compassion for the rich ?

 they are suffering. maybe more than you know.
but my research has hit a brick wall.  I'll now need to go the next level
to truly experience the life-style.
Send as money as you can afford to me. A.S.A.P.
In the name of science, of course.
;)
g.
--
It's amazing what you can do. If...
    you put your mind to it.

 

They can afford it:

   As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of
   all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial,
   professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that
   just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of
   the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
   <http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html>

And despite being taxed more, that top 20% have seen their slice of the
wealth pie increase through the years... Maybe they aren't being taxed
enough...

 Daniel T. wrote


Pity about 'Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or
family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth
distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as
real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and
household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are
more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale'

which basically means that the equity in their houses isnt included,
and neither is what they have in their 401Ks and pension funds etc
so that is a mindlessly useless measure of real wealth, particularly
with the bottom 80%.


So have hordes of the 80% too, particularly when you
are talking about real wealth, the homes they are living in.


Taxation is about paying for what the voters have decided that they want
govt to do, not about stripping away wealth from those that have it.

There is no reason what so ever why only wealth should pay
for what the voters have decided that they want govt to do.

 
You need to read the paper more carefully. Table 1 from the site
specifically includes equity in houses (gross value - mortgage debt),
401(k) and pension plans. All this is noted at the bottom of the table
and recaped below:

   Total assets are defined as the sum of:
   (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing;
   (2) other real estate owned by the household;
   (3) cash and demand deposits;
   (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money
       market accounts;
   (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other
       financial securities;
   (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans;
   (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh,
       and 401(k) plans;
   (8) corporate stock and mutual funds;
   (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and
   (10) equity in trust funds.

   Total liabilities are the sum of:
   (1) mortgage debt;
   (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and
   (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004).


There is only 100% in a pie. The bottom 80% have had progressivly less
of that pie. In 1983 the bottom 80% had 18.7% of the pie, in 2001 only
15.5% went to them.

I wonder why you are being such an apologist, maybe you are one of that
top 20%?... As I recall, you don't even live in the USA though...

 Daniel T. wrote

Pity it doesnt include what the individual will get from pensions.


Pity about the gross discrepency between their 19% and 80%
which cant be anything like that if that was actually the case.


Not by much in fact with the 19% except with the last line
in the table, looks very like an abberation and that we
need more up to date data to say anything much useful.


Irrelevant when discussing whether to tax income or 'wealth'


Thats a lie except for the last line in the table
and we dont know what has happened since then.


And we dont know what happened after 2001 on that.


Just another of your silly little fantasys.


One of that 19%, actually.


So its just a tad unlikely that I am actually an apologist.