Mainstream Politics and Economics Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (21434)	7/31/2012 2:39:46 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) of 85487

>> The households in the top 1 percent had reduced income during the recession. Agreed, but I don't see the point. Every group had reduced income during the recession. Furthermore as I pointed out, the top 1% has a more volatile income pattern, so it make sense for them to take a bigger hit. >> The top 1% now is not the same as the top 1% then. Can you prove this? Can you put some metrics around how many of the top 1% now are new? BTW, one of the big fallacies of the article was to use income to disprove a wealth argument. If I owned I bet Bill Gates has relatively low, if not negative, income because of his charity work. That however does not put him in the same class as the poor people. "The 1%" refers to the top wealthiest 1% and not necessarily the top earners. The argument the article wanted to disprove was that the rich don't keep getting richer. But he never talked about the wealthy, but the top earners. They are not necessarily the same thing. >> Households generally have had their income go up since 1984. Why don't you take a look at the same CBO report and quantify that. This is a case where size does matter. later, ST

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next