Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (397520)	1/28/2019 2:41:23 PM
From: ryanaka	2 Recommendations Recommended By Cautious_Optimist James Seagrove Respond to of 542148

We have to be careful of drawing conclusions from broad statistics. True. But I had to think a bit what the graph represented. It's not tracking the same age group of people (in 1989) for over 25 years, but each year for the given age group, how the wealth is distributed. The folks who were 60 years old in 1989 would be in the in the oldest (75+) group in 2016. The 55-64 group (working age in the 2008 fin crisis) had been most drastically impacted. [Even if it is the cumulative total, not per capita, it is still striking.] The people who were mostly retired (75+) or even the semi-retired(?, 65-74) during the financial crisis were not impacted much. Those currently younger generations (54-) are really screwed by the Republican tax cuts, as the wealth redistribution (Bush-Trump tax cuts) would be the obstacle to their social mobility [due to the 'runaway' wealth inequality].---- actually I'm just guessing here. "The tax cuts passed by Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump totaled three percent of GDP—much more than the projected increases in entitlement spending over the next 30 years."