If you mean what I think you mean, then I guess the question would be whether the "successful" were playing under the same set of rules as the "unsuccessful."
You shouldn't to see a bell curve. This is a long tail distribution, just like web site traffic numbers. There are a few sites that have a lot of traffic, and a lot that have little.
There is a rigid lower bound on income (ie zero) so to have a normal distribution you would need an approximate upper bound of twice the mean. This is unrealistic.
Anon, I quite understand that the distribution in the current U.S. would not be bell-shaped, but there's no reason a society couldn't have a bell-shaped curve of incomes if there were a large "middle class," a smaller number of rich people, and a smaller number of poor people.
I don't care what people say, the rich can afford to be taxed more. No one needs half the things the top 2% of US citizens have. Faberge eggs, tv's behind mirrors, inside pools, doggie massages, personal makeup artists, 10 bedroom homes; it's really depressing to hear that people are so greedy and unwilling to take a proportionately small money decrease to feed the homeless.
Remember that many people who nominally receive millions in "income" each other have jiggered things so their taxable income is nearly zero. As warren buffet put it, he pays less in taxes than his secretary.
Additionally I suppose that a lot of these low household incomes are for seniors and college students which may not include the fact that they may have things like they have housing or medical care paid for (e.g. medicaid, or parent's policies).
I have yet to understand why some feel that they must punish the successful.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean what I think you mean, then I guess the question would be whether the "successful" were playing under the same set of rules as the "unsuccessful."
ReplyDeleteThe charts a little tilted and old.
ReplyDeleteLet's use 2007 data and you have 2.5% of families earning 250,000.00 or more in the U.S.
51.2% of all households earned $60,000.00 or more in 2007. The largest bracket at 15.3% was families earning $100,000.00-149,000.00
I'd imagine the 2010 figures will not be as good.
based on data here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html
You shouldn't to see a bell curve. This is a long tail distribution, just like web site traffic numbers. There are a few sites that have a lot of traffic, and a lot that have little.
ReplyDeleteThere is a rigid lower bound on income (ie zero) so to have a normal distribution you would need an approximate upper bound of twice the mean. This is unrealistic.
Anon, I quite understand that the distribution in the current U.S. would not be bell-shaped, but there's no reason a society couldn't have a bell-shaped curve of incomes if there were a large "middle class," a smaller number of rich people, and a smaller number of poor people.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what people say, the rich can afford to be taxed more. No one needs half the things the top 2% of US citizens have. Faberge eggs, tv's behind mirrors, inside pools, doggie massages, personal makeup artists, 10 bedroom homes; it's really depressing to hear that people are so greedy and unwilling to take a proportionately small money decrease to feed the homeless.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to understand why some feel that they must punish the successful.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to understand why some feel complete fealty toward an increasing oligarchical ruling class.
"successful" lol.
Remember that many people who nominally receive millions in "income" each other have jiggered things so their taxable income is nearly zero. As warren buffet put it, he pays less in taxes than his secretary.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I suppose that a lot of these low household incomes are for seniors and college students which may not include the fact that they may have things like they have housing or medical care paid for (e.g. medicaid, or parent's policies).
Additional