Neighbors Celebrating Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity While Speaking Over The Digital Fence
https://deck.lakewoodobserver.com/
birth control??? maybe a trip to Planned Parent Hood that is partially funded by our tax dollars.Stephen,
Not creating children that we cannot feed...THAT is funny. How do you propose we stop THAT?
Stephen Eisel wrote:birth control??? maybe a trip to Planned Parent Hood that is partially funded by our tax dollars.Stephen,
Not creating children that we cannot feed...THAT is funny. How do you propose we stop THAT?
Unequal distribution of wealth is not the problem. Taxing the rich and giving the government more money does not work. The Government does not create jobs or wealth. The government creates a dependent class of people (usually for generations)...or more liberal voters..And WHAT exactly is the root of the problem if it isn't the unequal distribution of wealth?
Stephen Eisel wrote:You think the rich getting richer is a mantra, and yet you quoted it as a
fact...Contradiction?
No!
Not only are there more rich, but they're also richer a big difference from just the rich getting richer.. now there are more rich..
BUT THEY ARE RICHER. That is EXACTLY the same thing as what I was saying.
You should care about how many rich ther are in total. If the number of rich is increasing then that means another category is decreasing.I don't care HOW MANY rich there are, the point is that the rich people in general are richer and the poor are getting poorer
The Forbes article that I posted talked about the number of individuals worth $1 million or more increasing world wide.Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently? Because that might be something more worth discussing.
Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently? Because that might be something more worth discussing.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Despite the Great Recession, which wiped out $15.5 trillion in household wealth in the United States alone, the number of millionaires in this country and abroad will grow rapidly over the next decade.
In the U.S., the total number of families with a net worth of over $1 million, including real estate, will double by 2020, according to a report by the Deloitte Center for Financial Services
"There is going to be very fast growth, but it will take a lot longer to reach anything like the wealth in the developed world," said Andrew Freeman, lead author of the report
The number of U.S. millionaires increased by 600,000 in 2010, according to a report by Spectrem Group.
In 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy.
That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy.
Real-estate is an asset.Also, your numbers include real estate, which inflates things as well.
Would you like to explain how this is a positive statistic for mainstream America, which I am sure you are a member of as well?
No, I have shown that there are more and more millionaires in the US / rich people since 2008.BUT THEY ARE RICHER. That is EXACTLY the same thing as what I was saying.
Yes, I porvided proof that the number of millionaires in the US has increased by 1.5 million since 2008 and projections have the total current number of millionaires doubling in by 2020.Do you have numbers that suggest that a significant number of people have become "rich" recently?
How does this suppport your argument without any proof that the standard of living has been negatively impacted for most since 1950. How many families in the 1950's had two cars? How many more material goods, services, and luxury items are available now to the average family then in the 1950's?In 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy.
That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy.
So you have not addressed the issue that I brought up, only rephrased it in an attempt to package it as a different statement. I don't care HOW MANY rich there are, the point is that the rich people in general are richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Thealexa Becker wrote:Sometimes I am convinced that people just read headlines and interesting numbers in articles but fail to grasp what they really signify.
You do realize that the average poverty rate is now lower than when compared to the 1950's? so much for graspingIn 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy.
That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy.
Yes, it is a good thing that .1% of the country controls 10% of the "economy". They obviously understand how to make money and also help to create jobs.Once again, do you think it is a good thing for .1% of the country to control 10% of the economy? Is that what you mean is a good thing by there being more rich? And how is that any different than there being a few politicians controlling the debt ceiling?