If you eliminate capital gains.

The graph does show probability though.
Now, I don't mean to imply that probability == feasibility,
but how would you then go about measuring or approximating feasibility if not by probability?

If you don't like the graph I posted, then perhaps you should post one that supports your stance.

And by what means have you come to this conclusion?
Certainly, probability does not always relate to feasibility,
but what evidence do you have that probability never relates to feasibility?

After all, you can show a graph of the survivability rate of jumping off a tower with no parachute.
Does such a graph not also speak to the feasibility of surviving such a stunt.

Actually the two categories are based on income and not wealth,
but I don't fault you for that as it isn't exactly evident from just looking at the graph.

Generalities are usually a good representation of component averages.

However, I had originally stated that there was low probability that a lower or middle class person would move into the upper class, and you stated that that wasn't true at all. That graph clearly disproves your assertion. (unless you consider 4% to be high probability). Don't try to move the goal post.

Oh and FYI, being in the middle class is not worth as much as it used to be.




http://paul.kedrosky.com/WindowsLiveWriter/TroublewithChartsDebtIncomeandRetailSale_6861/22856_2.jpg

If the stats are sensational, then they are sensational.
The motive behind collecting the stats is irrelevant,
provided that the stats are accurate.

And if you believe the stats are sensational,
perhaps that just means you should be paying more attention to them.

It is up to the interpreter to provide insight,
no raw data will provide insight by itself unless one interprets that data.

I am well aware of the difference between correlation and causation.
Your problem seems to be that you believe
that correlation cannot/must not equate to causation.

It is true that (correlation !⇒ causation) or !(correlation ⇒ causation).
It is not true that (correlation ⇒ !causation).

We do not know that jumping off of tall buildings causes death, simply by looking at statistics.
We know it through observation.

Jumping off of high buildings with no parachute does indeed cause death,
and knowing this, we can say that there is causation.

In order for us to be able to say that causation ⇒ correlation, we need to assume one more thing.
We need to assume that nothing else causes death during the act of jumping off of a building, other than said act of jumping off of that building.

Now this part is a bit hard to explain, but basically,
(causation ⇒ correlation) ≡ (there is only one causation)
Causation implies correlation if and only if there is exactly one causation.

So what can we say on building jumps affect on the death rate?
Not much, because there are other causes of death which will alter the death toll.
So (jumping makes you die(causation)) !⇒ that the death rate will change in proportion to building jumps.

But what can we say on building jumps affect on the death rate of people who jump from buildings?
Because it is unlikely that people who jump from buildings will die for reasons other than that they jumped from a building, and because we know through observation that jumping from buildings does cause death, we can say conclusively that the number of people who jump from buildings and the rate of their death will be directly related.

If however, it were a reasonable possibility that such people jumping from buildings could also die from being shot by someone on the ground, or having a heart attack mid-fall unrelated to their jumping off of a building,
then we would not be able to say that.
But because we assume such occurrences to be highly unlikely,
we can assume that they have little to no affect on the relationship between jumping of a building and the probability of dieing in the process.

So hopefully that explains it.
Now what does all of this have to do with income mobility?

I'm saying that feasibility/practicality causes probability,
and that therefore feasibility practicality and probability are related.
In order for you to disprove me, you need to show that there are substantial other elements other than feasibility or practicality than affect the probability of moving to a higher quintile.

I wager that that is impossible however,
because of the all-encompassing nature of feasibility and practicality.

The main difference between you and me here seems to be in the way we use the term feasible.
One definition for feasible is literally probability, which is what I use.
But you appear to be using the definition relating to absolute possibility.

I believe that using the absolute definition in this case is unproductive,
as there are many many things which we can say are possible.

It is technically possible for me to jump off of a high building with no parachute, and survive.
But what does that say to the chance of me actually succeeding in that?

As for the term practical, it is by definition not limited to absolute possibilities.

Yea yes, we all know by now that you have a holier than thou attitude.
There's no need to keep flaunting it.

With the exception of the mobility graph and the Koch graph,
the source for each graph is listed right on the graph itself. :/

The mobility graph is from a NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH report.
And the Koch graph came directly from Forbes.

I guess you would consider any graph that did not agree with your views to be biased and skewed.
Perhaps that is how you define biased, but I personally have a different definition.

-Meta

 

It suggests an increasing income gap.

It surveyed households, not individuals.
How much difference do you think the age of head of households would have made?




From these graphs, we can see that there is not a constant correlation between age of household head and income.

Even if taking distortion based on head of household age to the extreme,
we can see that the maximum difference based on age of household head
could be no more than 50K.

Wait.....how does the term funnel imply an outside source?
Also, how can you be so sure that such an entity is not facilitating the rich?

The increase in money in this case is due to his taking an extra job.
You can say the money is funneled to him, through force of his own work ethic.
The employer also contributes to him getting more money by hiring him.

But this is not the type of funneling I am referring to.

No, I do not agree with you because your outlook is flawed. You equate a benefit in gross terms rather than proportionate terms, but this view is an invalid one.
[/quote]
The rich will benefit both proportionately more, and in absolute terms they will benefit more.

Are you saying that they wont?
If so then why not, when we both agree that they own the most stock?

If they both lose weight in proportion, then yes.

BTW, why do you seem to have an obsession with fat people?

That depends on how you measure benefit and value.
My view is that the value of anything is not dependent upon how much value one already owns.
It seems reasonable though that the same amount of value would not benefit the rich as much as it would benefit the poor,
as the rich would have less need of it.

But again, it depends on how you measure benefit, and I believe there are multiple ways to measure it,
which are all valid.

One way of measuring benefit is by measuring the amount of value,
and if value truly is constant, then measuring benefit this way means that benefit will also be constant.

Another way of measuring benefit is by basing it on value as a function of need.
In this way the rich do not benefit from additional value as much as the poor,
because they do not need it.
If this is how you measure benefit though, then why advocate for something that allocates a majority of funds that does not benefit anyone?

Wait a minute,
weren't we just talking about the effects of eliminating the capital gains tax?

What does a flat tax have to do with it?

Oh, are you trying to use that as an analogy?
In that case, yes I would expect a rich person under a 20% flat income tax to pay more than a poor person.
Wouldn't you?

Of course they lose more,
because they have more to lose.

I'm looking at both gross gains and proportionate gains.
Which gains are you looking at??

What I am saying, or what I should have said in the first place,
is that the income of the rich will increase far more than the income of the poor,
if you eliminate the capital gains tax.

Are you saying the government should not collect taxes?
If not, what are you trying to imply with that statement?

House, car, created from resources, the people who made them, you influence them with your money.

1. Money equals potential control over resources.
2. Stock equals more direct control over resources.
3. People are reliant upon resources.
4. If you control resources, then you control the people who rely on those resources.

Exactly which part do you disagree with?
Please address individually if you disagree with more than one, thanks.

You just contradicted yourself.

Its true that money and credit itself is not limited,
but it does represent a limited set of resources.

Who said anything about a single person controlling all the money?

But I would say that it is possible for a single person or entity to control all of the resources in a given region and a majority of the money.
Some of the money/credit has to eventually end up in the hands of others,
or else it has no value, but it is certainly possible for one to control all of the resources in an area, and if you control all the resources, then the money is not needed.

Really?! Can you prove this?

I think I asked you this already, but do you know what a monopoly is?

Are you certain it isn't actually the rich who are making money off of the poor?

-Meta

 

Well sure it is, just not in the way(s) you're thinking.

Are you saying that there is no limit to the amount of food a person can eat?
Are you trying to imply that there is no limit to how fat a person can get?
Your 'facts' and analogies are the only absurd things here.

See my prior post for how money does equate to control of resources.

Please don't take my quotes out of context.

Time constraints? There are time constraints for eating too.

But one cannot inherit the fat of his father.
A person can inherit his father's fat genes,
but assuming the father dies at 500lbs that does not mean that the son will be born a 500lb baby.

On the other hand, a father who dies owning $500 can leave $500 dollars to his son.
And then that son can accumulate an additional $500 and leave $1000 to his son.
And under certain circumstances this cycle can repeat indefinably,
but fat can not be accumulated in this way.

It is true that there are constraints set by the market and taxes,
but those are they very same constraints that you are proposing we get rid of.

First of all, I was talking income and not wealth.

Also, I believe I posted some graphs in my last post that disprove your assumption of age being a major factor.
But I will post one more.



As you can see from the graph, the max difference that age made among working age people was less than 40K in 2006.

What's even more interesting is that the 65 year old you claim should be making a lot more money actually made less than all of the younger age groups over age 19, including the 20-24 group.

I was talking eating rate and not weight, but beside that.
How many 70lb people do you know of who have the same or similar workout routine as some 1000lb person?
My guess is, not many.

See above age to income related graphs.

I don't know how you did it, but somehow,
you have completely missed the point of what I was saying.

The point is that rich individuals own such large proportions of the total wealth and income that comparing that with the proportion of food that individuals are able to cram into their bellies is so extreme as to render it meaninglessness.

So caves are not part of the real world?
Well then let's say that the cave is larger.
Let's say that the cave has a couple of edible plants growing out of the walls.
If the fat person eats all of those plants, then though the plants may eventually grow back,
the fat person is still limiting the rate at which everyone else is able to eat.

Still not convinced? Well what say we get rid of the cave,
and say that this group of people is trapped on an island.
Even here, if the fat person is able to eat all the food of the island,
everyone on the island will be affected.

Island not big enough for you? Well the same thing would apply to a continent,
a hemisphere, a planet.
The larger the area gets, and the more food available,
the less likely it becomes that a fat person will be able to stomach all of the food,
but it still holds true that if a fat person is somehow able to eat all of the food,
this will undoubtedly affect the amount of food available to everyone else.

Want more?
Well consider this.
If a swarm of locusts destroys a field of crops,
does this or does this not affect how many crops a farmer is able to harvest.

It hurts them in the same way that taking the stitches out of a wound that has not healed hurts the patient.

That definition of the system is consistent with my stated definition of the individual.

Why on earth would you refer to a circular definition to prove your point?

From the free online dictionary,
capitalist: An investor of capital in business...

So yea, that specific definition you quoted does not help to prove your point,
but your point is irrelevant either way.
If you do not want to refer to what I described as a capitalist,
then that's fine by me, call it by whatever name you want, it makes little difference.

If on the other hand you mean to say that the type of person that I described does not exist,....well I suppose I should just ask you.

Regardless of what you do or don't call them,
Do you believe that the type of person I described in that quote exists?

Oh that's who.

BTW, who ever stated that the source of funneling was unknown?
I believe I refereed to the cause of funneling clearly when I first mentioned it.

-Meta

 

I never said that wealth and resources were the exact same thing,
but it is true that wealth buys resources, or do you think that it doesn't?

Also, are you denying that it takes raw materials in order to make things?

You really need to start skimming the whole post before starting your reply.
Also, your argumentative request is a straw-man on at least three counts,
in addition to being an appeal to ignorance.

Still a three count appeal to ignorance straw-man.
Why must it be limited to a free nation in modern times?

If you don't make such limitations,
then there are plenty of examples of single entities controlling all or a majority of the wealth in a given sector.

I can refer to railroad and or steel monopolies of the past,
in which all business relating to railroads or steel were under the control of a small handful of organizations, or a single individual in the case of steel.

I can refer to slave times of America during which the slaves owned nothing and all the wealth was owned by the white non-slave group.

I can refer to castles of the past which were owned by kings.
Or I can refer to mansions of today,
everything in that domain is owned and controlled by a single person or family.

What is it about a capitalist system,
that makes you think that it is impossible for one group to own everything?

If you know what it is, then provide a definition and an example.

Again, you need to substantiate your statements.
Just because you say it, does not make it true.

Not really, and I already showed you why.

Stats please.

And I did not say anything about the catastrophes that you mentioned.
Insufficiently regulated capitalism is a catastrophe that we have all suffered,
though not all of us have lost because of it, some of us have managed to benefit greatly due to the catastrophe of insufficiently regulated capitalism.

Who here is suggesting that there is unregulated capitalism?

Why do you feel the need to introduce so many unrelated points?

What do you have against straw-men that you feel the urge to beat them so mercilessly?

Do you not lay claim to that money you purport to work for?
Do you not own it? Do you not control what it is used for???

If you use your wealth to purchase a significant portion of the available natural gas wells and or coal mines then yes.

-Meta

 

Ya, but they (top 20%) only pay around 34.7% of federal excise taxes.
In total, they paid 69.3% of all federal taxes in 2006.

Since they hold 93% of the wealth, they should pay 93% of the taxes.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.pdf

That link appears to be broken,
either way it is ill-advisable to use the Heritage Foundation as a source.

BTW did you look at those graphs I posted?
Maybe you haven't got to them yet,
but they appear to be in direct conflict with your claim.

-Meta

 

I pity people like drj90210 because they are misinformed.
Part of that may be their own fault, and they may be a bit greedy themselves,
but there are powerful forces pulling the strings who have an influence on them.

drj90210 actually doesn't seem all that bad,
he may be a terrible debater, very insulting, and perhaps even dishonest,
but trust me when I say there are worse people.

I can tolerate him because I know its not all his fault,
and plus I have a lot of patience.

Actually, one of the main reasons I came to this forum
was so that I could get more practice exercising my patience.
If someone happens to learn anything from me or find humor in what I say,
then that is just icing on the cake.

And boy do I love icing.

There is another forum which I like to frequent,
but it is for adults only, and there aren't so many people like drj90210 there.
There are a few, but not enough to keep me busy,
and while it is fun to discuss things with intelligent people,
sometimes I just feel like I need more of a challenge.

Like I said, I like the icing, and I believe it to be a true statement,
that those who know the least have the most to learn.
And there are a lot of people like drj90210 around this site,
even a number of the mods here appear to be completely detached from reality.

If I can help any of these people to learn something,
then I have done a good thing, and I can be happy for that.
If not, then it is just one more opportunity for me to exercise my patience.
It's a win win.

-Meta

 

Capital gains are income.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalgain.asp

-Meta