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.
Mainly because I like to see what the President has on his mind and what he'd like to do. But I also don't know if he's really quite that powerless. The community college idea has a chance even in a GOP Congress.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra 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.
The more skewed the distribution the more likely you will be near the
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 KazetNagorra 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.
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 normbenign 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.
That is grossly incorrect. If you use your income to purchase assets, you'll have wealth.
Originally posted by sh76 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."
Yes 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.
Originally posted by normbenign 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.
For 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.
Distribution of wealth
20 Jan '15 14:38
Back to Top