patrick.net

Strategist says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Strategist says

I provide lots of evidence,

Where? You evidence seems to be like bigfoot, no one ever actually sees it. Show a posting you made on this entire thread showing "evidence" that anything in your list has any credence. Other than it's true because I say it's true.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Strategist says

I provide lots of evidence,

Where? You evidence seems to be like bigfoot, no one ever actually sees it. Show a posting you made on this entire thread showing "evidence" that anything in your list has any credence. Other than it's true because I say it's true.

My dear friend Bob,
Showing only part of statements is very deceptive.
Thanks
Strategist

Strategist says

errc says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Big Difference. You should take that hint and change your ways.

I’d ask you to prove this, but you cannot, so I won’t

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

Sniper says

Strategist says

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.

$5 million might not be a fortune, but when almost 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, and the average retiree is entering retirement with $120K saved up for retirement, there really won't be that many in that +$5 million category.

Yes, I agree there won't be many. You still have to draw the line somewhere, so why draw the line that would affect lots of small businesses and their employees? We want to encourage small businesses to get successful, big, and hire lots of people. Almost all big corporations started off small, many in the garage.

bob2356 says

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

These are just some of the well known ones. Very successful people are a minority to begin with.
Most people consider being rich as having a net worth of $5 million. Some think it's $10 million.
http://www.newsweek.com/millionaires-us-wealth-charles-schwab-rich-poor-627893
WHO IS RICH IN AMERICA? WEALTH NOW STARTS AT $2.4 MILLION
BY TOM PORTER ON 6/21/17 AT 12:03 PM
Mercedes Benz polo challenge
People enjoy an afternoon at the Mercedes-Benz Polo Challenge July 21, 2001 in Bridgehampton, New York. Americans now put a cash value of $2.4 million on what they consider "wealthy."
SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES
SHARE
U.S.
It was once the case that with $1 million in the bank, you’d be considered wealthy by most. But no longer.

According to research by American bank Charles Schwab, that benchmark has risen, and you now need at least $2.4 million to be considered wealthy.

In its survey of Americans aged 21 to 75 the bank asked how much people felt you needed to be considered "wealthy," and found that people believed that having $1 million only makes a person "financially comfortable" rather than well-off.

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

Though there are now a record number of millionaires in the U.S., according to the Spectrum Group’s 2017 Market Insight report, they still only make up around 10 percent of the country's population.

The $2.4 million required to be considered wealthy is 30 times the $80,000 net worth of the average American household, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Though the number of American millionaires is growing, the number of Americans in the middle is shrinking—suggesting the split between rich and poor is growing. According to a 2016 study by Pew Research Center, the number of Americans considered to be in the middle income bracket in 2000 stood at 55 percent, but by 2014 this number had shrunk to 55 percent.

However, the Schwab survey also found that Americans view other aspects of life as making a person wealthy. While 27 percent defined wealth in cash terms, 24 percent defined it as gained through experiences, and 19 percent as "peace of mind." When asked about their priorities, most said they would rather have good health and gratitude than a lot of cash.

“Wealth is often thought of as a lofty, unattainable number that doesn’t apply to most of us, but that’s an old-fashioned notion that needs to be retired,” Terri Kallsen, head of Schwab Investor Services, said in a statement released with the findings.

Strategist says

Sniper says

Strategist says

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.

$5 million might not be a fortune, but when almost 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, and the average retiree is entering retirement with $120K saved up for retirement, there really won't be that many in that +$5 million category.

Yes, I agree there won't be many.

That's my point:

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

So, everyone is getting their panties in a bundle about the inheritance tax threshold of $5 million? We're going to worry about 0.3% of the population and say the new tax bill should tax the "rich" more? How much more can be extracted from this 0.3% to make a difference in total taxes?

"Needles" versus "Haystacks" again.

Sniper says

Yes, I agree there won't be many.

That's my point:

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

These are individuals, not households. Nevertheless, I would divide the numbers by 2.25 or whatever the average household is.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

These are just some of the well known ones. Very successful people are a minority to begin with.
Most people consider being rich as having a net worth of $5 million. Some think it's $10 million.
http://www.newsweek.com/millionai...

This has what relevance of any kind to your contention that many of the rich started poor?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

These are just some of the well known ones. Very successful people are a minority to begin with.
Most people consider being rich as having a net worth of $5 million. Some think it's $10 million.

Strategist says

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

These are individuals, not households. Nevertheless, I would divide the numbers by 2.25 or whatever the average household is.

Huh?? It didn't say households?

The article said "individuals" and there are approx. 320 million "individuals" in the country. So, if 1.3 million are in the $5m to $25m bracket, isn't that 0.3% of the population?

Sniper says

Strategist says

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

These are individuals, not households. Nevertheless, I would divide the numbers by 2.25 or whatever the average household is.

Huh?? It didn't say households?

The article said "individuals" and there are approx. 320 million "individuals" in the country. So, if 1.3 million are in the $5m to $25m bracket, isn't that 0.3% of the population?

Yes, that is 0.3% of the population. However, household wealth could be a more accurate indicator. When Bill Gates had his first child, it would be the poorest child on the planet, born to the richest man on the child. The poor kid just has a used diaper to it's name. Something does not make sense there.

Strategist says

However, household wealth could be a more accurate indicator. When Bill Gates had his first child, it would be the poorest child on the planet, born to the richest man on the child. The poor kid just has a used diaper to it's name. Something does not make sense there.

Why use a household indicator, it's usually the individual that's produced the wealth. In the case of Bill Gates, even at 5 years old, the kid will still be dirt poor. He won't gain wealth until Gates takes a dirt nap and he inherits his share (assuming Gates gives it to him in his will).