anyway I didn't want to argue, i just wanted to post that graph since there is such an up roar about this thing. I'm a minority here on my stance so no point in getting into it once again.
Kuzi, you are again putting out half truths. Thomas J Stanleys book stated that only 20% got their wealth STRICTLY from inheritance. That means a person like Paris Hilton would not be in that 20%, despite the fact she would be a destitute wh*re without her parents wealth to assist her and fame to back her. That isnt 20%, thats a subjective number used to back up his premise and cited as a true piece of socioeconomic studies----which it is more of orchestrated finding.
Kuzi, you are again putting out half truths. Thomas J Stanleys book stated that only 20% got their wealth STRICTLY from inheritance. That means a person like Paris Hilton would not be in that 20%, despite the fact she would be a destitute wh*re without her parents wealth to assist her and fame to back her. That isnt 20%, thats a subjective number used to back up his premise and cited as a true piece of socioeconomic studies----which it is more of orchestrated finding.
Back what up Kuzi????? Read the godd@mn book, it says that the 20% is based SOLELY on inheritence. Thats the words of the author, how much more f*cking backup is needed?
PS....I also think you are confusing (purposely perhaps) the difference between the small business owner who made 1 million dollars----and spend 3/4 of it on labor, operating costs, ect....and the "uber rich" if you will, which is what Phobic, Laker, and myself often speak of.
PSS--------I gave you what you wanted, because we had this SAME discussion about the SAME book and the SAME quote over the SAME statistic a few weeks ago and I thought you were there talking about it then too. Just as I am sure you think my leftist repitition gets old, so does the B.S. and same tired arguments and stats that you throw out as truths.
Comments