16]
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[17] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[17][18][19] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[20]
you're gonna have to do better than wikipedia.....respectfully
You're gonna have to post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
don't think so - i go with doug henwood any day - he knows his shit - look him up. and as to the evidence of our eyes - do you have anything intelligent to say - to the evidence of our every day lives and those of our friends etc - anything??
the IRS report doesn't concur......that's enough for me...
because you feel a particular individual is credible, doesn't make them so...
you are a self-profeessed non-reader of information....forgive me if I don't accept your opinion on the validity of supposed authorities...
non reader of horse shit you mean and i didn't ask you to accept my opinion - you are a quisling so doesn't matter what i say - dougs research is first rate - but again it is of no matter - i know what i see and we all know what has been happening in this country for the past 40 yrs - since the days of ronnie raygun. anyone who can't see it is not worth the time - so i guess that means you!
Then stop stalling and post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
yawn......
Maybe this will wake you up:
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
Post those statistics you claim to have regarding the gross assets and debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of America's private wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
You should stop stalling and post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
your retarded babbling repetition isn't getting that report read......get busy, lazy..
I told you before. Not from this terminal. Too slow and unreliable.
Your name calling isn't getting you off the hook.
Post those statistics you claim to have regarding the gross assets and debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of America's private wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
well i didn't want to over state the case. i did not look at all your numbers and don't plan on it - i will leave it to the modest one - he seems more interested and has the time - i do not! i assume you know that you are wrong but maybe not. where do you live and work - what do you see around you? i live and work with the 1% (we live between rumson and deal nj - come on down and take a look sometime - their landscaping bills are much more than our income - i teach tennis to their kids so i know some of them too well!) - i know what they have in income and how much they keep. come skiing with me in aspen and take a look - don't need numbers to tell the story.
I'll stick with the IRS info.....you can try and use your argument, deflection and denials against that..
They spell it out in their report, the first paragraph: "In 2004, there were an estimated 2.7 million adults with gross assets of $1.5 million or more, the Federal estate tax filing threshold for dece- dents from that year. In total, these top wealth hold- ers owned nearly $11.1 trillion in assets. After ac- counting for debts and mortgages of $850.1 billion, these individuals had a combined net worth of over $10.2 trillion. Although top wealth holders made up only about 1.2 percent of the total U.S. adult popu- lation, they held 20.3 percent of the total U.S. net worth in 2004"
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulpw.pdf
What was it you said?....oh yeah: Read it Bitch!
I did say that. I'll say it again.
Read it bitch!
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
Problem is: You didn't read it......and you continue to use sources such as news stories and web postings, with distorted facts.....
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or the the report by the IRS...did you? The post you have offered above is the proof that never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated.....
In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million:
850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000..
NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff...
The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them.......
Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
I missed this one earlier.
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
Again, for the third time.
State the gross assets and private debt of the LOWER 98%.
Absolutely vital. I'll explain why later.
yeah...read the report....I'm not doing any more homework for you...I made an assertion, backed it up with multiple sources...now the ball is in your court...you can:
1) concede,
2) refute my sources
or
3) provide sources of your own that dispute in information in mine, and we can then discuss the validity of each others sourcing..
Any other response is deflection, and more balderdash.....
You are obviously one who thinks you can muddy the waters enough to avoid addressing the fact-less basis of your statements by constant repetitive distraction.....
Sorry...not this time, I'm not playing your game...
Now throw a temper tantrum, you high chair tyrant.....
That makes three times now that you have failed to post a vital piece of the puzzle as requested. From 'official data' which you claim to have. Each time, refusing to provide any explanation whatsoever. Now, like so many times before, you put up a brick wall when you are stumped or can't proceed regarding a specific issue. Each time, making a statement like "I think we are done here." or "You are a clown.". This time, the line is "Sorry...not this time, I'm not playing your game."
You know damn well its not a game. Its reality. The richest 2% owned MUCH more than 21.1% of all US private wealth in '04'. MUCH MORE. Your assertion is off by around 100%. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
One or more of the fatal flaws in your assertion lie within that other 41+ trillion that you can't or refuse to account for. I think you're beginning to realize that yourself (It took you long enough.) but in cowardly fashion, you try to stall or divert attention from that unaccounted for 41+ trillion by suddenly refusing to proceed any further regarding that specific issue (like so many times before). In fact, you now state that you are willing to discuss instead, the validity of my sources. Of course, beginning to realize that there may in fact, as I promised there would, be FATAL FLAWS in your assertions based on your interpretation of 'official data'.
This diversionary tactic comes as no surprise. I specifically requested that you remain here and debate even as the fatal flaws in your assertion begin to reveal themselves. You agreed.
But even with all that 'official data' you have had ample time to review, you suddenly refuse to account for the other 41+ trillion in assets and the other 9+ trillion in household debt (including home loans).
Which as I said, contain at least one of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004.
I'm throwing down the gauntlet.
State the gross assets and private debt of the LOWER 98%.
No more excuses. You claim to have the 'official data'. Post it.
State the gross assets and private debt of the LOWER 98% as of 2004.
Thats right. I dare you to post those statistics.
No?
THATS WHAT I THOUGHT.
I'm not biting...sorry
Read the report, comment on that....you can post your repetitive nonsense as often as you like...it won't change the information in the report...when you have remarks on that we'll continue...
then you can illustrate your "fatal flaws"....I'll be waiting patiently....
Why are you delaying your response?
That makes a fourth creative line you have come up with in order to avoid posting the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and debt of the lower 98% in 2004.
One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
4) Shatter your outrageous claim.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
actually I didn't think of a 4)....but thanks for providing one
4) forget about even checking the information, just continue on with your false beliefs and look for more evidence from sources who distort information or fabricate it outright......
great job in choosing number four!
but...here's the truth:
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or the the report by the IRS...did you? The post you have offered above is the proof that never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated.....
In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million:
850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000..
NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff...
The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them.......
Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
you keep posting your 34.3% and 42.3% figures.....please provide the source of those calculation
There you go again with those repeated implications that only 'official government sources' are trustworthy. You name the 'official government source' to make the side by side comparisons of total household wealth (including shares) and I'll read every word.
Until then, I'll go with the independent studies and figures which have been widely accepted, reported, and never debunked.
the IRS study debunks them....soundly
Without a breakdown of total household wealth including side by side comparisons indicating the shares held by both groups, too many variables are left out.
The breakdown must be that of total household wealth. The sum of both groups must be broken down seperately but equal to 100% of all household wealth. Not only the reported assets of adult tax filers in a given year. Non profits must be excluded. Household wealth only.
You name the source reporting the above criteria. I'll check it out.
There have been multiple references to 'official' data and/or sources within many reports indicating a growing concentration of wealth. Even Wikipedia.
The water here is rather shallow. Curiously, the sign reads:
Top Wealth Holders: Debt and Mortgages as a Percentage of Total Assets, by Sex and Age, 2004 [1]
But never mind that. Read this:
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you? The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated.....
In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million:
850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000..
NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff...
The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them.......
Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
reports you cited? um, yeah......help me out with that one....what reports?
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
yeah....that is an internet post with a source who creates his own calculations based on his own assumptions...
that's not a report...and certainly not reportS
HAHAHAHA!!!! You are a clown.....
Just post the breakdown or name the source. Is that breakdown of ALL US private net worth and ALL private debt on any of the sites you made reference to?
By the way, I don't mean every penny. Down to the nearest billion would do.
Another thing: I challenge you to remain here in debate even as the fatal flaws in your assertion begin to reveal themselves. If you can't answer a simple question or don't have a particular piece of the puzzle, fine. Just say so. But no more of this "I think we are done here." or "You are a clown." crap every time you are stumped or unable to proceed.
Oh...I'll be here....count on it....be ready to acquiesce...
Count on this:
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
nah...that's just more of your nonsense.....
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you?
The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated..... In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million: 850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000.. NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff... The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them....... Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
what was the first paragraph in the IRS report on Wealth?...the one you must have downloaded since you posted the name of the chart I asked for....
here, I'll help you.....
"In 2004, there were an estimated 2.7 million adults with gross assets of $1.5 million or more, the Federal estate tax filing threshold for decedents from that year. In total, these top wealth holders owned nearly $11.1 trillion in assets. After accounting for debts and mortgages of $850.1 billion, these individuals had a combined net worth of over $10.2 trillion. Although top wealth holders made up only about 1.2 percent of the total U.S. adult population, they held 20.3 percent of the total U.S. net worth in 2004"
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulpw.pdf
The specific category breakdown for asset/liability of those with net worth over 1.5M, is an xls file you get by clicking on "All Top Wealthholders by Size of Net Worth"
here:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=185880,00.html
for the overall stats by category, go here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
EVERY Link I've posted here before......your ignorance is not my concern.....it should be yours..but you seem unfazed by it, a blissfully ignorant liberal drone
We've been through this. That paragraph makes reference only to the reported assets and liabilities of an estimated 2.7 million 'adults' with gross assets of at least $1.5 million. That makes the reference flawed. All forms of HOUSEHOLD wealth and liability for the top 1.2 % and the remaining 98.8% must be compared side by side within the same report. Otherwise, too many variables are left out.
The comprehensive study I cited is one of many which make that comparison side by side.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The study is one of many that have been conducted over the years. They have shown a growing, and rarely interrupted concentration of wealth. The share of 'total wealth' held by the richest 1% in America has grown from under 20% in 1976 to 37.1% more recently. The last reported share of 'financial wealth' held by the richest 1% that I know of was at least 42.7%.
The IRS Wealth figures take the assets/liability of those with 1.5m or more as compared with those for ALL Americans....how do you think they come up with the 20.3% figure....
I love what you call comprehensive study.....based on Wolff's assumptions...NOT IRS, or other official data
Without a breakdown of total household wealth including side by side comparisons indicating the shares held by both groups, too many variables are left out.
The breakdown must be that of total household wealth. The sum of both groups must be broken down seperately but equal to 100% of all household wealth. Not only the reported assets of adult tax filers in a given year. Non profits must be excluded. Household wealth only.
You name the source reporting the above criteria. I'll check it out.
There have been multiple references to 'official' data and/or sources within many reports indicating a growing concentration of wealth. Even Wikipedia.
another link I posted: breaks All Net Worth down by category....
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
which, when subtracted from that of those with net worth at, or over 1.5M, found here: (also previously posted)
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=185880,00.html (All Top Wealthholders by Size of Net Worth) xls file...
Gives side by side comparison.....
Your so-called "comprehensive study" is all based on Wolff's assumptions.....
Those categories you refer to are not of US household wealth entirely or exclusively. They are of US tax filers only including non-profits.
The study I cited is one of several which have been done over the last few years.
With regard to your entry below that I can't respond to because of thread limits:
If you can prove to me that Wolff did not exclude non profits from his calculations regarding 'household wealth', then I will certainly acknowledge that as a flaw in the report.
Non-profits should not be lumped in with 'household wealth'.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Wolff lumped non-profits in with 'household wealth'?
That is how net worth is calculated, non-profits are included in the figures...your hero, Wolff uses the same figures before he applies his magic (spin)
Good. While you're here, post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
Zzzzzzz......
When you wake up read this:
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
nope...stilll zzzzz.....
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you?
The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated..... In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million: 850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000.. NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff... The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them....... Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
Post those statistics you claim to have regarding the gross assets and debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of America's private wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
Why not just post your source, with links, for the assertion you make of the top 1% owning 43% of wealth?
Seems like that would be simpler? Right?
Thats financial wealth Scammersworld. Financial wealth. I've made the distinction many times. I have the reports printed. I will create a new page devoted to them with sources the same day I shatter your outrageous claim that the richest 2% in America held just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'.
In the meantime answer the question:
Did you consider ALL FORMS of private wealth and debt when you drew your conclusion that the richest 2% in America held just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'?
Yes or no.
Yes it is your assertion. Maybe not exclusively but you stated it as fact. That makes it yours.
how many times do I have to say yes before you stop repeating yourself???
Here is the list from the IRS link
Personal Residence
Other Real Estate
Closely Held Stock
Publicly Traded Stock
State and Local Government Bonds
Federal Savings Bonds
Other Federal Bonds
Corporate and Foreign Bonds
Bond Funds
Diversified Mutual Funds
Cash
Cash Management Accounts
Mortgages and Notes (asset type)
Cash Value LIfe Insurance
Non Corporate Business Assets
Farm Assets
Limited Partnerships
Retirement Assets
It doesn't list Hummel Figurines, Collector Plates, Tooth Fillings, Stamp Collections, or Toy Trains...so I guess it's incomplete in your assessment...huh?
you really are a clown....
The IRS was not among the sources you cited when you made the outrageous claim on your 'challenge' page. So it doesn't get you off the hook.
and this is the first time you have answered the question (sort of).
What about consumer debt other than mortgages?
Any estimates regarding US funds held in accounts overseas?
Another thing: I won't be fooled by some vague implication that the IRS supports your assertion regarding that distribution of wealth in '04'. In fact I'll ask you flat out knowing full God damn well that the answer is 'no'.
Does the IRS site state ANYWHERE that the richest 2% in America held just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'?
No?
THATS WHAT I THOUGHT. YOUR CHEAP PSYCHOLOGICAL TRICKS WON'T WORK HERE.
yes, the same info is in the Statistical Abstract, it's just illustrated in more detail on the IRS site...
and yes, when you divide the number of tax payers with Net Worth exceeding 1.5 Million (2,728,000) by the total number of tax payers that year (130,135,000) you get 2.08%, and when you divide the amount of Assets they own (11,076,759,000,000) by the amount of total US Net Worth (52,622,300,000,000) you get 21.1%.......
Yes Debt's and Mortgages are listed as Liabilities.....
You didn't answer the question and its still off by around 100%. I promise beyond any shadow of a doubt to find the fatal flaws in your assertion when I read the disclaimers and scrutinize the data myself.
I already have two hunches regarding those fatal flaws.
Post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or the the report by the IRS...did you? The post you have offered above is the proof that never even checked the official sources.....
You do understand that using gross assets increases the amount of total net worth held by those in that group and using net assets decreases it.....do you understand that? My first posting of gross assets made the percentage of net worth HIGHER than it should be, not lower.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated.....
In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million:
850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000..
NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff...
The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them.......
Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or the the report by the IRS...did you? The post you have offered above is the proof that never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated.....
In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million:
850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000..
NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff...
The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them.......
Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
Well everybody KNOWS you're lying since you didn't include collectibles. Or bar-room bets. Or horse race winnings (the rich earn a TON of money at the races), the sale of slaves, and everything they "get away with" when the "pesky kids" from ScoobyDoo don't show up to foil their plots.
Why not just post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004? One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
Because if he does that, people who can read will find out that he's making it up or cherry picking his facts in order to make himself look "correct".
Oh...and HE is the foremost authority on everything anyway, so if you'd just believe that you wouldn't ASK for his sources. Duh! :-)
Then my page shall be created in your honor as well.
Well it can't be created in your honor....you have none.
are you siding with the slammer here? 21%
hahaha...yeah, exactly
Ego Maniac, Ego Maniac Ego Maniac. Can you please get over your self.
Its not ego. Its confidence thrown in the face of a jerk. and I only get that way when chumps like Scammersworld try to insult me with lines like "You're in over your head."
I've had many pleasant exchanges with others here who are every bit (at least) as knowledgeable as I am. But when a chump like Scammersworld tries to insult me, I'll throw it back in his face every time. Thats not ego.
Oh, and you were wrong about inflation not including energy and food...in reference to our previous discussion....for which I am still waiting on a source of the raw data use to calculate the figures you assert.....
but, on inflation (CPI)....from the BLS
Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U.
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, FUEL OIL, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, GASOLINE, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).
Also included within these major groups are various government-charged user fees, such as WATER AND SEWERAGE CHARGES, AUTO REGISTRATION FEES, and vehicle tolls. In addition, the CPI includes TAXES (SUCH AS SALES AND EXCISE TAXES) that are directly associated with the prices of specific goods and services. However, the CPI excludes taxes (such as income and Social Security taxes) not directly associated with the purchase of consumer goods and services.
So, when factored for inflation people ARE earning more in every income sector.....
CORE INFLATION scammersworld. CORE INFLATION. I've made the distinction many times. CORE INFLATION. Energy, food, and home SALE prices are NOT considered when CORE INFLATION is calculated.
I've also explained many times that key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education have risen far beyond the rate of inflation.
The CPI should prioritize these key living expenses in order of importance. This along with inclusion of energy, food, and home SALE prices in CORE INFLATION would give a more accurate representation of the true cost of living vs wages and household income. It doesn't.
No. The majority have lost actual buying power. Ask anyone within the lower 4 quintiles. They will tell you. They have been squeased primarily by key living expenses like energy, food, health care, and higher education.
they don't use "core inflation" to calculate historical dollar comparisions they use CPI-U/W
energy, food, health care, and housing are included in CPI-U/W
You just read stuff in leftist news articles and blog posts and then go about parroting the lies to everyone you can...don't you? Go on, admit it..it will be liberating...
The formula has changed several times over the last few years. The CPI-U and CPI-W may include energy and food (one of them do as I recall) but I do know that the core CPI does not include energy, food, or home sale prices. Those aren't even the newest measures. The formula has changed specifically because off its long running disconnect with the actual cost of living. I don't claim to know all details of the newest formula. Evidently, you don't either or you would have mentioned the Personal Expenditure List (or something like that). What I do know is that the newest formula including the Personal Expenditures List is still a sorry excuse for accurate.
No one in the bottom 4 quintiles is buying it. No one. Health care premiums just jumped again this past year. The same goes for gasoline.
Still, we are being told that inflation is very low.
Thats because there is still a HUGE difference between inflation and the actual cost of living. Again, everyone within the bottom 4 quintiles knows this.
If you don't, its just more evidence of your die-hard conservatism and your disconnect with the lower majority. This explains a lot with you.
The CBO reports on household income growth from 79-07 (the reason we're debating this to begin with) were based on measurements of inflation that did not prioritize key living expenses like energy, food, home sale prices, health care, and higher education. I know this for a fact. No doubt.
The lower majority are working harder with less to show for it. This is because the rising cost of key living expenses has left them with a loss of actual buying power. No doubt. Zero.
From the CBO report: "Income is adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ research series of the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U-RS)."
From BLS: "Consumer Price Index research series using current methods (CPI-U-RS) presents an estimate of the CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from 1978 to present that incorporates most of the improvements made over that time span into the entire series."
From BLS: The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, FUEL OIL, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, GASOLINE, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).
Also included within these major groups are various government-charged user fees, such as WATER AND SEWERAGE CHARGES, AUTO REGISTRATION FEES, and vehicle tolls.
In addition, the CPI includes TAXES (SUCH AS SALES AND EXCISE TAXES) that are directly associated with the prices of specific goods and services. However, the CPI excludes taxes (such as income and Social Security taxes) not directly associated with the purchase of consumer goods and services.
The lower majority are trying to live above their means, and taking on foolish amounts of consumer debt.....which is a choice, a bad one.....
"most of the improvements made over that time span".
Be more specific. Which improvements were incorporated into the estimate? Another quote from the BLS or CBO will do as long as those improvements are clearly defined.
Then quote something from the BLS or CBO which clearly states that key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education were PRIORITIZED in order of importance when the household incomes from 79-07 were calculated.
The lower majority living above their means? You really think its that simple?
Tell that to anyone who has been to the pump this week ($3.50 per gallon) or anyone who has seen a doctor recently ($150 for 5 minutes of undivided attention) or anyone who has been told by said doctor that they need a name brand pharmaceutical in order to recover from what ails them ($50-$100 per bottle).
Living beyond their means huh? Your claim that its anywhere near that simple shows once again, your disconnect with the lower majority (I'm referring obviously to income. Not character.).
In January 1999, the BLS began using a geometric mean formula in the CPI that reflects the fact that consumers shift their purchases toward products that have fallen in relative price. Some critics charge that by reflecting consumer substitution the BLS is subtracting from the CPI a certain amount of inflation that consumers can "live with" by reducing their standard of living. This is incorrect: the CPI's objective is to calculate the change in the amount consumers need to spend to maintain a constant level of satisfaction.
Specifically, in constructing the "headline" CPI-U and CPI-W, the BLS is not assuming that consumers substitute hamburgers for steak. Substitution is only assumed to occur within basic CPI index categories, such as among types of ground beef in Chicago. Hamburger and steak are in different CPI item categories, so no substitution between them is built into the CPI-U or CPI-W.
Furthermore, the CPI doesn't implicitly assume that consumers always substitute toward the less desirable good. Within the beef steaks item category, for example, the assumption is that consumers on average would move up from flank steak to filet mignon if the price of flank steak rose by a greater amount (or fell by less) than filet mignon prices. If both types of beef steak rose in price by the same amount, the geometric mean would assume no substitution.
In using the geometric mean the BLS is following a recognized best practice for statistical agencies. The formula is widely used by statistical agencies around the world and is recommended by, for example, the International Monetary Fund and the Statistical Office of the European Communities.
Has the BLS removed food or energy prices in its official measure of inflation? No. The BLS publishes thousands of CPI indexes each month, including the headline All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy. The latter series, widely referred to as the "core" CPI, is closely watched by many economic analysts and policymakers under the belief that food and energy prices are volatile and are subject to price shocks that cannot be damped through monetary policy. However, all consumer goods and services, including food and energy, are represented in the headline CPI.
Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U.
I realize that Scammersworld. I, like you, read all of that last night. Its another giant quote from the BLS. But thats not what I asked for. Let me repeat:
""most of the improvements made over that time span".
Be more specific. Which improvements were incorporated into the estimate? Another quote from the BLS or CBO will do as long as those improvements are clearly defined.
Then quote something from the BLS or CBO which clearly states that key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education were PRIORITIZED in order of importance when the household incomes from 79-07 were calculated."
Just to be crystal clear. Your previous quote from the BLS stated that "most of the improvements made over that time span" were incorporated into the "entire series". The word 'most' means more than 1/2. I want to know specifically which of the 'improvements' were incorporated into the CBO report on household income and which were not.
I also want some shred of evidence to indicate that key living expenses like energy, food, health care, home sale prices, and higher education were PRIORITIZED in order of importance and applied in that order to the CBO report on household income from '79'-'07'.
This is the entire reason we're debating this. I say there is a HUGE difference between the 'official' rate of inflation and the actual cost of living. I say that HUGE difference makes the CBO report on household income from '79'-'07' way off. Especially with regard to the lower 4 quintiles.
You say that the 'core' I referred to before (which does not include food, energy, and home sale prices) is not used to calculated historical dollars. That appears to be partly true from the BLS quote (Home sale prices are still not included in the CPI. I would also like to know why they stated the less common 'heating oil' as an example of home energy instead of electricity or natural gas.).
That giant quote from the BLS does not address my concern regarding the CBO report.
the price at the pump is reflective of the loss in dollar value, in comparison to real-value assets like gold.... the dollar isn't worth what is was 5 years ago.....the result of pushing up the Federal Budget baseline by well a over a trillion dollars....
If you want to place blame...look toward the government..and people like you who want to expand it's power to remove more wealth from the private economy..
If it were anywhere near that simple, then inflation would be way up. The formula is flawed. It does not accurately represent the true cost of living because key living expenses are not prioritized in order of importance.
But those drastic increases in key living expenses are tied directly and primarily to record high profits in health care, energy, and finance.
I will never blame the government exclusively. They are sold out. That implicates a second party.
Now who would have the money to buy out our leaders? Any ideas?
Yeah..I know what you quacks think...the "Rich" want to eliminate their customer base and kill the golden goose......that line of reasoning is a stupid as everything else you post.....
You lefty collectivists really are fucking stupid......
No they don't want to eliminate their customer base. I never implied such a thing. They want to extract as much wealth from them as possible in the shortest period of time with the least amount of effort paying the lowest tax rate and receiving the highest level of subsidy.
Otherwise, you wouldn't invest in the same corporations that do so.
You have shattered nothing....all you have done is accept the opinion of another (wolff) which is based on misleading data.....
Under his model those who have paid off their homes are instantly transported into a higher "financial" net worth the moment they place their monthly house payment into a savings account instead of using it to pay the mortgage.....
also....one of the largest shares of overall net worth IS contained in the value of the personal residence....this is true of all sectors of wealth holders...but more so for those in the lower and middle incomes...
That is the problem with Academic fools like Wolff and Domhoff...they want us to consider irresponsible behavior in the assessment of wealth (such as high consumer credit obligations, or lack of personal savings) but responsible directing of funds, such as into a personal residence....we are supposed to discount that as "financial wealth"......they, and YOU are wrong, and full of shit.....
Once again, you are wrong....but, your ego won't allow you to admit it, so I don't expect you to admit it, you aren't man enough.......or evolved enough in intelligence to learn from your mistakes......
you are simply "Willfully stupid" and one of the collectivist lefts "useful idiots".....a term invented by communists to describe people like you....
We already covered this.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
How many times are you going to call that nonsense a "comprehensive study".....you don't even know where the data used in the calculations came from.....you just assume it to be correct, and yet you assume data from the IRS and Federal Reserve is incomplete.....man, you are gullible and stupid...
How many times are you going to imply that your sources are credible and complete when they only include the reported assets of adult tax filers, and don't even make any side by side comparisons of total us 'household wealth'?
Man, you are die-hard conservative and strung by partisan puppet strings.
HAHAHAHA!.....you are really stretching your deflections......
I have provided all of that data....the total household Net Worth is the same amount as the total individual net worth, single filers are also "Households" of one......so the comparison is sound...and just because I or some liberal hero of yours didn't pack it in a lunchbox for you doesn't make it incomplete or non-credible....
It's not "Adult tax filers" it's "Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of 1.5 Million or More"...there is no reference to tax filers.....
You are much worse than a partisan puppet, you are willfully ignorant and closed minded....you couldn't get a new idea in the pea brain of yours with a crow bar, chisel and sledge hammer......
The funny thing is, I take each of your links and make no assumptions...I read them and consider them, then I check the sources...then the sources of the sources....I follow the information and calculations as far as they go, hopefully back to a source of raw data(most of them don't make it beyond source of source) and I apply that data to the assertion, and if it doesn't jive, then it doesn't jive...then I look at how the calculations are made, and what assumptions (if I can ascertain that) are used to calculate them....then I usually have my answer.....
If that is a partisan puppet...I guess that's what I am...
You don't even check all the sources before you look for ways to dispute the facts, you take a couple hours to look over the information...hahaha...I've taken days to look over information and track it down, I've never used the excuse that my computer is slow, and the library is closed, or my pussy hurts too much...you are a lazy student of factual information, and have serious reading comprehension problem and huge chip on your shoulder about those who earn more than you.... that makes you a clown, and an ignorant idiot... and ensures you'll never be anything but the very small person you are now....(although, in physical reality, I imagine you are a VERY large person with very little physical capability...you probably need to get laid, but have great difficulty with that too)
No its not sound. Its not the same amount or share. It is based only on the reported assets of adult tax filers. Otherwise, you would be able to cite a source that supports your assertion with side by side comparisons of total household wealth.
I don't check all the sources? Yeah. Thats what you said 10 hours ago. In the same entry, you stated incorrectly that Wolff had not included personal residence when determining total wealth.
In my response, I not only proved that I did check all of your sources, I also proved that you misinterpreted the Wolff study.
Your imagination is dead wrong. Not that I want you thinking about me but its dead wrong. Not even close.
Next.
funny.....on the other page you claimed it was "Financial Wealth"
The various forms of wealth are included
Here is a more complete breakdown by the IRS though...... http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=185880,00.html
You're in over your head...but, please...go on
Is it really all right that wealth is so concentrated in the hands of so few?
It appears to give too much power to too few people.
Doesn't the irs website provided prove this point?
How about a sociology paper from Richard Breen, the "William Graham Sumner Professor of Sociology Co-Director, Center for Research on Inequalities and the Life Course" at Yale?
http://www.yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/breen/Geary_march_23_2010.pdf
Might help you understand how complicated this issue is and understand WHY it hasn't been "solved" yet.
it is what it is...it's not "concentrated" it's "earned"....get your head straight and get of the collectivist "wealth hater" addiction...it doesn't serve you
It is concentrated. Trust fund babies don't "earn" that wealth.
Please refrain from telling me how I should "get my head straight," etc.
That is insulting language and just doesn't help solve any problem at all.
You are still failing to convince me of your point of view. You still don't make any sense.
You know my history. I am not a "wealth hater." Just quit with the really silly comments. Again, they are not solving any problem at all. They draw attention to a problem, instead. Look at it that way. Do you really want to expose this problem, or solve other problems?
I don't see it as a problem...we have a much larger contribution and effort disparity in our society than we do an income disparity...
The career trajectory of most CEO's, or high income earners is far more difficult, and contains far more struggle and sacrifice to it's end than the typical clock puncher....
Maybe you should read a few biographies instead of assuming everyone with wealth is a "trust fund baby"...that's just jealousy and envy manifesting itself in your thought process.....
Instead of looking at successful, wealthy people and disparaging their success, perhaps a better approach would be to discover what they did to earn it, and model those behaviors yourself....
the first and most important is not to look at others and judge ignorantly, and to not make external excuses for your failures....
By the same token, you should read the biographies of hard working, working class people and thereby gain a balanced perspective on this issue.
It's not a matter of kind, but degree. We are all capitalists here on this forum but not so much that human dignity and human rights are ignored or trampled.
Anyone who thinks we should return to feudal times during the Dark Ages, when those in charge thought nothing of exploiting the masses, is simply out of touch with today's reality. We have the means to do so much better than that, don't you agree?
return to feudal times? where do you get that foolish idea.....Feudal Lords didn't earn their position they were taken by force, or fear, or inherited by blood.....if you think that is how the Capitalist system works you believe a lie....Market Capitalism is the most evolved system in human development......the voluntary exchange between men based on equitable trade is something that has only been around for a few hundred years......collectivist "fair share" theory has been around for thousands of years, and has failed to bring about much advancement of the human condition, it is only Market Capitalism in the past couple hundred years that has exponentially increased man's technological advancement.....because it benefits one man to produce useful and innovative products, because of the reward he receives for the effort...
The Idea that all on this forum are capitalists is ridiculous.....most are no such thing....and many believe in outright centralized control of all aspects of life....
"Where do you get that foolish idea?" This question deserves no answer.
I can tell you will continue to deny reality even when it is presented in a fair and unbiased way.
The Central Intelligence Agency's data on wealth and income distribution are a lot more credible to me than any of your sources.
Did I ever say I was against capitalism?
I am not for your old style of capitalism. I am for regulated capitalism.
Are you interested in learning more about this form of capitalism? If you are not, then you truly belong back in the Dark Ages. Your lack of curiosity invites your being relegated to a certain closed-minded sector of society.
Are those biographies of CEOs 'official' , 'credible', and 'verifiable' sources of data?
How on earth could he possibly prove they are to someone whose definitions of "official, credible, and verifiable" are a skewed as yours appear to be?
Next.
Yeah right. Henry Paulson "earned" over a billion dollars in one year selling sub-prime loans.
Correction: I meant John Paulson
I'll believe that the richest one percent in America "earned" 43% of its financial wealth when someone can prove to me that they alone created 43% of its financial wealth.
they don't have to do it alone...income is but a small fraction of the value provide to others...for every dollar of income there are several or more dollars of value created and exchanged with others.....
You really don't understand the concept of value exchange?
Die-hard conservative spin.
How much 'value' did Henry Paulson provide to others? What "small fraction" did his billion dollar take represent?
Correction: I meant John Paulson.
What percentage of the richest 1% earned the majority of their wealth in the "financial industry"?
I don't really know......but I suppose it could be ascertained fairly easily...do you know, offhand?
The value was negative. That much is obvious.
so you have the figures..or you're guessing?
Is there an 'official' government report regarding Henry Paulson's market share of sub-prime loans, their effect on an artificially inflated housing market, their subsequent losses, their effect on the market crash, and total wealth and income created and lost excluding that of all other sub-prime salesmen?
Anymore stupid questions?
Correction: I meant John Paulson.
so is that an answer...or a rant and questions?
I am guessing you don't have the figures....but I see you presume to adulterate them with a bunch of emotional nonsense.....
Tell me....how many Sub Prime mortgages do you think Henry Paulson PERSONALLY sold?
there are no stupid questions...only stupid people who can't answer them......to find out about that type of person...look quickly into the nearest mirror....
I meant John Paulson. and he didn't sell the loans one at a time. He made billions short selling subprime. His contribution was negative.
Do you even understand the difference between a distinction and a general statement?
I suggest you review our previous exchange and figure it out.
In the meantime, answer the question:
Did you consider ALL FORMS of private wealth and debt when you drew your conclusion that the richest 2% in America held just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'?
Yes or no.
and no I'm not in over my head. You're not even the first pig to make that assumption. I was once challenged by a doctor on talk radio to review Stark Law and explain how they could legally refer patients to their own testing facilities. He told the audience that I would need an attorney (as most doctors do) just to comprehend the legislation.
Not only did I call back the following day and point out the many loopholes in Stark Law, I also explained that there were absolutely no preventions of self-referral. The law only prevents doctors from billing the government under certain circumstances for those self-referrals. Finally, I warned that doctor (a regular caller at the time) that if he tried to mislead the audience one more time, I would call him out for it.
That was the end of our 3 day exchange 3 years ago. I havn't heard him since.
So don't think for one second that I'm in over my head with the likes of you. I've already caught you in nearly a dozen mistakes. This latest will be the biggest yet.
Now are you going to answer my question?
Did you consider ALL FORMS of private wealth and debt when you drew your conclusion that the richest 2% in America held just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'?
Yes or no.
I didn't draw the conclusion....it's there for anyone to see in the data...
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=185880,00.html (All Top Wealthholders by Size of Net Worth)
table 472: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/fedgov.pdf
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
Table 718:http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0718.pdf (the IRS link, at the top, is new, it breaks down the sources of wealth more clearly and thoroughly)
Then post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
You should have seen this:
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or the the report by the IRS...did you? The post you have offered above is the proof that never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated.....
In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million:
850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000..
NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff...
The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them.......
Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
Once again, you begin with another assumption that will quickly and easily be proven false.
As I told you before, my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. Its slow and unreliable. This is why I requested those figures regarding the unaccounted for wealth and debt from you at least 8 times.
My local library was closed yesterday because of a blizzard. It is never open on weekends.
With your absolute refusal to paste a simple batch of figures which you claimed to have, I had no choice but to spend 2 hours on dial-up downloading Adobe Reader and 10 PDF files. Some of which were downloaded from the sites you made reference to. I then spent another 2 or 3 hours reading every file. Every single one of them (I skipped over the boatloads of data regarding state, age, race, sex, ect).
There were some detailed references to wealth and debt within the TEN PDF files but most did not include the year 2004 and NONE of them broke down the data regarding any income/wealth group except for the 'Top wealth holders'. The top 1.2% or the top 2.08%. Those with at least 1.5 million in assets. Those were the only specific groups of income/wealth class identified.
Not one of them offered any breakdown whatsoever regarding the wealth or debt of the lower 98.8%, the lower 97.2% or ANY income/wealth class except for those listed above.
This includes the PDF file you just made reference to.
I made this crystal clear yesterday with repeated references to the "lower 98%".
You assertion was based only on a breakdown regarding the 'Top wealth holders'. Those tax filers with reported assets of over 1.5 million. This was one of your fatal flaws.
The other was with regard to total assets and debt of the lower 98% specifically.
The figures you claim I overlooked are not there. There is no breakdown whatsoever for any income/wealth class other than those listed above. The 'Top wealth holders'.
None of your sources compared the total net worth of the 'Top wealth holders' with the lower majority (98.8, 97.2). Not one of them.
My sources did.
If you did in fact read the reports I cited, you were in such a die-hard conservative partisan puppet hurry to discredit them, that you failed to notice that they DID IN FACT include the value of personal residence when determining total wealth.
THEY DID IN FACT INCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHEN DETERMINING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
Again, you seem to have a huge problem understanding the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth'. The comprehensive study I cited makes that distinction crystal clear.
Total wealth includes the sum of all assets and liabilities including the value of personal residence.
Financial wealth includes the sum of all financial assets and liabilities NOT including the value of personal residence.
I have made the distinction between 'total wealth' and 'financial wealth' many times with you. The comprehensive study I referred to makes that distinction in greater detail.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 34.3% of 'total wealth'.
In 2004, the richest 1% of American households held 42.3% of all 'financial wealth'.
If you still don't understand the difference then you're in over your head.
Next.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/
I love this website. Not only have they compiled and analyzed a lot of the "data" and provided charts that even ModestCapitalist can understand, they have a ton of calculator tools that look like a great way to plug in "his" numbers and run them in order to find out how off they are. :-)
Time saver!
Yeah...I still like checking official sources for data.....it's more time consuming, but I KNOW it is factual....
Yeah. Like you KNEW that US household income was up from 1979-2007 ACROSS QUINTILES according to the CBO.
What your 'official data' didn't show (and you were too too strung up by your conservative puppet strings to IMMEDIATELY understand) was that energy, food, and home sale prices ARE NOT considered when core inflation is calculated. Also that more households now require second providers and/or retirees going back to work to compensate for the DRASTIC increases in key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education. Therefore, the 'official statistics' from the CBO regarding household income were misleading and the implication DEAD WRONG.
The REAL truth is that household incomes for the top 1% nearly tripled leaving them with a huge increase in actual buying power while the lower 4 quintiles ended up with a loss in actual buying power and record high consumer debt.
The ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
You are so incredibly conservative, strung up by partisan strings, OBSESSED with 'official government data', and determined to defend the rich and debunk all claims of economic injustice that it took a self employed builder to spoon feed you those points regarding inflation, key living expenses, 2nd providers, retirees, and consumer debt.
Which you still havn't had the guts to even acknowledge.
If you like checking 'official sources' so much, then post the statistics you claim to have regarding gross assets and private debt of the lower 98% in 2004. One or more of the fatal flaws in your outrageous assertion that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth lie within those statistics regarding the lower 98%.
Stop stalling and post them.
It's in the report...
Not nearly as time consuming as having to "go to the local library, print out the documents, and then scrutinize all the relevant data."
lol