Redistribution of wealth: New figures.

[GenSeneca]

Can you offer evidence that the LARGE increase in wealth for the top quintile didn't correlate with the low increase in wealth for the bottom 20 quintile AND the mediocre increase for the two middle quintile?

First of all, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that X causes Y, therefore the burden of proof is on you to offer evidence that X causes Y. I'm not claiming that X does not cause Y, I'm simply pointing out there is no evidence to that effect.

Secondly, you are demanding a Negative Proof: a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false. ​

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. ​

What evidence can you provide to support your theory?

 

[Openmind]

First of all, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that X causes Y, therefore the burden of proof is on you to offer evidence that X causes Y. I'm not claiming that X does not cause Y, I'm simply pointing out there is no evidence to that effect.

Secondly, you are demanding a Negative Proof: a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false. ​

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. ​

What evidence can you provide to support your theory?

First, I never said that X causes Y. . .what I did say is that there is a striking incongruency between the "increase in wealth" of the most wealthy 1% (275%) and increase in health in the least wealthy quintile (18%).

Second, if you think that I am "shifting the burden of proof," what do you think YOU are doing?

You are asking me to prove something I am not even stating. . .but YOU cannot prove that that CORRELATION is not a CAUSE AND EFFECT relationship. . .

YOU are the one trying to show that "there is no evidence that the huge increase in wealth among the top 1% is not related to the amazingly low progress in wealth in the bottom 20% and even in the bottom 80%"

What evidence can YOU provide for YOUR theory? You are saying that "it is false because there is no proof that it is true!" YOU are using "NEGATIVE PROOF!"

Just look at statistics. . .they speak for themselves. And I bet you're not in those people whose wealth has increased by 275%!. . .so you should have that PROOF in your own life!

 

[clarkatticus]

The possibility of the 99% gaining the status of a millionare is impossible, there are not enoughe assets in the nation to this or any % near this, so to think that the "dream" is available to all is simply BS. This does not mean I do not want people to attain wealth, I just think that those that do not, for what ever reason, should still have equal health care, equal protection of the courts, equal civil rights and equal access to education, doesn't have to be Ivy League, but education. These should be rights, not because they spelled out in the Constitution in black and white, but because it is good for the nation and it is fair. Radigan is right, the entire congress is bought, we need to take money out politics and stop having corporations write our laws.

 

[BigRob]

The possibility of the 99% gaining the status of a millionare is impossible, there are not enoughe assets in the nation to this or any % near this, so to think that the "dream" is available to all is simply BS.

You assume wealth cannot be grown. I also dispute that most people are unable to become a millionaire if they really wanted to.

This does not mean I do not want people to attain wealth, I just think that those that do not, for what ever reason, should still have equal health care, equal protection of the courts, equal civil rights and equal access to education, doesn't have to be Ivy League, but education.

All people in this country do have access to healthcare, equal protection in the courts, civil rights, and do recieve an education free of charge.

These should be rights, not because they spelled out in the Constitution in black and white, but because it is good for the nation and it is fair. Radigan is right, the entire congress is bought, we need to take money out politics and stop having corporations write our laws.

It is "fair" to foster an environment in which peoeple can go obtain all of these things for themselves....not simply have them handed to them at the expense of someone else.

 

[PLC1]

You assume wealth cannot be grown.

Of course, wealth can be grown. The way to grow wealth is to develop human resources.

I also dispute that most people are unable to become a millionaire if they really wanted to.

umm... millionaires? in today's dollars? Some people can. The way to have that much money is to start with money, and to focus all your energy on earning more. Maybe most people could, but most people's goals focus on family and friends, hobbies and enjoying life. I'm not so sure a society of money grubbers would be a good thing.

All people in this country do have access to healthcare,

Yes, if getting patched up at the emergency room qualifies as "health care." We pay dearly for our health care, but don't really get much for our money.

equal protection in the courts,

Sure, sure, you have the same protection if you can afford a fancy lawyer as you do if you have to rely on an overworked public defender. OJ would no doubt have gotten off had he had a public defender.,

Sure.

civil rights,

as long as we're all committed to safeguarding civil rights, yes. It hasn't always been so.

and do recieve an education free of charge.

through the 12th. grade, yes.

It is "fair" to foster an environment in which peoeple can go obtain all of these things for themselves....not simply have them handed to them at the expense of someone else.

You got it right that time.

 

[Openmind]

Of course, wealth can be grown. The way to grow wealth is to develop human resources.



umm... millionaires? in today's dollars? Some people can. The way to have that much money is to start with money, and to focus all your energy on earning more. Maybe most people could, but most people's goals focus on family and friends, hobbies and enjoying life. I'm not so sure a society of money grubbers would be a good thing.



Yes, if getting patched up at the emergency room qualifies as "health care." We pay dearly for our health care, but don't really get much for our money.



Sure, sure, you have the same protection if you can afford a fancy lawyer as you do if you have to rely on an overworked public defender. OJ would no doubt have gotten off had he had a public defender.,

Sure.



as long as we're all committed to safeguarding civil rights, yes. It hasn't always been so.



through the 12th. grade, yes.




You got it right that time.

I agree with all your answes to Rob, including the last one. The only problem with the last poin is that our system doesn't promote such fairness!

 

[GenSeneca]

You are asking me to prove something I am not even stating. . .

What were you trying to state with the creation of this thread... That rich people earn money faster than poor people?

Just look at statistics. . .they speak for themselves. And I bet you're not in those people whose wealth has increased by 275%!. . .so you should have that PROOF in your own life!

Proof of what?

 

[GenSeneca]

These should be rights, not because they spelled out in the Constitution in black and white, but because it is good for the nation and it is fair.

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth.

 

[Openmind]

What were you trying to state with the creation of this thread... That rich people earn money faster than poor people?



Proof of what?

Obviously, you are not interested in reality. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the wealthy get wealthier at a rate that is 10 times greater than the rest of us. . .although any intelligent person would understand that that is just not sustainable!

So. . .I have nothing more to add. Your games are neither interesting or clever. Just bad will, as usual.

 

[dogtowner]

Obviously, you are not interested in reality. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the wealthy get wealthier at a rate that is 10 times greater than the rest of us. . .although any intelligent person would understand that that is just not sustainable!

that requires accepting that wealth is finite, just not so unless you accept that Mr Open obtained your family's wealth ( me or my brother or anyone else in the 47% that pay taxes) at the cost of someone else.

and if its not sustainable, so what ? then the jig would be up and the reign of terror ended.

 

[GenSeneca]

It doesn't seem to matter to you that the wealthy get wealthier at a rate that is 10 times greater than the rest of us. . .

Yes, they do. Nothing nefarious about that. If I had a million dollars a year to put towards investments, my yearly earnings would quickly multiply: Job salary + Interest on Savings + Investment Earnings = More income. It's not dark magic, it's economics.

although any intelligent person would understand that that is just not sustainable!

Why is it not sustainable?

So. . .I have nothing more to add. Your games are neither interesting or clever. Just bad will, as usual.

If you're going to make asinine assertions, expect people to call you on them and ask that you offer evidence in support of such crackpot conspiracy theories.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, they do. Nothing nefarious about that. If I had a million dollars a year to put towards investments, my yearly earnings would quickly multiply: Job salary + Interest on Savings + Investment Earnings = More income. It's not dark magic, it's economics.


Why is it not sustainable?


If you're going to make asinine assertions, expect people to call you on them and ask that you offer evidence in support of such crackpot conspiracy theories.

Dear, you can keep your conviction as much as you want, you have the right to be wrong, and I have the right to express my opinion, and to present factual information and data to support it.

The fact is that you and people like you are finally losing ground in terms of credibility. Enough statistics are coming out, every day now, that demonstrate that this continue and increasing gap in income and wealth is NOT sustainable.

I asked several questions yesterday about what happen if this trend continues in the next ten years, the next 20 years? What happen when the wealthy 1% see its wealth increase by 1000%, and the poor continue to LOSE income every year?

What happen with that trend in 40 years? What do you picture such a society to look like?

You can spew as much rethoric, that is not backed up by anything, as you want. . . it doesn't change the facts or the situation.

 

[GenSeneca]

You can spew as much rethoric, that is not backed up by anything, as you want. . . it doesn't change the facts or the situation.

What part of "people who have money to invest earn income faster than people who don't have money to invest" has you confused?

 

[Openmind]

What part of "people who have money to invest earn income faster than people who don't have money to invest" has you confused?

What part of "the income inequality has grown MUCH larger over the last 30 years than in any time in history of the US" don't you understand?


Obviously, wealth builds wealth.. . and if everyone could benefit from the wealth of a nation, even if it is not at the same rate, but at least to some extend, things would not be so serious.

However, it is clear that in the last 10 years at least, the poor have NOT increased their wealth. . .in fact their wealth has DECREASED, while the top 1% (and the disparity increases as you go up the ladder!) has continue to gain more wealth. . .because of the Bush tax cuts, and because of the Wall Street greed that sees price of stock INCREASE when workers are LAID OFF!

This is NOT sustainable, whether you like it or not! Creation of wealth may not be finite, but it is obvious that very little wealth was created over the last 10 years (and certainly not since the 2008 mess!), and yet, the wealthy have gotten wealthier. . . from what do you think?

 

[GenSeneca]

What part of "the income inequality has grown MUCH larger over the last 30 years than in any time in history of the US" don't you understand?

I do understand it, I just don't see it as a problem.

Obviously, wealth builds wealth.. . and if everyone could benefit from the wealth of a nation, even if it is not at the same rate, but at least to some extend, things would not be so serious.

Everyone does benefit from the generation of wealth.

However, it is clear that in the last 10 years at least, the poor have NOT increased their wealth. . .

Wealth, or income? Or do you really not understand the difference? According to the data you posted, income for the poor has increased by 18% over the last 30 years.

in fact their wealth has DECREASED, while the top 1% (and the disparity increases as you go up the ladder!) has continue to gain more wealth. . .

The data you posted deals with INCOME not WEALTH.

because of the Bush tax cuts,

Those tax cuts removed millions of people at the bottom from the tax roles, completely relieving them of their tax burden. And despite your assertion that they were "tax cuts for the wealthy", the Bush tax cuts actually shifted a larger share of the tax burden onto the wealthy.

and because of the Wall Street greed that sees price of stock INCREASE when workers are LAID OFF!

You've never run a business or had to make a payroll.

This is NOT sustainable, whether you like it or not!

What is not sustainable? In addition to not understanding the difference between income and wealth, are you also totally ignorant about income mobility?

Creation of wealth may not be finite, but it is obvious that very little wealth was created over the last 10 years (and certainly not since the 2008 mess!), and yet, the wealthy have gotten wealthier. . . from what do you think?

People who are wealthy can use the money they already have to purchase investments which pay interest and dividends, thereby increasing their income. As I said, nothing nefarious about that.