Millionaires Vanish: The Data

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:29 AM GMT
    Untitled2.jpg via WSJ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    Where did they go?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 3:40 AM GMT
    Boo-hoo-hoo.
    Some of America's poor little millionaires can't afford to hire a decorator to decorate their homes anymore.
    They'll have to DIY.
    Tragic!

    FYI - the Bush recession hurt middle and lower income Americans MUCH MUCH MUCH more profoundly than it hurt the rich.

    But we know from your posting here that you don't give a shit about middle and lower income Americans.
    Just the rich.

    Like the rest of your Repub party.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 18, 2011 1:31 PM GMT
    Chris Angel in Da House !!!

    How'd he DO that? icon_cool.gif

    They all just disappeared
    You see a lot more white pigeons lately or is it just me ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    theantijock saidhttp://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0808/focus-credit-meltdown-unemployment-brig-rich-richer.html

    The Rich Are Now Richer Than Before the 2008 Credit Meltdown

    ...individuals (HNWI), with $1 million or more in investable assets, jumped 8.3% over the last year to a total of 10.9 million people. That number is up from the 2007 tally of 10.1 million tycoons.

    Not only are there more rich, but they're also richer. Their financial wealth jumped 9.7% over the last year to $42.7 trillion


    It's useful to note the difference investable assets and income (ie those who are making more money versus those who already have some). The number of high income earners has definitely fallen - as the IRS data shows - thus the increases that you have pointed to are likely mostly from investments.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 18, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    So That means even MORE of the entire Country's wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands

    Rid .... I know you're tryin to make this look like the poor poor wealthy are sufferin just like the rest of us ........ but they aren't
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    GQjock saidSo That means even MORE of the entire Country's wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands

    Rid .... I know you're tryin to make this look like the poor poor wealthy are sufferin just like the rest of us ........ but they aren't


    Actually no, I think what I am saying is far more subtle than that. The people who are making gobs of money are not necessarily the same people who already have it - and in many cases that's definitely not the case and these stats show that.

    What many in Congress are proposing - or at least the Democrats are to "tax the rich" - and that means taxing high income earners - by definition the most economically productive in society. This won't affect those who make money living off their assets or income they've previously made - which is where we have seen increases in millionaires.

    At the margins now more than ever, people can also choose where they earn their money (given the returns over the internet) - and this will not be places with high income taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2011 11:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    GQjock saidSo That means even MORE of the entire Country's wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands

    Rid .... I know you're tryin to make this look like the poor poor wealthy are sufferin just like the rest of us ........ but they aren't


    Actually no, I think what I am saying is far more subtle than that. The people who are making gobs of money are not necessarily the same people who already have it - and in many cases that's definitely not the case and these stats show that.

    What many in Congress are proposing - or at least the Democrats are to "tax the rich" - and that means taxing high income earners - by definition the most economically productive in society. This won't affect those who make money living off their assets or income they've previously made - which is where we have seen increases in millionaires.

    At the margins now more than ever, people can also choose where they earn their money (given the returns over the internet) - and this will not be places with high income taxes.


    High income earners are not "by definition" the most productive members of society. Is a lawyer more productive than a carpenter? By whose standards?

    Better is Lloyd Blankfein more productive than a Brooklyn police detective?

    Given your ranting about the liberal elites, your argument that income (mostly from the professional class) is equal to productivity is the height of elitism. icon_rolleyes.gif

    And the fearmongering about Galt's Gulch is increasingly hilarious. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    GQjock saidSo That means even MORE of the entire Country's wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands

    Rid .... I know you're tryin to make this look like the poor poor wealthy are sufferin just like the rest of us ........ but they aren't


    Actually no, I think what I am saying is far more subtle than that. The people who are making gobs of money are not necessarily the same people who already have it - and in many cases that's definitely not the case and these stats show that.

    What many in Congress are proposing - or at least the Democrats are to "tax the rich" - and that means taxing high income earners - by definition the most economically productive in society. This won't affect those who make money living off their assets or income they've previously made - which is where we have seen increases in millionaires.

    At the margins now more than ever, people can also choose where they earn their money (given the returns over the internet) - and this will not be places with high income taxes.


    High income earners are not "by definition" the most productive members of society. Is a lawyer more productive than a carpenter? By whose standards?

    Better is Lloyd Blankfein more productive than a Brooklyn police detective?

    Given your ranting about the liberal elites, your argument that income (mostly from the professional class) is equal to productivity is the height of elitism. icon_rolleyes.gif

    And the fearmongering about Galt's Gulch is increasingly hilarious. icon_lol.gif


    What I said: "high income earners - by definition the most economically productive in society". By definition. Did you miss the "economically productive"?

    A completely independent idea of the power that you would rather liberal elites wield over others.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 19, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidSo That means even MORE of the entire Country's wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands


    Wealth has disappeared. And, once Mr. Obama loses his job, wealth will once again be created.


    Bwahaha icon_biggrin.gif
    .... and this would be based on .... what? We just HAD a republican administration who shoveled out the treasury ... you wanna try it again?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 1:14 AM GMT
    LOL - Riddler, this is the period that covered the crash, so much of that supposed wealth was only on paper having to do with stock values/real estate values, the crash took away the inflated stock and property values. And of course the Rich used their tax accountants to make their cases look worse in losses to help their bottom line.


    Why don't you post the gains in wealth for the ever decreasing numbers of those who have the most US wealth for 2010 . You do think it best to have more in fewer hands don't you?


    As my very conservative Rush Limbaugh following brother says.


    TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR AND THE RICH WILL BE NO MORE. LOL !!! next you'll be telling us that that's what happened to the wealth between 2007 and 2009.


    Hell of it is that the taxpayers under 200,000 probably lost even larger percentages of their wealth and buying power, why don't you show us that while your at it ?

    Since Reagans trickle down lies were bought into the transfer of wealth has been upwards, so here we are, those lies were successfull, most of the wealth of the US is now in the hands of the few. HOW DO YOU LIKE THE RECESSION THAT BROUGHT ON ? Deregulation worked as well as trickle up economics didn't it.

    Lets make sure those Politicians do away with even more regulations and cut services and safety nets even more to the masses, because those job creators nead an ever increasing share of the money to invest and expand their businesses, so they can start hiring to make more stuff, because those masses are just going to take all that money they don't have and go out and buy all that stuff. RIGHT ????

    Yessireeeeeee the rich are really hurting these days. make sure government policies let them keep more bygod, that'll help !!! Keep believing that Riddler.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 1:27 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidSo That means even MORE of the entire Country's wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands


    Wealth has disappeared. And, once Mr. Obama loses his job, wealth will once again be created.





    Both you and riddler are both blind and ignorant.

    REREAD THE INFORMATION RIDDLER POSTED.

    It shows what the effect of THE BUSH RECESSION was.
    It shows what happened BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
    OVER THE COURSE OF THE BUSH RECESSION.

    The Bush recession was from 2007 to 2009 and Obama didn't take office until 2009 - AFTER THIS LOSS OF INCOME AMONG THE WEALTHY OCCURED.

    To try to suggest that President Obama is responsible for the "wealth" that "disappeared" between 2007 and 2009 is total bullshit.
    The president during that time period was George W. Bush.

    We see here folks an example of why the Repubs don't know WTF they're talking about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 1:32 AM GMT
    cTurtle saidWhere did they go?
    They turned into "corporations".. they arent on the 'individual taxpayer list" YET! LMAO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:17 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidBoo-hoo-hoo.
    Some of America's poor little millionaires can't afford to hire a decorator to decorate their homes anymore.
    They'll have to DIY.
    Tragic!


    Some millionaires are world renown doctors, engineers, philanthropists, etc. Not everyone is a botox hoarding ex-acting real estate selling cunt from Beverly Hills.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    JakeBenson said
    rickrick91 saidBoo-hoo-hoo.
    Some of America's poor little millionaires can't afford to hire a decorator to decorate their homes anymore.
    They'll have to DIY.
    Tragic!


    Some millionaires are world renown doctors, engineers, philanthropists, etc. Not everyone is a botox hoarding ex-acting real estate selling cunt from Beverly Hills.


    But most of them ARE blood sucking leeches that get hired at the top for corporate jobs, get as much money as they can, and then run the company into the ground.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:38 AM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JakeBenson said
    rickrick91 saidBoo-hoo-hoo.
    Some of America's poor little millionaires can't afford to hire a decorator to decorate their homes anymore.
    They'll have to DIY.
    Tragic!


    Some millionaires are world renown doctors, engineers, philanthropists, etc. Not everyone is a botox hoarding ex-acting real estate selling cunt from Beverly Hills.


    But most of them ARE blood sucking leeches that get hired at the top for corporate jobs, get as much money as they can, and then run the company into the ground.


    Most? Any data to support that? And you expect these people to willingly support the sometimes unashamed ungrateful welfare recipients who mooch off others? These people are by definition the most economically productive and probably do far more valuable work than you'll ever do given your diatribes that ooze of self entitlement.

    Again I point to the fact that Bill Clinton was responsible for the biggest reduction in child poverty and this was because of the welfare reforms he and a Republican Congress passed that _reduced_ benefits.

    The chart above points to income earners - not people with money - these are people who earn within a given year. And high income earners are falling - which also suggests that any plans to tax the rich (like all others) will fall short of any revenue expectations for the government (not to mention the fact that where income is earned can now more easily be moved than in the past).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 6:30 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JakeBenson said
    rickrick91 saidBoo-hoo-hoo.
    Some of America's poor little millionaires can't afford to hire a decorator to decorate their homes anymore.
    They'll have to DIY.
    Tragic!


    Some millionaires are world renown doctors, engineers, philanthropists, etc. Not everyone is a botox hoarding ex-acting real estate selling cunt from Beverly Hills.


    But most of them ARE blood sucking leeches that get hired at the top for corporate jobs, get as much money as they can, and then run the company into the ground.


    Most? Any data to support that? And you expect these people to willingly support the sometimes unashamed ungrateful welfare recipients who mooch off others? These people are by definition the most economically productive and probably do far more valuable work than you'll ever do given your diatribes that ooze of self entitlement.

    Again I point to the fact that Bill Clinton was responsible for the biggest reduction in child poverty and this was because of the welfare reforms he and a Republican Congress passed that _reduced_ benefits.

    The chart above points to income earners - not people with money - these are people who earn within a given year. And high income earners are falling - which also suggests that any plans to tax the rich (like all others) will fall short of any revenue expectations for the government (not to mention the fact that where income is earned can now more easily be moved than in the past).


    The bullshit is so strong within you it's not even worth me arguging.

    In fact I'm going to let Stewart do the talking http://gawker.com/5832441/jon-stewart-defends-the-poor-from-money+grubbing-conservatives
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 6:32 AM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JakeBenson said
    rickrick91 saidBoo-hoo-hoo.
    Some of America's poor little millionaires can't afford to hire a decorator to decorate their homes anymore.
    They'll have to DIY.
    Tragic!


    Some millionaires are world renown doctors, engineers, philanthropists, etc. Not everyone is a botox hoarding ex-acting real estate selling cunt from Beverly Hills.


    But most of them ARE blood sucking leeches that get hired at the top for corporate jobs, get as much money as they can, and then run the company into the ground.




    That's the reality.

    Most of the ones with REAL money today are corporate CEO's, bankers, and WallStreet scum.

    I worked for an architectural/decorating frim in Manhattan that designed and decorated apts. and homes for the ultra rich ParkAvenue crowd, and they don't make their money doing worthwhile things like practicing medicine or engineering.

    They would look down their noses at professions like that pay chump change.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 19, 2011 6:43 AM GMT
    It is a fact of history that the poor suffer the most economically in a recession,the rich the least.
    In a boom the rich gain the most,the poor the least.
    The rich are always ahead of the poor and the gap is widening through these recent decades and shows no sign of slowing or stopping.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:33 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidIt is a fact of history that the poor suffer the most economically in a recession,the rich the least.
    In a boom the rich gain the most,the poor the least.
    The rich are always ahead of the poor and the gap is widening through these recent decades and shows no sign of slowing or stopping.


    A more accurate perspective of history - particularly in modern times - a quote from Robert Heinlein:

    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:41 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Lincsbear saidIt is a fact of history that the poor suffer the most economically in a recession,the rich the least.
    In a boom the rich gain the most,the poor the least.
    The rich are always ahead of the poor and the gap is widening through these recent decades and shows no sign of slowing or stopping.


    A more accurate perspective of history - particularly in modern times - a quote from Robert Heinlein:

    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”


    Is that the well-known science fiction writer? icon_lol.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 19, 2011 12:45 PM GMT
    See the phenomenal growth of the urban poor in nineteenth century Britain despite huge advances in that society`s material production;and in that growing inequality,see their even more abject and wretched state than the rural poor of 1800.
    See H.G. Wells` 'Experiment in Autobiography' for a description of what unregulated/enterprising Victorian capitalism had done to the poor of Britain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:45 PM GMT
    It really is all about 2 classes -- the rich and the poor. The middle class is just an illusion formed out of credit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:53 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidSee the phenomenal growth of the urban poor in nineteenth century Britain despite huge advances in that society`s material production;and in that growing inequality,see their even more abject and wretched state than the rural poor of 1800.
    See H.G. Wells` 'Experiment in Autobiography' for a description of what unregulated/enterprising Victorian capitalism had done to the poor of Britain.


    Again, this lacks a bit of perspective and context. The poor today in the western world are nowhere near the state of the poor even a few decades ago. The average "poor" have access to far more by way of opportunities in education and above all, living standards - with absolute poverty having been substantially eliminated.

    When those today object to the "gap" they object less to the actual condition of the "poor" which is (a) not static and (b) has been consistently improving over the decades particularly because of technology, but because of jealousy and envy. And the people who make these improvements to the condition of man? They are almost never low income earners.

    And you're right Christian, Robert Heinlein was a sci fi writer and obviously an astute observer of the world.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 19, 2011 1:24 PM GMT
    H.G.Wells` point remains: massive growth in material affluence leads to a decline in the poor`s 'state'(physical/cultural/moral).What was true in his day remains so today.
    Advances in science/technology are a very mixed blessing at best in improving society.They disrupt/destroy as much as create/advance.These 'advances' often seem to just add to the general stress of life,giving people ever more control over less and less.
    Many commentators here in Britain have noted two trends since the Second World War:an unpreceedented rise in material possessions/opportunities for nearly everyone in society and yet a pervasive sense that the overall quality of life is declining for most people,particularly in the social arena.