Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Ridgerunner]

I quite liked “Winter’s Bone” myself, and I do respect your opinions. I’m glad that you were able to become a successful person, and I think you grasp this issue much better than the people I was criticizing earlier in this thread. Sure, some people will make it out. They might be naturally more intelligent or more strong-willed, but my main point is to always understand that people should not be blamed for not being strong enough or whatever to make it out of those situations. I have never been in a position like that, so I just hate to criticize or think “Well, they must be lazy or on drugs,” when in reality sometimes the culture of poverty is too strong. And also I cut these people a lot of slack because it’s of course it’s unfair that they were born into these bad situations in the first place.

Edit: This is to Ridgerunner. I forgot to quote.

But is it really the “culture of poverty”; something bestowing more money on them will cure? Is it even intelligence or determination, quite? Or is it character? With Ree Dolly, it was character. Her intelligence and determination were servitors of her character.

My son spent a summer as a volunteer “mentor” for an Opus Dei organization in the South Bronx, teaching young people who lived in the worst situations imaginable. Yes, they taught academic subjects and even sports. But the real thrust of the whole thing was the development of character in the students. Frankly, that’s one of the reasons my son and others like him were recruited; they were of strong character and (yes) were physically strong as well as determined. The youngsters from the South Bronx could not overcome them physically, by argument or by any other means. (and some tried all methods). The young men like my son were instructed in character building methodologies.

Many of those youngsters went right back into the culture from which they came. A pretty fair number, however; a surprising number, continued in the program and developed themselves.

Maybe it really was the “development of character” aspect. What is this society doing to aid in the development of character in those whose cultural background is bad? Nothing, really. The opposite, actually. Excuses are made for everything. Accommodation of destructive behavior is thought virtuous. And so, the influences that shape cultures can, themselves, encourage degeneration.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Nor have I said all of those availing themselves of social services are all drug addicted crazies, lazy bums or stupid. You have either misread my posts or have simply projected your own thoughts into the mix. I have said that in the United States poverty is more often than not the result of making bad decisions. While one may have been born disadvantaged, that doesn’t mean they should choose to drop out of school, have out of wedlock babies, fail to get a job or indulge in intoxicants. This isn’t the Sudan where one’s life is in the hands of the latest tin pot dictator. The US provides opportunities, you just have to recognize them.

**I disagree with this though. I don’t believe that poverty is often the result of bad decisions. This attitude of blaming the poor is what has been making me uneasy about the RCC (or at least the RCC “representatives” on this site). You fail to take into account things like the “culture of poverty” and lack of education. A lot of times people just don’t know any better, but that’s no reason to place blame, but rather a reason to have sympathy. Sure, some people are responsible, but I would not say that the majority is.
**

I have also said repeatedly that not only do I believe in charity but that I donate a pretty substantial portion of my time, talent and treasure in such endeavors. (If you don’t believe me call my Priest). I am more than happy to share the amazing gifts God has given me. I believe if you read the Bible there is much said about DOING unto others, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. There is nothing I recall about handing over your money to the government to spend as substituting for charity. So for you Et Cetera to claim that I am “un-Christian” because I would prefer to work with charities rather than the Federal Government, I have to conclude that you think paying taxes is the more noble approach to society’s ills than actually working one on one with people. I’m afraid that you will have a hard time finding Biblical support for that plan.

I do not doubt that you donate to charities. I don’t think anyone has disputed this? Anyway, while you might donate, there is no guarantee that others will, and if not enough wealthy people are willing to donate of their own volition, we as a society will leave the truly needy without help. I think that Jesus would call this a failed society.

I truly wonder why you have such an amazing faith in the government when it has proven to be subject to waste, fraud, graft, and theft. THere is no accountability in a government entity. It cannot deliver nearly the same level of service for the same amount of money as a charity.

**Once again, there is no guarantee that private charities will be able to do enough. **

As to the “GOP taking over a religion” how ironic. Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals. Further the GOP has been the party of life while the Democrat party has descended into promoting a culture of death through its militant support of abortion, sterilization and birth control. On balance I think the death of millions of babies is a little more significant than reducing the increase in government programs.

**This kind of rhetoric can never be substantiated. The Left is more in favor of social programs to help the needy. Also, the GOP supports the death penalty, while the Left does not. The RCC doesn’t support it either, but this point is often conveniently overlooked. We could go back and forth on these points all day because it really boils down to personal perspective. **

I suspect it’s the Left’s faith in government that allows them to be unconcerned about whether or not the poor are being served. How much of every tax dollar sent to Washington DC to help with the poor actually GETS to the poor? You will find it’s a very small percentage. In contrast charities often promote that less than 5% of their expenses are other than direct services. Tell me a government program that is 95% effective. I won’t hold my breath.

I do agree that a lot of the money could be better spent, and that some private charities are probably much better at money management, but as I’ve said before, we can’t count solely on them. We need the standard programs like food stamps, welfare, etc. to be in place when private charity is not enough. I don’t think we can take a chance of leaving people without any help.

If you would like your life, your choices and your future controlled by the government then best of luck. I prefer having freedom.

**I feel very free as well. I think there has been way too much scaremongering as of late.
**
Lisa
My comments are in bold.
Edit: Sorry for so many edits; I swear I was just trying to make this look more readable, since there is so much text. I should have responded to quotes individually. Oh well, next time. Also, since this was over 6000 words I had to cut out the first part of Lisa’s text.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Fixed the error. Delete this post if possible.

 

[LisaA]

Yeah, I read it. Here are the direct quotes: 1) “How many of those same Walmart moms would spend extra money on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or platform sandals instead of Similac?” 2) “**Now this certainly doesn’t mean all single moms **working at Walmart are drug addicted crazies but you will find that many of the folks availing themselves of these services need them because of really poor decisions.”

Stop complaining and own up to your own words.

Persuader please READ THE SENTENCE. I said this DOESN"T MEAN all single moms etc. However I maintain that having a history of poor decisions is the reason people find themselves needing social services. Why would you presume they would suddenly become Suze Orman?

It appears to be brain surgery for you, since you seem to equate some correlations with a solution.

Uh I think it’s obvious. The solution to much of our poverty and social ills is to make better decisions—get married before you get pregnant, get through high school, avoid drugs and get a job. All of these steps are within the capacity of probably 99.9% of Americans.

Who are you arguing against? I have been proposing higher wages for workers. Is working unproductive? I have been proposing educational reform

I have no problem with higher wages for workers. I do have a problem with unions that shut down plants as with the Boeing case or the thuggish behavior exhibited by the teachers in Wisconsin. Collective bargaining should mean there are two parties who negotiate rather than something done with threats and violence.

Not sure what education reforms you speak of. I am all for school choice and vouchers. How about you?

Really? Where is the research confirming that?

brillig.com/debt_clock/

National debt currently 15 TRILLION and change…

I am simplifying, but given the historically low tax rates (and low government revenue), there are additional reasons not to reduce taxes.

Great in theory but who will PAY these wages? IOW if we increase wages of say our Walmart Mom, wouldn’t that then make the prices of Walmart’s products higher? That’s the problem with your theory…no one begrudges people making a decent wage but raising wages will simply make prices chase wages chasing prices. It ends up hurting the Walmart mom a lot more than it hurts Mr Gotrocks who probably doesn’t care that the price of milk went up 50cents a gallon.

I truly don’t see how your theory works. Like it or not we are in a global economy and if NIKE can make shoes in China for a fraction of the cost of making them in America how do you compel them to keep their factories here?

Also, US corporate taxes (as a percentage of GDP) are the lowest among OECD-countries.

My understanding is our tax RATES are higher than any other developed country. That they might be low with respect to the GDP doesn’t matter to Apple or GE. They are going where the cost of doing business is the lowest.

How does discouraging businesses with high taxes, high wages and lots of regulations translate into a booming economy and high employment? It doesn’t make any sense.

So your answer is that a charity, or several charities, should launch a nationwide mentoring program? Is that your suggestion?
.What I have suggested amounts to ordinary, realistic policy - empowering unions, raising minimum wage and raising taxes to pay for education

I don’t know why you’;ve concluded that the Best Friends program is my one and only answer to all of society’s ills. I simply pointed out that intervention CAN get disadvantaged young people of the fast road to nowhere. THere are programs that DO work and instead of continuing to throw money at wasteful and ineffective programs, why doesn’t the government search out SUCCESSFUL programs and learn from those models?

As to raising union wages and taxes being workable…you’ve forgotten half of the equation. Who’s gonna pay for all this? What will be the consequences of higher taxes and higher wages? Do you think that might send businesses and jobs to other states or other countries?

I don’t think your theory will work and the last thing we need in this economy is more burden on employers.

Marriage rates in Spain and Italy have been pretty average.
.

What are you talking about and how do fertility rates in Spain and Italy relate to anything I’ve said? The problem in this country is NOT getting married at all. The incidence of single motherhood and absent fathers correlates to increased poverty. I really don’t care about the birth rate in Spain. I do care that 70% of black families are a single mom and children. That is a recipe for poverty and dependence on government.

Can you at least admit that unmarried mothers are far more likely to be dependent on government services than married mothers?

Then you should know that Smith supported progressive taxation. And you should know some of the arguments for taxation in general. You might want to read about distributive justice if you want to know more about the moral arguments for taxation.

And your point is? I don’t have any problem with the theory of progressive taxation. I do have a problem when half of Americans pay nothing and something like 40% of the taxes are paid by the top 10%. That’s not progressive, that’s oppresive.

Lisa

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Wait, you think it’s correct that people on welfare are lazy drug addicts? Or that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background, can achieve that same level of success with the same amount of work? Both of those things are false. I personally don’t know how anyone can hold those views and call themselves a Christian. The GOP is not the party of God. ** The GOP holds one very prominent view that coincides with Christian/Catholic belief, but other than that, I don’t see a lot of Christian views in the party. ** Sorry, I’m not going to get to the point where I will blame the poor and needy for their circumstances, when in reality, many of them are good hardworking people who just weren’t born into an advantageous socioeconomic background.

I think the GOP is largely responsible for this view of the poor and needy as lazy welfare abusers. I’m just extremely disheartened that so many religious folks are more loyal to a political party than to the teachings of a loving man–namely Jesus himself.

Sorry to butt in, but…

the GOP is more in line with Catholic teaching than the Democratic Party for more than just abortion: gay “marriage”, embryonic stem cell research, faith based initiatives, workfare (yes, the Catholic Church supports people working if they can following the teaching of St. Paul), abstinence, euthanasia, and stuff like that. In Encyclicals such as Centesimus Annus there are urges to keep the government smaller in order to avoid a welfare state that intrudes upon people’s lives, and Christian Democratic parties in Europe generally advocate lower taxes. All of these things sound more like the GOP than the Democrats. That said, the GOP isn’t perfect. But it’s the better option right now.

 

[LisaA]

My comments are in bold.
Edit: Sorry for so many edits; I swear I was just trying to make this look more readable, since there is so much text. I should have responded to quotes individually. Oh well, next time. Also, since this was over 6000 words I had to cut out the first part of Lisa’s text.

Look I think you are obviously a kind hearted person who wants to believe the best in people but there has been so much evidence that the “Four Factors” are the biggest determinative of whether or not a person will end up in poverty.

Although anecdotale my various volunteer activities has demonstrated this over and over again. Virtually ALL of the families in the system (Human Services, foster care, etc) consist of a single mom with a child or children by non-participating men. Our government programs have tried to take the place of husband and father but it simply doesn’t work. Many of the people in the system are high school dropouts and/or involved in drugs (alcohol is a drug).

It is not BLAMING the person to point out that certain roads lead nowhere. It is simply the reality of the situation. The issue is not how to scrounge up more money for an ever increasing level of dependent Americans but to focus on the pathways that lead to poverty and try to intervene before it’s too late. I pointed out to Persuader that the Best Friends program has had great success. I think they are focused in Washington DC/Baltimore but there is no reason similar programs could not be started elsewhere. Let’s look the problem in the face and not be so "PC about it. Having babies without being married is a problem for the mother and even more for the baby. Let’s help young women avoid taking this pathway. It is possible.

As to taxes, I have no problem paying taxes as a cost of living in this wonderful country. However I resent the waste, cronyism, fraud and overblown expenses that are characteristic of government programs. But somehow you and others think that if I don’t want to hand over ever increasing amounts of my income to Uncle Sam that I am being cruel to the needy. Not true.

Lisa

 

[ishii]

Wait, you think it’s correct that people on welfare are lazy drug addicts? Or that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background, can achieve that same level of success with the same amount of work? Both of those things are false. I personally don’t know how anyone can hold those views and call themselves a Christian. The GOP is not the party of God. The GOP holds one very prominent view that coincides with Christian/Catholic belief, but other than that, I don’t see a lot of Christian views in the party. Sorry, I’m not going to get to the point where I will blame the poor and needy for their circumstances, when in reality, many of them are good hardworking people who just weren’t born into an advantageous socioeconomic background.

I think the GOP is largely responsible for this view of the poor and needy as lazy welfare abusers. I’m just extremely disheartened that so many religious folks are more loyal to a political party than to the teachings of a loving man–namely Jesus himself.

I find it insulting that in a discussion of poverty in America you would resort to impuning people’s motives and ad hominems. There are a number of reasons why people are poor. I thank God that I was under enormous pressue as a young man (and before that as a teenager) to get a job. I washed dishes, unloaded 40" trailers full of parcels, bused tables. I never said, " I’m above this job- leave it for the immigrants." The problem is so many people grow up without any role models or work ethic. Too many of your youth don’t have anyone to tell them to pull their pants up, lose the nose ring and cover up the tatoo. When I worked in retail there were so many young people who would inquire about employment looking like they woke up in a ditch. I don’t fault them - as they probably had no role models to teach them the basic skills of getting a job.

Another thing, have you heard of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity? Not all our problems require a federal or even state solution. There are many different ideas on how to best fulfull our obligation to take care of the poor. Republicans have some good ideas. You may disagree with them but that doesn’t make them not Catholic or Christian. Lisa A is correct in pointing out the relationship of social problems and the decline of the family. This is especially true in inner cities where so many babies are born out of wedlock. Its not rocket science, Et Cetera - babies born into fatherless homes are more likely to drop out of school, live in poverty, do drugs, be involved in crimes, have teenage pregnancies. If you want to direct your criticism toward someone, I suggest that you direct it to those who want to continue the welfare policies which helped facilitate the breakdown of the family and not toward the free-market policies espoused by the GOP.

Ishii

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Of course they use qualifiers in the sentence to avoid being called out for some individual exception to the statement. To say “mostly” simply leaves open some room should it be found that some portion of wealth is inherited. Even Mitt Romney would fail your “test” since he did inherit some wealth…but gave it away. His current fortune was earned through his own endeavors…but of course you would dismiss it since he was “born” wealthy.

Your unwillingness to give credit to anyone for having earned their success is very telling about you. The anger, envy and taking on victimhood as an artform only convinces me to quit wasting time responding to you. It amazes me that in this time when people have far more opportunities for financial success than in the past when a few elites controlled the world, you claim that the US economic mobility is “frozen.” That would certainly be a surprise to Bill Gates or Phil Knight or Paul Allen or Meg Whitman or Jeff Bezos or the “Google” guys Page and Brin or even Warren Buffet.

But it’s easier to explain away one’s own failures by claiming the system is rigged against them.

Lisa

Whoa, I just pointed out that your link did not at all prove the point you hoped it would-- I look forward to someone showing some real figures on the percentage of the rich who were born rich. Logically it would seem to have to be high.

How many times are you going to repeat these personal insults about anger and envy? It’s starting to look like projection. The necessity to return the upper tax rate to what it was during the Reagan administration isn’t motivated by negative emotions, it’s common sense.

Do you understand mentioning examples of people who have struck it rich does not prove anything? And am I to understand that you’re saying Mitt Romney gave away all his money and then got rich again from scratch? Another rather astounding claim, as is “people have far more opportunities for financial success than in the past…” If you mean compared to feudal societies or monarchies of the distant past, sure. Compared to our own past, or to contemporary Canada and Europe, we are trailing in economic mobility.

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2932

But a growing body of evidence shows that economic mobility is not as attainable in the United States as many people think. Moreover, various studies show that economic mobility declines as income inequality increases, indicating that in coming years, it could become harder for people to move from poverty to the middle class, or from the middle class to the top.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Without reading all of the 35 pages of posts, the only facts I recall seeing anybody post were the ones about the Forbes’ “400 wealthiest people”.

So, are you saying the only ones Obama wants to hit are the Forbes 400%. Realizing that only about half are Americans, that’s 200 people. Of those, half are said to have inherited their wealth. So that’s 100 people.

Are you asserting that facts about 100 people somehow demonstrate that most wealth in the U.S. is inherited?

Those were just the only stats I could find related to the question that has come up, which is what percentage of rich people were born that way. The article said that 70% of that list were born that way.

Here it is again from post #504

But careful identification of how Forbes’ centi-millionaires and billionaires attained their wealth tells a different account of the plebeian origins of the richest Americans.

Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth.

Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes’ heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees.

The data, then, do not support the assumption that the United States is a true meritocracy where the most able rise to their rightful positions. Nor do they defend the contention that the United States is structured so that authentic equality of opportunity prevails. Inheritances undermine the achievement-reward equation.

They are talking about the mega-rich. The question is what percentage of the regular rich – let’s say, those with more than a $million in the bank – were born rich? Is it higher or lower than 70%?

 

[LisaA]

Whoa, I just pointed out that your link did not at all prove the point you hoped it would-- I look forward to someone showing some real figures on the percentage of the rich who were born rich. Logically it would seem to have to be high.

How many times are you going to repeat these personal insults about anger and envy? It’s starting to look like projection. The necessity to return the upper tax rate to what it was during the Reagan administration isn’t motivated by negative emotions, it’s common sense.

Do you understand mentioning examples of people who have struck it rich does not prove anything? And am I to understand that you’re saying Mitt Romney gave away all his money and then got rich again from scratch? Another rather astounding claim, as is “people have far more opportunities for financial success than in the past…” If you mean compared to feudal societies or monarchies of the distant past, sure. Compared to our own past, or to contemporary Canada and Europe, we are trailing in economic mobility.

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2932

Did you actually read the article or just pinch out a snippet? It’s full of the usual weasel words “studies indicate” “it appears” “experts believe.” No real data. I tried to get the Pew study to come up but there was no text or citations. The article was a lot of opinion formulated by an Obama supporting think tank. Yawn…

And yes Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance and started over. He is obviously an incredibly intelligent man who has the kind of values that helped shape his success.

The reasons given for the apparent decline in mobility were related to education and our system not keeping up with advances in technology and the needs of employers rather than an evil plot on the part of the rich. Not sure how this article supports your apparent contention that “da man” is keeping you down.

Class envy or trying to convince people they don’t have a chance to succeed isn’t going to improve the situation.

Lisa

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Did you actually read the article or just pinch out a snippet? It’s full of the usual weasel words “studies indicate” “it appears” “experts believe.” No real data. I tried to get the Pew study to come up but there was no text or citations. The article was a lot of opinion formulated by an Obama supporting think tank. Yawn…

And yes Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance and started over. He is obviously an incredibly intelligent man who has the kind of values that helped shape his success.

The reasons given for the apparent decline in mobility were related to education and our system not keeping up with advances in technology and the needs of employers rather than an evil plot on the part of the rich. Not sure how this article supports your apparent contention that “da man” is keeping you down.

Class envy or trying to convince people they don’t have a chance to succeed isn’t going to improve the situation.

Lisa

I can understand getting all the arguments confused. Just to help you keep track, I mentioned lack of economic mobility in the context of the unlikelihood that some great number of rich people somehow become un-rich every generation. You disputed the lack of mobility, so I showed you the data. I never said anything about the cause of the lack of mobility, so for you to start trying to say the causes disprove something I was never trying to prove is a no-go.

Speaking of proof, anytime you want to try again and provide some that most rich people in the USA were not born that way, it will be welcome.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

And yes Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance and started over. He is obviously an incredibly intelligent man who has the kind of values that helped shape his success.

And by the way, Romney was already rich when his father died, so saying he gave away his inheritance is misleading. Romney grew up in wealth, had BYU paid for (he didn’t have to work) and had an “allowance” that allowed him to jet around the country. Not exactly bootstrap country.

 

[Caldera]

Class envy or trying to convince people they don’t have a chance to succeed isn’t going to improve the situation.

Lisa

Totally agree.

Obama’s idea of what America should be is the real problem:
youtube.com/watch?v=H_YK9wVK6IQ

 

[stinkcat_14]

Even if you got your money through inheritence, what right does anyone have to take it from you? It goes against at least one or two commandments.

While stealing is obviously immoral, there is no church teaching against inheritance taxes. So while we can argue the prudence of such a tax, the morality of it is not an issue.

 

[LisaA]

While stealing is obviously immoral, there is no church teaching against inheritance taxes. So while we can argue the prudence of such a tax, the morality of it is not an issue.

Interestingly though the original amendment said taxes could be levied on income “from whatever source derived.” Wonder how they snuck in a wealth tax? I suppose it’s been litigated to death but the original intent was obviously not to tax intergenerational wealth. The mega rich of the era must have had a strong influence on Congress.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

And by the way, Romney was already rich when his father died, so saying he gave away his inheritance is misleading. Romney grew up in wealth, had BYU paid for (he didn’t have to work) and had an “allowance” that allowed him to jet around the country. Not exactly bootstrap country.

No it’s not misleading, it’s actually what happened. He donated the inheritance. And again you overstate the concept. No one has said Romney was not given a lot of gifts, some from his parents, some from God. He is obviously extremely intelligent, determined, hard working and good looking. All of those gifts helped him succeed. However had he been born with the same looks, brains and energy level in Afghanistan, the gifts would not have taken him very far out of his village.

That is the point. America does provide opportunity. No we do not all have equal talents but if we do, then there are opportunities to succeed. You apparently think otherwise and nothing I can say will change your sorry attitude.

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

I can understand getting all the arguments confused. Just to help you keep track, I mentioned lack of economic mobility in the context of the unlikelihood that some great number of rich people somehow become un-rich every generation. You disputed the lack of mobility, so I showed you the data. I never said anything about the cause of the lack of mobility, so for you to start trying to say the causes disprove something I was never trying to prove is a no-go.

Speaking of proof, anytime you want to try again and provide some that most rich people in the USA were not born that way, it will be welcome.

But see, you are the one making the argument that most rich people in the USA were born that way. Yours is the burden of proof, not Lisa’s. All we have seen in here are citations of opinion about the inherited wealth of a very small number of people; those 200 or so Americans in the Forbes 400. Those statements vary.

But it says nothing about the “majority” of “wealthy” people in the U.S. Is “wealthy” limited to the Forbes 400? Where do you draw the “wealthy” line for your thesis?

Your secondary thesis is also unproved; that there is no “downward mobility”. You have been given the estate tax charts showing how wealth is reduced by taxation upon death, and particularly if the remaining wealth is divided among several heirs. That’s even true of the Waltons, and it’s obvious. Against that, you have demonstrated nothing. Again, the burden of proof is on you as the proponent of your theory, and you have not sustained it.

Verdict for Defendant.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Part of the problem in looking at income mobility is that we don’t have enough good data to really know which part of the income distribution that wealthy people came from. For example, did Bill Gates start rich and get richer? Given the jobs his parents had, he likely came from the 90th percentile of income. Is that rich? Many people in that income category would answer no, but one could argue from global standards that it is rich. While his rise from a high income background to extreme wealth is impressive, it would be more impressive if he came from the projects. So how many came from the bottom 20% and ended up in the top 0.1%, we really don’t know because we don’t have the data. In an economy like ours, clearly some have, but how many we don’t really know.

 

[LisaA]

Part of the problem in looking at income mobility is that we don’t have enough good data to really know which part of the income distribution that wealthy people came from. For example, did Bill Gates start rich and get richer? Given the jobs his parents had, he likely came from the 90th percentile of income. Is that rich? Many people in that income category would answer no, but one could argue from global standards that it is rich. While his rise from a high income background to extreme wealth is impressive, it would be more impressive if he came from the projects. So how many came from the bottom 20% and ended up in the top 0.1%, we really don’t know because we don’t have the data. In an economy like ours, clearly some have, but how many we don’t really know.

OTOH I don’t understand the obsession with using the top 1% or Forbes 400 as the standard of wealth. It’s totally unrealistic that most people could ever aspire to that level or have the talent, intelligence, and foresight to get there. The real issue isn’t how unfair it is that Mitt Romney was born with potential to have great success but are there truly any obstacles that would PREVENT someone from achieving THEIR potential. I could point to past racism as something that stood in the way of talented, intelligent blacks who were not able to even get a foot in the door. Thankfully much of these obstacles have been removed. What is standing in the way now?

Technology and the internet are providing many more opportunities to succeed financially sometimes to amazing proportions. People living in the years of the Industrial Revolution could not have hoped to become Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. Geography and technology prevented them from aspiring to much more than what their parents had.

I still maintain that opportunities to achieve financially are available and the structural obstacles have been removed or reduced in a significant way. We will never have equal results. Our objective should be to offer equal opportunity.

Lisa

 

[Suudy]

I can understand getting all the arguments confused. Just to help you keep track, I mentioned lack of economic mobility in the context of the unlikelihood that some great number of rich people somehow become un-rich every generation.

The unspoken assumption here (as it appears to me) is that in order for someone to become rich, someone else must become un-rich. Your earlier post seems to confirm this assumption:

Could you prove this? Not only does it not make much sense logically (it implies a huge turnover in the wealthy population every generation), but I couldn’t find good statistics on it. I did find that 7 of the 10 on the Forbes list were born rich.

Wealth is not a fixed pool. In order for a whole group of people to become rich does not require a “huge turnover in the wealthy population.”

They are talking about the mega-rich. The question is what percentage of the regular rich – let’s say, those with more than a $million in the bank – were born rich? Is it higher or lower than 70%?

Two points.

First, what does it matter who is “born rich” with regard to their current wealth? I’ll give you just 3 very personal examples. First, my father. My grandfather, when he died, had an estate worth just about $2.5M. My father–nor my uncle–got a dime of that until my grandfather died. And by that point, both my father and uncle had managed to accumulate estates well over $1M. My father was in the Navy for 30 years, and after retirement, started his own boat repair business. When he decided to retire for good, he sold his business (which had no debt) for $350k and the land it was on for another $300k. Couple that with his amassed savings, a paid off house, and his estate when he passed was just shy of $2M. Add in his share of my grandfather’s estate, and it was near $3M. My father was a C student in high school and never attended a day of college.

My uncle, on the other hand, was a A student and went to college on scholarships. After finishing his undergraduate, he applied for and received a fellowship to get his masters at Northwestern. After graduation he went to work for the railroad and worked for them for nearly 40 years. I’m not exactly sure of his estate, but prior at my father’s death when my uncle rewrote his own will, indicated to me that he wanted his entire estate–except the house–to go to the scholarship fund my grandfather created. He said that his contribution would nearly triple the endowment. That hinted to me that he has nearly $1.5M in savings. Couple that with his paid off house at about $300k, and his estate is sitting near $2M.

Finally, there’s my wife’s cousin. His parents are not “rich” by normal standards. Ridge will understand this, but my wife’s uncle had a 400+ acre wheat farm in northern Idaho. Just based on property and equipment, my wife’s uncle was “rich”. Now northern Idaho/eastern Washington are known for having well-to-do farmers. Some farmers I know clear about $100k/year after paying the mortgages and equipment leases. When my wife’s uncle passed, his son took over the farm. He was a savvy businessman, and after taking over at about 40 years old has tripled his land holdings and has 3 full-time managers that take care of the separate farms he’s purchased (he still runs himself the one he inherited).

Second point. I can name off about two dozen people I know personally, and another 3 or 4 dozen acquaintances, that have more than $1M in the bank (almost all of it in the form of retirement savings). And none of those people were born “rich”. They were born squarely middle class, and either 1) saved like crazy or 2) started or joined a startup business.

So I’d say of the people that I know that have over $1M in the bank, 100% were not “born rich”.