Jon Stewart on our corporate kleptocracy.
You’re talking income not wealth. The two are not synonymous. I am willing to bet that you are not in the top 10% in wealth, which would be a net worth of just south of a million.
Yeah, I’m aware that there is a difference between income and wealth. It’s been so long, I don’t really remember what I was talking about there. Here is what I was responding to originally:
To me, this sounds like he’s talking about income, but it’s fairly ambiguous (as is most of this thread), so, if you want to take him as talking about wealth and not income, well…knock yourself out.
How much would you be willing to bet?
-XT
Why would a discussion of “the wealthy” be limited to income? That’s just silly. My household’s income is in the top 3% in the country (and would be even if my wife left her high five figure job). I am not wealthy. My net worth is unremarkable.
Look, I know everyone on the internet has a six figure income, lives in a seven firgure house, has an eight figure net worth, a nine inch dick and an IQ north of 180. Without going into specific detail where is most of your wealth? I know it’s obvious, but just so we’re clear, owning a $700,000 home that is encumbered by a $500,000 mortgage leaves you $200,000 net in non-liquid assets. I am guessing your wealth is in tax exempt retirement savings and a home. If it exceeds $900,000, net of all of your debt, then congratulations.
I didn’t say it was limited to that…I said that’s how I read his assertion and how I responded.
Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, 401K, house and several property investments, without going into to many details. And yes, I’m aware that owning a $700k house doesn’t equate, necessarily, to $700k in assets.
Sadly, my IQ tested out at 148, so I’m falling well short of everyone else on the internet there at least…
-XT
And I’m saying any discussion of “the wealthy” that concerns only income (i.e., what you were doing) is silly.
stocks, bonds and mutual funds!
sure it equates to $700,000 in assets, it just doesn’t equate to $700,000 net worth.
ah, how very candid of you to reveal that embarassingly low figure
I can only assume then that you are past middle age (the comments about your father threw me). Congratulations, you’ve done well for yourself on a comparatively modest income. I would venture to guess that most folks earning what you earn do not have equivalent net worth.
missed edit window: also congratulations on some shrewd real estate investment. Most small time real estate investors took devasting hits after the collapse. It is becoming increasingly uncommon to find someone who owns an investment property with any equity in it (almost unheard of in my area - the southeast). Though it does not surprise me that someone earning in the low six figures has near a million in assets, I will once again register my surprise that someone earning in the low six figures has a net worth that high.
shrug As I said, that’s how I read what he was saying.
Yeah…is that so unusual? Most of the bonds I didn’t buy myself but were given. The (few) stocks I still have are one’s that didn’t go bust during the dot com thingy (mainly early CISCO stocks, some HP stocks, and a few eBay and AOL stocks I got for work I did for them). Lot’s in mutual funds, which I rolled over from the various 401K and retirement accounts I had when I worked for different companies. And, of course, I put in the max for 401K. I basically just follow my dad’s and grandfathers advice.
As I said, I understand. It’s irrelevant, since my current house is worth nothing like $700k in any case. Basically, I sold my apartment in DC, a flat in New York and our house in southern Maryland at the height of the real estate boom, then moved out west and bought my current house when prices were cheap (and it’s a pretty inexpensive house, by east coast standards, especially considering how big it is). I put the rest of the money into some nice property in the mountains and a cabin in Arizona, and invested the rest. Again, I don’t think any of this is all that unusual or unique.
On this board? I’m probably in the lower tier with scores like that. Personally, I never saw that having a high IQ score did much for me. It certainly didn’t seem to put any extra bread on the table. Probably the fact that I’m naturally (almost pathologically) lazy didn’t really help…
I’m 50…um, something. It’s the new 30, so I don’t know if I’m ‘past middle age’ as yet. 
As for the last, I know several people who earned what I did and who have a lot more. It was bad luck (IMHO) that I am actually doing as poorly as I am, as I had several chances during the boom years of IT to really cash in, and through my own stupidity (and laziness I guess) I just never did. I actually lost quite a bit when the last few companies I worked for went IPO and then eventually tits up, as I had quite a bit of stock in each that was worthless in the end (and in one case I had invested heavily in that company, since I had a lot of buy options that were written into my contract). C’est la vie.
-XT
148 is a pretty damn high IQ. Higher than mine. I was being a bit of a smart ass, but since you have replied sincerely, I owe you the same. Assuming what you’ve said is true, you’ve done prettty well. I am little jaded in that I am a bankruptcy lawyer (corporate/commercial, not consumer), so I see a lot of people losing it all (particularily true of small and mid market businesses whose principal’s have a lot of skin in the game).
To the contrary. Thru your foresight, intelligence and a little luck, you’ve manged to settle into one of the more comfortable of the Titanic’s deck chairs. Free bar inside and the band is playing. Enjoy yourself. Too bad about those poor bastards in steerage. :dubious: