PDA

View Full Version : Current Gradations of Wealth, US model


finfly1
21st Nov 2014, 17:37
Never flew, never will

Saved up for years for one trip to Disney, coach

As above but perhaps one additional for wedding or funeral

Flies once each year or two, coach

Flies a half dozen or more times per year coach; may use points to upgrade occasionally to business

Flies business class routinely

Will fly only first class;

May attempt use of piper/Cessna 4 place for some trips (usually only once)

Will fly first class if company jet not available; formerly flew Concorde

Flies own Malibu for many trips; may rent Baron or King Air for longer

Flies own Lear

Flies own Gulfstream

Selects favorite airliner from his collection-tsa and customs come to him

airship
21st Nov 2014, 19:14
I'm so poor that the closest I've come to flying recently is watching the flies descend onto my 2 slices of stale bread and rancid butter (they rarely take off again as I squash 'em - cheap and fresh protein)... ;)

On a more serious note, this recent Economist article "Forget The 1%" (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1) concerning a new study on US wealth distribution might be of interest:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20141108_FNC156.png

In summary (please correct me if I've miscalculated):

1) 50% of Americans basically have no wealth at all.
2) 40% of Americans share 22% of total wealth.
3) 10% of Americans share 78% of total wealth of which:
- the "top 0.01%" (composed of about 16,000 families with an avergae net worth of US$ 371 million) who possess 11.2% of total wealth,
- the "top 0.1% (composed of about 160,000 families with an average net worth of US$ 73 million) who possess 22% of total wealth,
- and the remainder of the "top 10%" who possess 44.8% of total wealth.

What surprises me is that there are merely only about 2,500 100ft+ crewed superyachts around the globe today. I wonder how many 'biz jets' there are too. And why perhaps there are not more than merely...?! After all, if 16,000 American families each have an average net worth of US$ 371 million, and extrapolating that to the "top 0.01%" in the rest of the World... :confused:

Oh and by the way, I'm rich because you're poor... :E

con-pilot
21st Nov 2014, 20:02
Rather interesting how the so-called bottom 90% has nosedived since President Obama has been in office.

Funny that.

finfly1
21st Nov 2014, 20:30
Not ever amongst the terms of the 13 presidents under whom I have lived in the US have I ever been more aware of the relentless assaults on the group of people formerly known as Middle Class. Now it is basically an historical term to describe a bunch of Americans who once upon a time worked and paid their bills and saved a little leftover.

seacue
21st Nov 2014, 20:50
My observation:

Simple con. Spending / tax laws start in the House of Representatives ... and the party in power there (not Obama's) look out for the rich people who fund their campaigns. The zero-sum game means that some people get less in order for others to get more.

There was once in the recent past a President who had a balanced budget (Clinton). Of course having Mr. Dole running the Senate and pressuring the "other House" helped.

Some people like to forget that the per-capita US national debt doubled during Mr. Reagan's 8 years in office ... but his immediate successor managed a much more rapid increase in national debt.

I sometimes think that politicians follow the rule "Get my name spelled right", no matter what is written about them ... they value the publicity, generally not worrying about "details".

pigboat
21st Nov 2014, 21:03
Flies own Gulfstream.
Flew own Fairchild. :p

charliegolf
21st Nov 2014, 21:11
Rather interesting how the so-called bottom 90% has nosedived since President Obama has been in office.

Blimey, has he been the Prez since 1985? Sheesh, time flies.

CG

con-pilot
21st Nov 2014, 22:36
Simple con. Spending / tax laws start in the House of Representatives ... and the party in power there (not Obama's) look out for the rich people who fund their campaigns. The zero-sum game means that some people get less in order for others to get more.

Now that's down right funny and I don't care who you are, if you really think the Democrats are for the middle class. :p

Just like the Republicans, they are out for themselves and their one percent big money backers. Just look at the billions poured into Wall Street and the big banks at the direction of the Obama Administration.

By the way, you do understand the concept/law of 'Continuing Resolution' do you not?

con-pilot
21st Nov 2014, 22:37
Blimey, has he been the Prez since 1985? Sheesh, time flies.


Take another look at the chart Charlie. :rolleyes:

con-pilot
21st Nov 2014, 22:42
There was once in the recent past a President who had a balanced budget (Clinton). Of course having Mr. Dole running the Senate and pressuring the "other House" helped.


No seacue, that was the reason the budget was balanced*, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate after the first two years of the Clinton Administration.

* The deficit still increased every year during the Clinton Administration as well, balanced budget or no balanced budget, funny that.


Some people like to forget that the per-capita US national debt doubled during Mr. Reagan's 8 years in office ... but his immediate successor managed a much more rapid increase in national debt.


And guess who contolled the House and the Senate druing the Reagan years? Yup, you got it, the Democrats.

Now, do you want to rethink your post?

Simple con. Spending / tax laws start in the House of Representatives ...

seacue
22nd Nov 2014, 00:51
Are Presidents so weak that they have to accept poorly-thought-out actions from Congress?

Somehow Congress goes for the easy part of a President's plan; reduced taxes one case, increased social spending in another.

seacue
22nd Nov 2014, 17:14
The Reagan loyalists contend that the despicable Democrats in Congress thwarted his program. I'm sure that in a few years we will hear that the despicable Republicans in Congress thwarted Obama's program.

But isn't that the way the US Constitution was designed - to avoid the drastic policy shifts that plague many other countries?

The three branches of the US system (Courts - Supreme Court, Congress - the legislative branch, and Executive - President and the MANY agencies nominally under the command of the President) are supposed to act as checks and balances.

At least that was the story when I was in school many decades ago.

con-pilot
22nd Nov 2014, 17:41
I'm sure that in a few years we will hear that the despicable Republicans in Congress thwarted Obama's program.


If you watch NBC Nighlty News with Brian Williams, they are saying it right now. :p

The three branches of the US system (Courts - Supreme Court, Congress - the legislative branch, and Executive - President and the MANY agencies nominally under the command of the President) are supposed to act as checks and balances.


Yup, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial, that's how it's supposed to work.

Sometimes having one party controlling the Executive and the other controlling the Legislative works out pretty good for the country, Reagan and Tip O’Neil, Clinton and Newt Gingrich come to mind.

I liked Bill Clinton and voted for him for his second term and of course voted for Reagan for both of his terms. I couldn’t stand Carter when he was President and to be honest, still don’t care for him.

As for President Obama’s speech the other night, I don't have a clue if President Obama has violated the Check and Balance built into the Constitution. I'm not a Constitutional attorney or scholar. The Democrats claim he did not, the Republicans say he did and both side have Constitutional attorneys or scholars that back their respective arguments.

However, this is a question of such serious magnitude, that it must be heard by the Supreme Court and I think the House needs to withhold funding until the question is settled by the Supreme Court.

I would like to think that this will be fast tracked to the Court.

All I do know is, that the medical insurance companies are making out like bandits.

On a personal note, since the ACA has become law, I was forced to change my primary care doctor and my wife’s medical insurance as gone up 42%. Now that is a “Change” you can believe in.

Metro man
23rd Nov 2014, 05:44
Not ever amongst the terms of the 13 presidents under whom I have lived in the US have I ever been more aware of the relentless assaults on the group of people formerly known as Middle Class. Now it is basically an historical term to describe a bunch of Americans who once upon a time worked and paid their bills and saved a little leftover

The middle class are the productive class, and whilst better off than the lower class, aren't wealthy enough to have the lawyers and accountants necessary to use the loop holes that the elite have built in to the system for their benefit. The elite buy off the lower classes with benefits paid for by the middle class and keep their own wealth intact.

Without a middle class buffer the peasants would be revolting and the whole system would collapse. Having a middle class also provides inspiration for the lower classes, a poor person knows he will never have his own castle and estates, but one day he may have his own house and car.

UniFoxOs
23rd Nov 2014, 10:56
Without a middle class buffer the peasants would be revolting and the whole system would collapse. Having a middle class also provides inspiration for the lower classes, a poor person knows he will never have his own castle and estates, but one day he may have his own house and car.

Got it in one - applies here in UK as well, probably worse than USA. Anybody care to hazard a guess on when that "would" will change to "are"?

I'll say 2020

airship
23rd Nov 2014, 14:07
The very idea of anything like that happening in the US is probably an anathema, completely unrealistic. You only have to read posts from Americans in general here on JB to understand that both Democrats and Republicans have little respect for even watery European-style socialist policies, let alone full red-blooded communist ideas - "Better Dead Than Red"...?!

Which might be a contradiction when you compare trade union membership density in the USA with other OECD countries (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN):

(OECD average = 16.9% of all workers)
USA = 10.8%
UK = 25.4%
Germany = 17.7%
Italy = 36.9%
Spain = 17.5%
Norway = 53.5%, Sweden = 67.7%, Denmark = 66.8% :eek: or :ok:

France = 7.7% (I reserve France's position here as warranting special attention, in an attempt to dispel the myth that France is especially strike-prone. More days are lost due to strike action in UK and Germany. That has been the case for many years now... :D

Whether the average European masses might ever seriously protest one day is also similarly remote. 'Left of the centre-left' policies are similarly held in disregard. Communism is truly dead here as well. But 'right of the centre-right' policies and movements are definitely on the UP.

Anyway, back to the USA. It was Warren Buffett who originally said that his secretary paid a higher rate in taxes than he did. And he was still repeating it here in 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/).

With so much of the wealth today concentrated in so few hands, there can no longer be any reasonable excuse to tax capital gains at lower rates. Whether it's the USA (or elsewhere). Treating all Americans 'equally' so far as taxation is concerned is just the start to the right of all to pursue their dreams of happiness... :rolleyes:

brickhistory
23rd Nov 2014, 15:42
airship as Secretary of the Treasury.

What could possibly go wrong?

Dushan
23rd Nov 2014, 22:10
Anyway, back to the USA. It was Warren Buffett who originally said that his secretary paid a higher rate in income taxes than he did. And he was still repeating it here in 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/).



Because she works and has a salary while he owned the companies which pay the taxes and he personally has no income, just wealth. If he is so concerned about who pays and who doesn't pay income tax, he is free to write a check to US government for any amount he wishes. Why is he waiting of a law go be passed? Bloody hypocrite.

pigboat
24th Nov 2014, 00:12
Dontcha just love it when a billionaire uses the system to become a billionaire, then pisses and moans about how unfair the system is? Jesus wept! :yuk: