Originally posted by sh76
Your post is emotional and does nothing to address anything that I said.
I didn't say there was not a non-ideal distribution. I said the presentation is misleading.
I think you're looking for a target. Since there are no apparent actual rich people here, I'll do as a proxy.
I'm on record on this forum many times supporting higher taxation of the rich. ...[text shortened]... he fact that I point out something that should be obvious doesn't make me "weird," only logical.
Your post is emotionalAd hominem
Originally posted by sh76so are you saying his opinion is invalid because of something unrelated he did some other time?
Says the person, who, on another thread, just said to me:
"You are an advocate for inherited privilege, a servant of the wealthy elite and an opponent of meritocracy."
did you at any point address his opinion or did you "ad hominemed" him some more?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe more skewed the distribution the more likely you will be near the
Of course there is a connection between the two, but the wealth distribution is much more unequal than the income distribution. I have no wealth to speak of but my standard of living is pretty decent with an income close to the median.
median. In fact everyone can have a near median wage so we
all feel happy. But it could be a great deal away from the mean.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAccumulation of wealth is a function of saving, not of earning. If you spend all you earn (your income) you'll never have wealth.
Of course there is a connection between the two, but the wealth distribution is much more unequal than the income distribution. I have no wealth to speak of but my standard of living is pretty decent with an income close to the median.
I prefer to think of wealth accumulation, rather than distribution.
Originally posted by normbenignThat is grossly incorrect. If you use your income to purchase assets, you'll have wealth.
Accumulation of wealth is a function of saving, not of earning. If you spend all you earn (your income) you'll never have wealth.
I prefer to think of wealth accumulation, rather than distribution.
Originally posted by sh76Yes I did, at the conclusion of a quite detailed argument in another thread, to which you did not respond. I consider my conclusion justified by the content but you may differ.
Says the person, who, on another thread, just said to me:
"You are an advocate for inherited privilege, a servant of the wealthy elite and an opponent of meritocracy."
Originally posted by normbenignFor a significant proportion of the population, if they saved all their income they would not accumulate wealth at a sufficient rate to avoid the intervention of starvation and penury. The rich save largely because their spending has to reach a limit and there is plenty more to save with. To a large extent, as shown in the statistics, the accumulation of wealth for the very rich does indeed take place at the expense of redistribution, hence leading directly to increasing poverty and inequality.
Accumulation of wealth is a function of saving, not of earning. If you spend all you earn (your income) you'll never have wealth.
I prefer to think of wealth accumulation, rather than distribution.