# OT alternative wealth statistics

Page 2 of 4
• posted on January 26, 2004, 4:20 am
In rec.woodworking

Math isn't your strong suit is it Ken? Of course 50% is greater than 60% but just because I have an IQ 50% higher than you doesn't mean that you can bench press 60% more than me.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "owning 60% of the wealth" and "paying 50% of the income tax." The two are barely related. Many of those 5% paying 50% of the taxes have very little "wealth" ie assets. Most of them are doctors, lawyers and business owners that blow every penny they make just like the poor guy does. They just blow it on more expensive things like European vacations and cars and "stuff."
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 10:18 am
bruce responds:

Makes you want to weep it's so heartrending.
Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 12:44 am
kenR wrote:

Is this an "accident?" Or the result of a "silver spoon" being in their mouths when born? I think not.
I have bought two books because they had a handful of paragraphs. From ISBN 1-56052-078-7 page 9,
--------------------- Here's proof that planning works. Back in the 1950s, a behavioral research team from the Harvard Business School took a random sample of 100 members of the senior class and asked them what they would like to be doing 10 years from graduation. All 100 said they would like to be wealthy, successful, and significant forces in the business world.
The researchers noted that of the 100 seniors, only 10 had drawn up specific goals and put them in writing.
Ten years later, the research team paid a follow-up visit to the 100 subjects. They found that the 10 graduates who had written down their goals *owned 96 percent of the total wealth* of the 100-student sample.
Planning *does* pay off. ---------------------
I know people who are millionaires. I have met a billionaire. I am still a hundred-aire or thousand-aire.
IMO the people I know who MADE IT, actually MADE IT by hard work, multiple failures, sacrifice, etc. They have already paid more than their "fair share" of taxes (*) They furthered their education when others of their generation were watching TV. They contemplated their futures while others were contemplating their navels. Why punish those who chose to succeed? Why reward those (like me) who tried to do as little as they could and still get by?
-- Mark
(*) I am in favor of a 100% flat tax at some certain rate. People making \$100/month pay X%. People making \$1,000,000 / month pay X%.
BTW, I know I'll pay more taxes under the flat rate plan. That's fine with me.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 1:03 am
Mark Jerde wrote:

I had an email conversation with this person in January 2004. In the 45 years it has taken this billionaire to amass his fortune he has read over 6,500 biographies. It was his desire to emulate the things others found sucessful and avoid the things others found fruitless. Using the yardstick of \$\$, IMO he has been successful. I have many books, but I'm no where close to having read 6500 biographies!
Many of us (myself included) have spent 40 +/- years with items of little import. IMO the tiny few who focused on the important things should not be taxed on their foresight, especially when they have already paid on the order of 2x their "fair share" of the taxes!
-- Mark
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 1:11 am
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:44:43 +0000, Mark Jerde wrote:

The number in 2000 was 16% of AGI. That was the rate of doing your "fair share" of income tax.
-Doug
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 3:59 am
Mark Jerde wrote:

Will someone *PLEASE* take issue with this? <g> 45 years ago this guy couldn't really read a newspaper. 40 years later he's selling videos to people like me for \$1k.
Yes, he's read over six thousand, five hundred biographies. No sense replicating the mistakes of others. Only fools don't learn from history.
-- Mark
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 3:45 am
I meant, they (the more well to do) got more stuff that needs protectin', for example. They're much more interested in order and law, for example. Versus a bum on the street, or even a step or two above that.
Renata
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:27:30 GMT, Mark & Juanita

smart, not dumb for email
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 2:54 pm

I don't think that's a supportable statement at all. Crime affects the poor, both in number of incidents and economic impact, far more than it does even the moderately wealthy.
John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 9:18 pm
Now, who has the mansion that needs protectin' from burglars? The lovely Porsche? Who has loads of dough that needs protectin'? If you ain't got nothing, what the heck do you need to protect? OTOH, you might be a tad jealous that some folks just get all the breaks and try to even things out by takin's a bit from the richer folk.
Renata
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:54:48 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy

smart, not dumb for email
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 10:13 pm
wrote:

crime *far* more often than the wealthy.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 4:48 pm
4ax.com:

You sort of missed the point.
Firstly, there's much less crime in wealthy areas - in large part because it takes a lot of effort for criminals to move from where they're at to where the rich folk live, and criminals tend to be lazy. So the guy with the Porsche is at less risk of it being stolen than the guy with the beatup 79 Cutlass.
Secondly, if the Porsche is stolen, the owner calls the insurance, goes to work in his other car, and goes out & buys a new Porsche when the insurance pays off. The guy with the 79 Cutlass, on the otherhand, is screwed if it's stolen - no insurance, no money to replace it, and how's he going to get to work today?
John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:31 am

You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't people on the left who don't want to take money away from the wealthy and distribute it "more fairly". As for paying their fair share, it has been pointed out about two dozen times in this thread that the top 5% of wage earners earn about 35% of all income, but pay 56% of all income tax. Conversely, the bottom 50% of wage earners earned about 14% of all income, but paid 4% of all income tax. If you want a progressive tax system, it looks like we've got it.
todd
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 7:56 pm
"todd"

You are confusing the issue with facts.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 10:19 pm
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message wrote in message

I know it doesn't sound as good in a sound bite as "we want these rich people to pay their fair share". I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out that they are, in fact, rich by the definition of many on the left. I also enjoy listening to people like Warren Buffet who think the rich are undertaxed. With a net worth of 30 billion or so, if he thinks he's undertaxed, he should send a few billion extra to the Treasury Department.
todd
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 12:49 am
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:19:06 -0600, todd wrote:

He could really show the strength of his convictions by emulating the old Millionaire TV show with about 10 or 20 of his 30 billion and create 10,000 or 20,000 new millionaires from the available pool of poor people. That way, he'd eliminate the big scrape off of government. But can you imagine the chorous of wailing when all those new millionaires saw over half of their new found wealth disappearing down the gullet of the government animal.
-Doug
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 4:33 pm
"Doug Winterburn"

Not only that but many of those new millionaires will be broke again in no time. I don't envy the rich, I just don't want to do what it takes to get there. Often the rich kids squander inherited money by not having the personal makeup of the overacheiver that got it in the first place. I suppose that's true redistribution of wealth in action.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 2:59 am
@NOcomcastSPAM.net says...

Something I have found that helps with the mental gymnastics when encountering statements from such as Mr Buffet who say the rich need to pay their fair share, or Barbra Streisand who say we must protect the environment (while living in a mansion and being driven around in limos) is you need to add the things they fail to add to their statements that provide what they really mean. In Buffet's case it is something on the order of "The other rich need to pay their fair share", or Barbra, "We [you] need to preserve the environment for me" HTH

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 10:14 am
Mark & Juanita writes:

Is that a little bit like the "Don't eat animals" guy who wears leather shoes and belt?
Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 3:25 pm

Or Arianna Huffinton railing against SUVs, but taking a trip on a friend's private plane. Her justification was that "it was going there anyway".
todd
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 4:26 pm
"todd"

Or Rosie ODonuts railing against gun ownership while being protected by armed guards.