MSNative Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I've spent a lot of time in the "Third World" in Asia and the modes of transportation are incredible. 5 people on a motorcycle, busses clinging to the edges of cliffs, major intersections with no traffic control, etc. Last time I was in Asia I was in an accident/week. Luckily it was so overcrowded none of them were over 20-25 mph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdHkRkwJvww&spfreload=10 Personally, every time I have mentioned comparative poverty between the U.S. and poorer nations on these boards, I have regretted it. :sad: Yikes!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 80-90% of the working population depend on charity? I've never seen that stat. Would you mind sharing where you got it? I was simply responding to the idea that we should force the 1% to give to charity. They already do. In answer to how much they give, this site gives good info. Based on their numbers, Americans gave $335 billion. Given the earlier stat that the top 1% give a third of all charitable dollars, then the top 1% is giving a little over $1 billion. http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/ And *I* was simply pointing out that making 1% give to charity to supposedly better the other 80-90% is not what needs to happen. Making a majority of citizens depend on the charity of a minority is not good economics or social policy Imnsho. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 80 - 90% of people do not need to depend on charity. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 And *I* was simply pointing out that making 1% give to charity to supposedly better the other 80-90% is not what needs to happen. Making a majority of citizens depend on the charity of a minority is not good economics or social policy Imnsho. Yes, and I feel it's a poor social policy to require 90% of the population to dance the tango every Saturday if they want to be allowed to go to the public library. As that's not happening, I don't feel the need to talk about it much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Personally, every time I have mentioned comparative poverty between the U.S. and poorer nations on these boards, I have regretted it. :sad: Eh - I brought it up this time and I have pretty thick skin, so if anyone wants to get ruffled about it, so be it. I suggest they take time to read the book about it though (assuming they can't experience it themselves). There is so much we take for granted in first world countries and a great majority of us living in them are truly rich comparatively. I seem to recall discussing dishwashers and dryers not that long ago in this thread. I assume both are kept in houses that are larger than 10x10. Chances are clothes drying racks are as well. There may be fewer occupants in our houses too. And I wonder how bald the tires are on our old vehicles? (Speaking for myself, my car's tires are very new.) And I wonder if the doors close on our vehicles? All sorts of details I hadn't really thought about before. Here on Grand Bahama there's only been one public bus we've taken where the door has actually opened with the door handle. I doubt any public bus here would pass any state inspection back home..... and Grand Bahama isn't exactly a third world country. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 80 - 90% of people do not need to depend on charity. :iagree: I think that is a tremendous exaggeration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I know it reads that way...but I dont think that is what Martha meant. I think she was talking in broader terms....the haves vs the have nots. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The only income group who gives more on average as a percentage of income than those making $45-50K a year are those making 10 million a year or more. This trend plays out again and again in study after study and analysis after analysis. http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.ctm 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyoustxmama Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 We are in that level but 1) carry daunting 6 figure loans and 2) were both in our education/broke student trainee phase well into our 30's, as opposed to most others in our age group who were well established with a mortgage and kids/careers by the same age. I started my family so late that I will have toddlers and preschoolers into my 40's, and we will be paying our debt off till our 50's, and tbh neither of us had much fun in our 20's when others were single/partying/living their lives. Plus I ended up leaving my career after all the work, because the lifestyle was not compatible (for our wishes) with raising a family. So I wouldn't say it is "elite", in many people's cases this bracket of income comes with quite a number of steep social costs. Now if I could have made that money at age 23 straight out of college while single ;) life would have felt pretty darn elite ;). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I know it reads that way...but I dont think that is what Martha meant. I think she was talking in broader terms....the haves vs the have nots. No kidding. I thought it was rather obvious, but obviously it wasn't. And thank you. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Nope. And I don't want to be labeled a "have not" either. I have a lot. Some of it priceless. Most of it not dependent on money at all. The money I have is due to a mix of good choices and good fortune. The money I've lost or owe is due to a mix of bad choices and bad fortune. I've worked for some of the 1% before. I don't envy them at all. They don't owe me or anyone else a thing. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I was a very young child when I realized the disparity between the haves and have nots. It affects me the same now as then...it makes me physically ill. I do believe the system is broken....I don't begrudge any single person who has an excess....but I find the disparity obscene, 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Nope. And I don't want to be labeled a "have not" either. I have a lot. Some of it priceless. Most of it not dependent on money at all. The money I have is due to a mix of good choices and good fortune. The money I've lost or owe is due to a mix of bad choices and bad fortune. I've worked for some of the 1% before. I don't envy them at all. They don't owe me or anyone else a thing. Haves vs have nots is a general term. Of course it is all relative...and no I dont think any of the haves owe me anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 No kidding. I thought it was rather obvious, but obviously it wasn't. And thank you. :) Sorry I misunderstood you, Martha! :blush: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I know it reads that way...but I dont think that is what Martha meant. I think she was talking in broader terms....the haves vs the have nots. Thanks, Scarlett -- I thought she literally meant 80-90% of the people. Oops!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 A cursory Google look into who gets gov't benefits/welfare. I thought this was interesting. For all the talk (not necessarily here) of the lower class dragging the social net down, that may not be the case. The Washington post based on mostly stats prior to 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroe1 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Now, what about that 1%? I am most curious about them! This would be 1/100 people but I am not sure I have met any of them. Most of the people I have come into contact with during my life were probably in the 50-10% range but maybe nobody in the 1%. Are these all professional athletes, celebrities, CEOs of huge companies and royalty? Should there be a cap on their earnings? Should they be required to give 50% to charity? How can we have a better distribution of wealth? What change do we want to see? Why should the top 1% be forced to pay anything to charity? If anything, they should be forced to tell everyone what it takes to get in the top 1% so that others can choose to emulate if they want. Do you think just because you do not know someone, it is OK to steal what he has worked for? There is a general mindset I see from many of the posts that the 1% is some privileged, elite class who deserve to support everyone else who has no opportunity to escape their lot. I happen to know quite a few 1% people from my neighborhood and work. I can tell you their lives are anything but privileged. You would be shocked at just what it takes to get there. And all would say that luck did not influence where they are in income, and that most anyone can get there. The problem is that when people hear just what it takes, the excuses come out in full force of why they cannot do it, life is unfair, and therefore, the 1% must give up a percentage of what they earn. I am guessing I know about 50 or so 1% families well enough to know their stories, and only one was born into it, but his life was also not very privileged. The rest came from poverty, or lower middle class. To me, it does not make sense to tell these people that the only way they can escape their lot is to carry a bunch of others who are not willing to make the same sacrifices with them. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I went to a great private school in southern FL for my 10th grade year. While I was on scholarship, all of my friends were in the Top 1%. Every single one of them was born into it - as were their parents. It didn't matter which country they were born in (some were not US natives). There definitely are some who bootstrap their way up and a few of those might be able to say luck had nothing to do with it, but I remain doubtful that it's the majority. It's not luck in the form of winning a lottery. It's luck in the form of meeting great connections or having a great mentor - or even health of themselves and/or their family. Hard work and hours are there for those who work their way up - no doubt - but luck is often there too. How one fares in the birth lottery is the biggest indicator of how wealthy they will be in life. It's not a perfect indicator (esp when one thinks of Hollywood/music/sports successes), but the correlation is sure there. FWIW, I can't say I envied what my friends at that school had. I can say I wished we didn't have to worry about $$ to buy clothes and man, their vacations were both astounding and plentiful (so yeah, I probably envied those), but on the whole, we were just teens studying to get good grades and enjoying our time together. Once they figured out the difference in our parental income, they also saw to it that I never had to pay for my lunch again when we went out - and a few dinners we ate at the country club (where my menu didn't even have prices). It didn't seem to bug them to "help the little gal" with charity. I wouldn't have been able to go with them if they hadn't. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaners Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Why should the top 1% be forced to pay anything to charity? If anything, they should be forced to tell everyone what it takes to get in the top 1% so that others can choose to emulate if they want. Do you think just because you do not know someone, it is OK to steal what he has worked for? There is a general mindset I see from many of the posts that the 1% is some privileged, elite class who deserve to support everyone else who has no opportunity to escape their lot. I happen to know quite a few 1% people from my neighborhood and work. I can tell you their lives are anything but privileged. You would be shocked at just what it takes to get there. And all would say that luck did not influence where they are in income, and that most anyone can get there. The problem is that when people hear just what it takes, the excuses come out in full force of why they cannot do it, life is unfair, and therefore, the 1% must give up a percentage of what they earn. I am guessing I know about 50 or so 1% families well enough to know their stories, and only one was born into it, but his life was also not very privileged. The rest came from poverty, or lower middle class. To me, it does not make sense to tell these people that the only way they can escape their lot is to carry a bunch of others who are not willing to make the same sacrifices with them. I think there is a huge difference in the way you view what you earn and the way my family views earnings. Money we have beyond what we need for ourselves is money we are very thankful to be able to give or donate where we see a need. People aren't trying to grub our hard-earned money from us. We are happy to have the ability to help other people or certain causes at that time. And maybe that is why we will never be in the top 1% - because we are too foolish and give away our money to people who didn't "earn" it themselves. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I don't think demanding that 90% of the population have more equal opportunities to better their lives themselves is charity and I really don't care if the 1% has to suffer some from the competition of that opportunity. For me, I'm not wanting to steal from anyone. For me, I think anyone who works hard and is educated in America shouldn't have to steal or ask for charity (gov't or otherwise) to have what anyone in America would consider a basic existance. And they shouldn't be told to just shut up and be grateful they aren't suffering 3rd world poverty either. Grateful to who? The 1% who perpetuate policies that make it increasingly harder to get ahead, much less stay that way but give just enough to keep rebellion at bay? 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 IFor me, I think anyone who works hard and is educated in America shouldn't have to steal or ask for charity (gov't or otherwise) to have what anyone in America would consider a basic existance. And they shouldn't be told to just shut up and be grateful they aren't suffering 3rd world poverty either. I think anyone living in a first world country ought to be thankful for that opportunity to automatically have a higher level of living than much of the world's population. It's a big win in the birth lottery. Beyond that, I think it's important to look at poverty from a broad perspective as we are all citizens of this world - all country borders are man-made. Since no individual can "solve" poverty on their own (not even Bill Gates), by looking at the broader perspective individuals will (should?) naturally align themselves with doing something. Every little bit helps. Gov't programs help. Private programs help. Religious programs help. Individuals help. Neighbor helping neighbor helps. If anyone is NOT doing something - then, IMO, they ought to be ashamed. Note that the "help" can't always be financially. Sometimes it can be time. Sometimes it can be an ear to listen. But when one can do something financially, there's that too, but financially isn't always giving $$. Sometimes it's giving opportunities (employment, scholarships, donated services, etc). Gov't policy (worldwide) changing could definitely help, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that change. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5of5 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I went to a great private school in southern FL for my 10th grade year. While I was on scholarship, all of my friends were in the Top 1%. Every single one of them was born into it - as were their parents. It didn't matter which country they were born in (some were not US natives). There definitely are some who bootstrap their way up and a few of those might be able to say luck had nothing to do with it, but I remain doubtful that it's the majority. I've read that for the "rich" about 15 percent of their assets are inherited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I've read that for the "rich" about 15 percent of their assets are inherited. The friends at my school went on to college and then into businesses or other occupations. They didn't just sit at home doing nothing but spending. They still earned $$ - as did their parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroe1 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I think there is a huge difference in the way you view what you earn and the way my family views earnings. Money we have beyond what we need for ourselves is money we are very thankful to be able to give or donate where we see a need. People aren't trying to grub our hard-earned money from us. We are happy to have the ability to help other people or certain causes at that time. And maybe that is why we will never be in the top 1% - because we are too foolish and give away our money to people who didn't "earn" it themselves. Nobody said these people are not giving generously. I do not know anyone in the top 1% who do not give very generously in both time and money. I say they should not be forced to give, however. It takes away the incentive to excel. There are, however, many similarities in these families and the stories behind the "success". Someone asked how I know my friends that I say are in the top 1%, actually are. I do not sit around and discuss actual income, that is for sure. It would be a combination of things. One is lifestyle, location of homes, working in industries or owners of corporations, careers, and, finally, one is the amount of donations given to me for my own charities, investment choices, etc. True, some people can fool you by portraying a certain lifestyle, but this is a different bracket of people. While it is easy to fool a million dollar lifestyle, it is much harder to fool a multi-million one. Nonetheless, they never forget life can be only one day away from poverty again. Our neighborhood, for example, has seen a few foreclosures just like everywhere else. Do your googling, but less than 10% of wealthy are wealthy through inheritance alone. Most born into wealth do not sustain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Top 1% are not all multi-millionaires. Most aren't. What is inherited is the opportunity and some starting capital. Those are big factors. Here's a good article showing what it takes at different ages: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-top-1-percentand-01-percentof-every-age-group-in-america/382094/ And it's not just salary: "But the wealthiest Americans draw more of their income from investments. For the 1 percent, 0.1 percent, and 0.01 percent, capital gains account for 22, 33 and 42 percent (respectively) of their average income. Wages, as I've said, are for normal people. Investments are for the rich." 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I happen to know quite a few 1% people from my neighborhood and work. I can tell you their lives are anything but privileged. You would be shocked at just what it takes to get there. And all would say that luck did not influence where they are in income, and that most anyone can get there. The problem is that when people hear just what it takes, the excuses come out in full force of why they cannot do it, life is unfair, Most anyone can get there? So basically you are saying, if somebody is not in the top 1%, it's his own fault because he is making excuses and not working hard enough? Wow. Just wow. 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Why should the top 1% be forced to pay anything to charity? If anything, they should be forced to tell everyone what it takes to get in the top 1% so that others can choose to emulate if they want. Do you think just because you do not know someone, it is OK to steal what he has worked for? There is a general mindset I see from many of the posts that the 1% is some privileged, elite class who deserve to support everyone else who has no opportunity to escape their lot. I happen to know quite a few 1% people from my neighborhood and work. I can tell you their lives are anything but privileged. You would be shocked at just what it takes to get there. And all would say that luck did not influence where they are in income, and that most anyone can get there. The problem is that when people hear just what it takes, the excuses come out in full force of why they cannot do it, life is unfair, and therefore, the 1% must give up a percentage of what they earn. I am guessing I know about 50 or so 1% families well enough to know their stories, and only one was born into it, but his life was also not very privileged. The rest came from poverty, or lower middle class. To me, it does not make sense to tell these people that the only way they can escape their lot is to carry a bunch of others who are not willing to make the same sacrifices with them. I find the content of this post is staticially unlikely and, from an anecdotal lived experience, also unlikely. Just using pure math, it would be HIGHLY unlikely for one individual to know "50 families" of the 1%. Further, I just had lunch with a staff of women - 11 of us. I have worked intimately with many of them for 5+ years. I don't know most of the story of their childhood/foo's "wealth". To know the foo info on 50? That seems absurdly unlikely. It is also statistically unlikely to the point of "no freaking way" that most of the families you know (50!) in the 1% "came from poverty or lower middle class." That is NOT how wealth or poverty or lower middle class plays out. I call pure bull donkey. 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I don't think demanding that 90% of the population have more equal opportunities to better their lives themselves is charity and I really don't care if the 1% has to suffer some from the competition of that opportunity. For me, I'm not wanting to steal from anyone. For me, I think anyone who works hard and is educated in America shouldn't have to steal or ask for charity (gov't or otherwise) to have what anyone in America would consider a basic existance. And they shouldn't be told to just shut up and be grateful they aren't suffering 3rd world poverty either. Grateful to who? The 1% who perpetuate policies that make it increasingly harder to get ahead, much less stay that way but give just enough to keep rebellion at bay? Just as is it not fair to assume all poor people are too lazy or stupid to get ahead, it is also not fair to assume all rich people are making it harder for people to get ahead and giving just enough to keep the rebellion at bay. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I find the content of this post is staticially unlikely and, from an anecdotal lived experience, also unlikely. Just using pure math, it would be HIGHLY unlikely for one individual to know "50 families" of the 1%. Further, I just had lunch with a staff of women - 11 of us. I have worked intimately with many of them for 5+ years. I don't know most of the story of their childhood/foo's "wealth". To know the foo info on 50? That seems absurdly unlikely. It is also statistically unlikely to the point of "no freaking way" that most of the families you know (50!) in the 1% "came from poverty or lower middle class." That is NOT how wealth or poverty or lower middle class plays out. I call pure bull donkey. Maybe she and/or her husband work in a field that has a lot of 1%ers in it. In the '90s my husband and I worked in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley. We knew a lot of people who were probably 1%ers then and may still be now. We knew a lot of their stories - how they started, how they came to be wealthy. We are still in touch with a few of those people now. I would say all of them have worked very hard and took risks, but in some cases there was an element of luck which they acknowledge - being in the right place at the right time with stock options, for example. Of course to be in that right place at that right time required both hard work and risk! I don't know why anyone would assume someone is lying about her own experiences and observations. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Maybe she and/or her husband work in a field that has a lot of 1%ers in it. In the '90s my husband and I worked in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley. We knew a lot of people who were probably 1%ers then and may still be now. We knew a lot of their stories - how they started, how they came to be wealthy. We are still in touch with a few of those people now. I would say all of them have worked very hard and took risks, but in some cases there was an element of luck which they acknowledge - being in the right place at the right time with stock options, for example. Of course to be in that right place at that right time required both hard work and risk! I don't know why anyone would assume someone is lying about her own experiences and observations. The math doesn't add up. The poster states every one of the 50 1% she knows, except 1, came from poverty or lower middle class. That is unlikely, very, very unlikely. Statistics and research do not support the history of 1%ers, and transcending poverty and lower middle class doesn't happen at that rate/percentage. And, yea. I find it unlikely any person knows 50 people well enough to know their wealth etiology. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Maybe she and/or her husband work in a field that has a lot of 1%ers in it. In the '90s my husband and I worked in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley. We knew a lot of people who were probably 1%ers then and may still be now. We knew a lot of their stories - how they started, how they came to be wealthy. We are still in touch with a few of those people now. I would say all of them have worked very hard and took risks, but in some cases there was an element of luck which they acknowledge - being in the right place at the right time with stock options, for example. Of course to be in that right place at that right time required both hard work and risk! I don't know why anyone would assume someone is lying about her own experiences and observations. I know a lot of the 1%ers tend to congregate together in their own IRL circles. At the school I went to all of my friends were part of that group (well, their parents were) and many tended to live in similar developments - often ocean or canal front. Our school bus (this cost extra) used to drop off kids at fancy places. Many others were brought to/from school in fancy cars. I got some rides in fancy cars (sometimes with chauffeurs) when I went to their houses for studying or hanging out - or even when on my way to the riding stable where I worked and they kept their boarded horses. My grandma's old Chevy stood out considerably. I have no idea how much the parents converse with each other, but I assume it's similar to others IRL circles. I know their kids shared a lot - and questioned a lot about my background. None of my friends shunned me because of my background. It was more like being an exchange student. If there were those who did look down on me, they kept away and I never knew it. This school acccepted up to 100 per class level. I'm not sure if our numbers were maxed out or not, but I never heard of any other in my grade being there on scholarship. I know my grandma had some wealthy connections through her church (she volunteered in the thrift shop all the time - managed it). It's possible "I" was told it was a scholarship, but she actually had a friend willing to pay the tuition. I know I had to test to get into the school. All that aside, the part that I find difficult to believe is that all of the IRL friends came from lower income backgrounds. It can and does happen, but not at a 98% rate (1 in 50 inherited the start). None of my friends (7 or 8 close friends - probably 20 - 25 regularly in my classes) had parents that started off in low income. It was all an inherited and expected lifestyle from those I knew well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edelweiss Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Maybe she and/or her husband work in a field that has a lot of 1%ers in it. In the '90s my husband and I worked in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley. We knew a lot of people who were probably 1%ers then and may still be now. We knew a lot of their stories - how they started, how they came to be wealthy. We are still in touch with a few of those people now. I would say all of them have worked very hard and took risks, but in some cases there was an element of luck which they acknowledge - being in the right place at the right time with stock options, for example. Of course to be in that right place at that right time required both hard work and risk! I don't know why anyone would assume someone is lying about her own experiences and observations. Yes, I have a hard time understanding how someone would think that it is "highly unlikely" that someone could know 50 people who are in the 1%. People of similar income live near each other, join the same clubs, are on the same boards, send their kids to the same private schools, etc. Now, as far as knowing a lot about each person's background, I can't speak to that. But I certainly think that it is easy for a person to know 50 people in the 1%. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikin' Mama Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Top 1% are not all multi-millionaires. Most aren't. What is inherited is the opportunity and some starting capital. Those are big factors. Here's a good article showing what it takes at different ages: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-top-1-percentand-01-percentof-every-age-group-in-america/382094/ And it's not just salary: "But the wealthiest Americans draw more of their income from investments. For the 1 percent, 0.1 percent, and 0.01 percent, capital gains account for 22, 33 and 42 percent (respectively) of their average income. Wages, as I've said, are for normal people. Investments are for the rich." Yes. The very wealthy people I know are not wealthy because they are drawing a large paycheck. In fact, they aren't receiving a paycheck unless they are paying one to themselves for tax purposes. They are wealthy because of investments they made and risks they took many years ago that have paid off well. And I do know that a couple of these people did start off poor. But they had what it took and I'm sure some luck along the way to get where they are, but it didn't happen quickly. It was 20 years in the making. They worked their butts off and took risks that most people, myself included, don't want to take. And for them, it paid off. However, because some people can and have done it by no means indicates that anybody can do it. I can't remember who said it upthread, but no, not anybody can be a 1%er. Very basic math says this isn't possible. And am I just a very private person, or is there something off when 50 people know each other's intimate financial details? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Just as is it not fair to assume all poor people are too lazy or stupid to get ahead, it is also not fair to assume all rich people are making it harder for people to get ahead and giving just enough to keep the rebellion at bay. When this is the case: In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. It really does beg that question. Whether it is malicious or simply through bad policies (some of the best worst policies are often done with the best of intentions) or who knows what, there's little to argue over 20% of the population having 89% of the financial (and often thus political/social) power that that most certainly does make it harder for people to get by, much less get ahead. Source of quote: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html This does not mean I think all the top 20-1% (and that's a big financial spread!) are horrid people. But they, most specificly the top 3%, have a huge amount of disproportionate power to make change for the lower classes and when they don't or do so in further damaging manners, yes, I think negatively of that and question why that happens. This is not us vs them. This is us demanding all of us do what we can and acknowledge that some of us can and thus should do more. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 All that aside, the part that I find difficult to believe is that all of the IRL friends came from lower income backgrounds. It can and does happen, but not at a 98% rate (1 in 50 inherited the start). None of my friends (7 or 8 close friends - probably 20 - 25 regularly in my classes) had parents that started off in low income. It was all an inherited and expected lifestyle from those I knew well. Just expanding upon this further, I have similar expectations for my guys and my parents did for me too. As first worlders, we also have expectations for what is "life." Kids growing up in their worlds don't always know any differently. Adults who stay within their worlds also don't know any differently. Oh sure, we see TV and read news articles, etc, but we don't truly KNOW any differently until we have BTDT. Going into that private school I had no idea what I would experience with the lifestyles of my classmates - and I didn't actually experience it all. I didn't go along on ski weekends or trips to Europe or private island escapes. I just heard about them. But my classmates had no real concept of my life either. When we got talking income I mentioned that my dad made 18K per year. One guy did a quick gasp (?) and said that they had a painting in their living room that cost that much. It never occurred to him (we were 15/16 at the time) that one could earn so little. How can one know without seeing it? Among the tippy top one could feel poor if owning a private island isn't possible. Among first worlders one could feel poor if they can't replace a dishwasher. It's all really quite similar. Hubby and I have wanted our kids to be exposed to a bit of the world. They've gone to third world countries on work trips of various sorts. Middle also went to a second world country on a medical mission. Since we live rural there's a good mix of income levels at our school too - from 1% to 99%. Youngest told me once that he went grocery shopping with a friend who was merely picking up milk and paid to help stock their fridge with basics when he saw how bare it was. That's not much different in concept for him as it was for my friends at the private school picking up my tab at the restaurants we went to when they knew I wouldn't be able to go otherwise. Both kids and adults learn as they are exposed to things. Threads like this are good at helping the exposure - both for what happens in real life living AND for suggestions in how to improve them from those who have BTDT. We've talked to our kids many times about what is needed if they want to keep up with the lifestyle they have experienced. What they do with it will be up to them. We're getting them started as best we can. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikin' Mama Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I'm no where close to the top 1% and according to the figure that started this whole discussion, I'm not even close to the top 10%. However, we do live a very comfortable lifestyle and part of that is probably due to living in a low COL area. That said, I am so thankful for the top 1%. If it weren't for people taking risks with their ideas, I wouldn't have my computer, ipad, awesome running shoes, airplanes to fly in, hotels to stay in, washing machines (oh how I puffy heart love my washing machine!), etc. I can't afford to create or sustain any of those things on my own. Somebody (actually many somebodies) worked hard and took tons of risk bringing these ideas to fruition and then kept working hard and continuing the risk to keep them going. And now I can afford access to them. I am fully aware that many people can't afford access to the things I've mentioned. I don't need educated on that, tyvm. However, I'm still incredibly grateful that they exist. And, no, I do not think we should force anyone to give, other than taxes. I am very happy to pay mine and I'm very happy that they benefit others. I don't begrudge anyone who receives food stamps or Medicaid or even a public school education. I think these are basic needs that everyone should have. I also love to give part of my income voluntarily. But I don't think anyone should be forced to. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 ps Even though we aren't in the Top 10% income-wise - certainly not Top 1%, hubby, my kids, and I all still feel we lucked out in the birth lottery. Luck is a factor in where we are now. Getting a good education and having a hubby who works long hours at a job that pays decently is part of the work hard aspect. But both hubby and I were able to get our educations due to being in environments that encouraged it and prepared us for it - definitely a birth lottery deal. We could have had the exact same genetics but been born elsewhere and ended up with a completely different life. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Why do people say they don't want to force people to give up their money and in the same breath say they are okay with taxes? Ya'll do know taxes are a way to force people to give their money to the state, right? It's not voluntary. Sure it beats holding citizens at bayonet point while they gather bushels, but it's the same thing. It's forcing citizens to pay the state. I'm not even against it necessarily and I'm annoyed when people say these things. (Personally I view taxes as a necessary evil that should be sparingly and carefully used.) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikin' Mama Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 ps Even though we aren't in the Top 10% income-wise - certainly not Top 1%, hubby, my kids, and I all still feel we lucked out in the birth lottery. Luck is a factor in where we are now. Getting a good education and having a hubby who works long hours at a job that pays decently is part of the work hard aspect. But both hubby and I were able to get our educations due to being in environments that encouraged it and prepared us for it - definitely a birth lottery deal. We could have had the exact same genetics but been born elsewhere and ended up with a completely different life. I so agree! I definitely feel like I won the birth lottery! I have the best parents and sibling ever. We sometimes lived on little, but my parents are awesome and gave us a great foundation for what we needed to know to live in this world. And then I won the kid lottery, too. I have great kids! Not because I'm a great mom, because I've messed up aplenty. I have no problem admitting that I really lucked out with the kids I have. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hikin' Mama Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Why do people say they don't want to force people to give up their money and in the same breath say they are okay with taxes? Ya'll do know taxes are a way to force people to give their money to the state, right? It's not voluntary. Sure it beats holding citizens at bayonet point while they gather bushels, but it's the same thing. It's forcing citizens to pay the state. I'm not even against it necessarily and I'm annoyed when people say these things. (Personally I view taxes as a necessary evil that should be sparingly and carefully used.) Maybe I should restate what I said. I don't think people should be forced to give *beyond* taxes. The country does need a certain amount of revenue to run and the fact is that many people need extra help. I'm okay with being forced into that. I agree with your statement of "taxes being a necessary evil." 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I'm no where close to the top 1% and according to the figure that started this whole discussion, I'm not even close to the top 10%. However, we do live a very comfortable lifestyle and part of that is probably due to living in a low COL area. That said, I am so thankful for the top 1%. If it weren't for people taking risks with their ideas, I wouldn't have my computer, ipad, awesome running shoes, airplanes to fly in, hotels to stay in, washing machines (oh how I puffy heart love my washing machine!), etc. I can't afford to create or sustain any of those things on my own. Somebody (actually many somebodies) worked hard and took tons of risk bringing these ideas to fruition and then kept working hard and continuing the risk to keep them going. And now I can afford access to them. I am fully aware that many people can't afford access to the things I've mentioned. I don't need educated on that, tyvm. However, I'm still incredibly grateful that they exist. And, no, I do not think we should force anyone to give, other than taxes. I am very happy to pay mine and I'm very happy that they benefit others. I don't begrudge anyone who receives food stamps or Medicaid or even a public school education. I think these are basic needs that everyone should have. I also love to give part of my income voluntarily. But I don't think anyone should be forced to. I always wonder about these so called "risk takers". My family member who is an engineer/manager employed by an appliance company is part of a development team creating so called smart appliances. What does he risk to produce a new appliance? Not much--maybe selecting a new employee to be part of his team. I own stock in a variety of companies (yeah, I am one of those people) so I guess you could say that I am risking my capital. But when Ford decides to market a new vehicle, they don't contact me as a stock holder for my approval. They just pay me a dividend--for which I am grateful. My husband is a well paid software engineer for a large utility. While the highest level managers are ridiculously compensated for their "risks", I think that the linemen who go out after ice storms and hurricanes have a riskier job. Just sayin'. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I disagree with the cliche that taxes are a necessary evil. Necessary? Yes. Evil? Go visit countries with minimal taxation and no state income and you tell me if you want to live there. A functioning infrastructure for a civil society. Security for our nation. A safety net for the elderly, infirm and impoverished. Not seeing anything evil. I rather like what my money helps buy. 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I disagree with the cliche that taxes are a necessary evil. Necessary? Yes. Evil? Go visit countries with minimal taxation and no state income and you tell me if you want to live there. A functioning infrastructure for a civil society. Security for our nation. A safety net for the elderly, infirm and impoverished. Not seeing anything evil. I rather like what my money helps buy. This. I am not rich, and I still have a few tax breaks lounging around the house :sneaky2: but we hit the higher brackets (depending on the year.) Does it kind of hurt to see those numbers on paper? Sure. But, if we don't pay more than the seriously struggling family down the street, how in the world am I going to get my roads plowed and maintained, my house/health/safety protected by emergency services, my library stocked, yadda, yadda? And how in the world am I going to stand by and watch my neighbors get hungry or ill or homeless and pretend that's just how it goes when people "won't" make more money? My state and local tax rates are fixed, not bracketed. As much as I personally benefit from that, I don't think it's right or effective. I'm absolutely open to debating how tax moneys are abused, but not their PURPOSE. Their real purpose. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 . 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I shall forthwith be known as Peasant #47, just to let you all know. *steps back in line to my lot in life* 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I shall forthwith be known as Peasant #47, just to let you all know. *steps back in line to my lot in life* I will stand next to you as Peasant #48. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 If you are working for a private company that is traded on the stock exchange, the CEO, CFO, CTO and other top management salaries and compensations are in the annual documents to the stock exchange (forgot the document name). Some were from the lower income classes. They just happened to be interested in computers at a time of a large expansion and when lots of people were offering equity in companies due to cash shortages. I know many in Google who cash out their stock options to pay for their home downpayment :) Luck and hard work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*lifeoftheparty* Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I find the content of this post is staticially unlikely and, from an anecdotal lived experience, also unlikely. Just using pure math, it would be HIGHLY unlikely for one individual to know "50 families" of the 1%. Further, I just had lunch with a staff of women - 11 of us. I have worked intimately with many of them for 5+ years. I don't know most of the story of their childhood/foo's "wealth". To know the foo info on 50? That seems absurdly unlikely. It is also statistically unlikely to the point of "no freaking way" that most of the families you know (50!) in the 1% "came from poverty or lower middle class." That is NOT how wealth or poverty or lower middle class plays out. I call pure bull donkey. Agree, sorry, but I agree with this. We live in a *very* wealthy area. We "rub elbows" with some very well off people. We know senators and delegates, people who live in multi-million dollar homes, etc. None of them, that I know of, came from poverty or lower middle class. Several of them inherited businesses from parents and/or grandparents (and worked in those buisnesses growing up). Others, I don't know their whole life story, cause we just run in the same circles and aren't neccessarily friends. And even being surrounded by this lifestyle, I can't say I know 50 families in the 1%. I'm sure it's possible that the poster does, but I think the life stories of those people is probably exaggerated. As an aside, the wealthy people I know are very generous with their money. And as a person whose (husband's) income is 6 figures and climbing... I am also disgusted with income equality. People who work hard, in any occupation, should be able to meet their basic needs and enjoy time with their loved ones without depending on charity. People who work 40-80 hours a week should be able to afford to see a Dr. and not go broke because they get sick or have a baby. When I get pregnant, I don't pay a single dime until after I have given birth. The hospital sends me a bill for my $150 copay a few weeks after I deliver. I don't have to pay for any pre-natal, or post natal appointments. And I had gestational diabetes that required me to go see (an expensive) maternal fetal specialist with monthly ultrasounds, then weekly- and at the end, twice a week NST's- plus, I was induced overnight and received an epidural. All of that cost me just $150. But my sister has to go apply for medicaid- which is stressful and covers the bare minimum. My SIL had a normal natural birth with no compications and had to come up with thousands of dollars, and they have insrance! It's just not fair. My sister went to school, and she cuts hair. That's a service that people need. It's a job. She isn't lazy, and she's willing to work- and- doing hair makes her happy. Why doesn't she deserve enough pay to feed her family, pay the rent and take her kids to the doctor when they get sick? She's not less worthy than I am. She's just as intelligent as I am. She did make some bad choices, yes. But she has/is correcting them- making some bad choices as a teenager shouldn't mean that you have to live the rest of your life in poverty. Especially in America. Someone has to cut hair. Someone has to pick up the garbage. Someone has to be a janitor. Practically every occupation is needed. Our society couldn't/wouldn't function if *everyone* went for the jobs that paid $150,000 and up. Does the janitor need to make $150K? No. But, IMO, *every* working person in this country (the wealthiest of them all!) should be able to give birth debt free, be able to take those kids to the dr., feed their family healthy food and have a non-dilapidated home. They just should. Anyone who thinks that some people deserve to live in poverty, and unable to meet basic needs, because they aren't working hard enough, is cruel. And certainly not a follower of Christ. 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I shall forthwith be known as Peasant #47, just to let you all know. *steps back in line to my lot in life* I do hope this is in jest. With English not being my top subject, I miss some nuances - ok - a lot of nuances. My grandparents were farmers on one side and factory workers on the other. My parents were the first to go to college in my genetic line and both were public school teachers. Hubby's dad worked in tobacco. His mom was a SAHM. None ever considered themselves peasants and they enjoyed a nice life with perks that they liked. In doing so they also provided the best they could for their kids - including encouragement. Changing economic classes isn't impossible. I have no desire to be in the Top 1% and we never will be as long as I'm doing our finances (meaning if we were to earn that much we won't keep it). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I always wonder about these so called "risk takers". My family member who is an engineer/manager employed by an appliance company is part of a development team creating so called smart appliances. What does he risk to produce a new appliance? Not much--maybe selecting a new employee to be part of his team. I own stock in a variety of companies (yeah, I am one of those people) so I guess you could say that I am risking my capital. But when Ford decides to market a new vehicle, they don't contact me as a stock holder for my approval. They just pay me a dividend--for which I am grateful. My husband is a well paid software engineer for a large utility. While the highest level managers are ridiculously compensated for their "risks", I think that the linemen who go out after ice storms and hurricanes have a riskier job. Just sayin'. My uncle is quite wealthy. He made his money by buying land and holding it for decades until it was worth more. Sure, that isn't a risk to his life but I call it a risk. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.