5 ms·
Most people who are wealthy have wealthy parents. It is overwhelmingly the most common way to become wealthy. Virtually nobody makes it to "the top" solely thro
by known 12y ago
Most people who are wealthy have wealthy parents. It is overwhelmingly the most common way to become wealthy. Virtually nobody makes it to "the top" solely through hard work. Wealthy people always extol the virtues of hard work, but the truth is that there is no amount of hard work will necessarily make you successful. There are too many people waiting with outstretched hands to take advantage of you, or feet waiting to trip you — mostly to assure that you don't threaten their success in this negative-sum game.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/07/the-self-attribution-fallacy http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/07/the-self-attribution-falla...
- refurb 12y agoRoughly 80% of millionaires in the US are first generation (their parents weren't rich). http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent
- illumen 12y agoDo you know what's cool?
- grimmfang 12y agoMillionaires are most certainly not the subject of his comment.
- refurb 12y agoHe used the term "wealthy". Is having more than $1M not wealthy? The tax codes suggests it is.
- jnbiche 12y ago>The tax codes suggests it is Yes, and this is a problem. We tax people who have $1M net worth far too much, and people who have $10M+ net worths (the true 1%) far too little. Edit: Clarified that I meant to refer to net worth, which is far more useful to talk about.
- xnull2guest 12y agoRight. The 1% is terminology useful for reference and for rallies, but the real wealth is concentrated in the top 0.05%. "The 0.05%" is harder for the peoples' mic to say.
- jnbiche 12y agoNo, $10M is pretty close to the top 1% of net worths (~7-8M).
- xnull2guest 12y agoThe claim here is that $10M is the wrong number to look at for inherited wealth and for a systemically enshrined class. That happens somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%. 1% makes a great campaign slogan, but is similarly picked from the air. If one wanted to find 'the number' related to the Bourgeoisie - it would be near 0.05%.
- refurb 12y agoThe problem with that is that although there are a few really extradinarily wealthy folks, taking even 100% of their wealth wouldn't sustain gov't spending for more than a few weeks. The tax base is mostly middle to upper-middle class taxpayers.
- FranOntanaya 12y agoThat doesn't match with the headline "top 1% owns nearly 50% of wealth." If 50% of wealth couldn't sustain the government for more than a few weeks, then that government would be running already on lollipops and rainbows.
- refurb 12y agoVery few countries tax wealth, most tax income. The distribution isn't quite so skewed. But even then the richest 1% in the US already pay over 50% of all income taxes collected. My point is, when people talk about taxing the rich, they are talking about most of the folks on HN (at least in SF). The top 1% households make ~$450k per year. That a couple who each take home $225k. I remember an election in Canada a while back where the NDP (far left) said "We would increase the taxes on thr rich". Someone asked "who are the rich?" And they said "A family of four making more than $80K." I had to give them credit for being honest.
- rgbrenner 12y agoHis link talks about the top 1%.. which starts at a net worth of $8.4m [0]. It's entirely possible you are both correct. 0. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/?_r=0 http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-t...
- teraflop 12y agoBy what definition of "rich"? Googling turns up lots of people quoting that statistic, but none of them provide more details on who was surveyed or what methodology was used, so it's kind of meaningless.
- refurb 12y agoHere a survey where the number is 61%. http://www.ustrust.com/publish/content/application/pdf/GWMOL/USTp_ARKWY39L_2015-06.pdf http://www.ustrust.com/publish/content/application/pdf/GWMOL...
- jnbiche 12y agoYeah, as alluded to, "millionaire" doesn't have the same meaning it used to. Yes, a millionaire is by no means poor or middle-class, but a professional (software dev, doctor, lawyer) can easily save up a million dollars if they live in a low-cost area or are frugal. Let's punch it up to people with 10 million or more (which is more in line with what "millionaire" meant in the days of our parents and grandparents) and see how many first-generation are left. Obviously, that data is hard to come by (and frankly, I'm skeptical of the Cato data, just as I'm not citing data here from Citizens for a Fair Economy).
- Fuxy 12y agoI foresee another French revolution if the rich keep this up I can hear the pitch forks already being sharpened. Realistically this system is designed to make the rich richer and the middle class poorer however the rich are underestimating their effect and the effect of automation and cut through CEO's on the general population. Automation is making a lot of jobs obsolete earning the people who own the systems more money for less cut through CEO's are pushing to reduce employment costs at any price and the rich are the only ones capable of investing the large sums required to get the huge returns the global market can give you.