A very, very conservative estimate of 100,000 still proves you wrong.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Romney delivers powerful message.
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
A very, very conservative estimate of 100,000 still proves you wrong.
EXCEPT THAT YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK SAYS HALF OF THEM INHERITED THEIR WEALTH, and that a sizable portion of the remaining are part of a dual-income household.
I said have a retirement account of $1 million or more.
You don't inherit money into a retirement account so irrelevant trivia.
A retirement account does not include money made by a spouse and does not measure retirement income.--more irrelevant trivia to cover up for your lack of any knowledge on this topic.
I have pointed out these errors in your reasoning but you keep repeating the same stuff. Admit it, you were wrong.
This is just Fidelity and does not include 403(b) for public employees like teachers or IRAs:
"The number of 401(k) participants who had $1 million or more in workplace retirement plans managed by Fidelity Investments hit 200,000 in the third quarter of this year, up from 196,000 in the previous quarter."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...e51232-0aeb-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html
Last edited:
I said a lot of teachers have a retirement account of $1 million plus.
But not because most -or all- of them earned it...but because they inherited it, or married into it.
So you want to leave that part out because it totally changes the complexion of the argument you're making.
The sad thing is that the link you thought would help your argument actually helped mine by pointing out that when it comes to teachers, unless you inherit wealth or marry a higher earner, you're probably never going to come close to having $1M in a retirement account through just the wage you get.
I proved I was right--with a few hundred thousand meeting that criteria. The exact number is not important since even 100,000 would show your comment was uninformed.
The exact number is important, Flash for a couple reasons:
1) it shows you did the work, which you didn't do and refuse to do because you're lazy
and
2) it places it into context
You completely and deliberately left out the fact that, according to your own link, half of those "teacher millionaires" inherited their millions. And then you refuse to do the actual work of finding out just how many of those "teacher millionaires" are millionaires through saving their wages for decades.
You won't do that work because you can't. So instead, you lie and you try to force through your own shitty estimates -estimates you aren't even confident in yourself- as some kind of standard because you're used to people accommodating your bad faith. So when someone comes along like me, who completely doubts you and knows that you only tell half-truths, suddenly everything that was once in support of your argument is deemed "irrelevant" because it doesn't help your argument anymore.
When you posted that there are teachers who have millions saved, did you know that half of them inherited their millions? Or did you just post that hoping you could fill the truth in post-hoc?
And this has nothing to do with teachers, anybody contributing to a retirement account for 40 years with money in a 500 index fund is going to have $1 million plus.
1. You made it about teachers, Flash. You did that.
2. You said that without even knowing that half of those teachers you were celebrating inherited their wealth.
3. You still don't know how many of the other half saved millions only because they were married to higher earners and their combined savings tops $1M.
4. Are you counting home equity in those savings too? Do you even know? Because home equity could make up as much as 1/3 to 2/3 of the "millions saved". But we don't know that because you won't do that work, opting instead of a lowest-common-denominator approach that adds nothing of substance to the debate.
#4 is a particularly tough thing because it doesn't sound to me like you've put in any work to understand your own position, and you never will because you're too lazy.
Having a two-earner couple is also an irrelevant diversion since I said retirement account--not retirement income.
A two earner couple would have combined savings, wouldn't they?
So here's what you did...
First, you planted goalposts by saying that there are plenty of teachers who have millions saved.
Then, you moved those goalposts when the link you provided showed that half of them inherited their millions
Then, you moved those goalposts again when the link you provided said that an as-yet-defined-number-by-you of teachers are married to higher earners and their combined savings comes to $1M
Then, you moved those goalposts a third time by "estimating" (with absolutely no sources or research, just your own gut feeling) a number of teachers far smaller than the original claim you made earlier managed to save over 40 years. But even that is a faulty assumption to make because:
a) it's not researched
b) it's not an educated guess
c) it's you shifting the goalposts post hoc
d) it's sophistry
So the thing you submitted in this debate, the only link you submitted, managed to place some pretty significant qualifiers around the statement you made that kicked this whole thing off.
So you keep moving the bar on who you're talking about, and now you've moved it so much that you're even saying that the fact that they're teachers is irrelevant!
What a fucking joke.
A very, very conservative estimate of 100,000 still proves you wrong.
Again, that's pulled straight from your ass.
And there are 3.7 million teachers in the country, so 100,000 / 3,7 million = 3%
3%
That's what you're celebrating here? 3% according to your own shitty, post-hoc estimate that has no support, no evidence, nothing other than your bad faith on which it relies.
I said have a retirement account of $1 million or more.
No, you said "teachers saved millions".
Turns out that's not really true, is it?
We know it's not true because your own link says half of the teachers inherited that wealth. Then your link goes on to say how another amount (still undefined because you refuse to do that research) are married to high earners and their combined savings tops $1M. Which is wholly different than a teacher saving that much on their own.
Also, according to your link, most teachers quit within 5 years. So most of them won't even come close to saving $1M in a retirement account of any kind.
"The number of 401(k) participants who had $1 million or more in workplace retirement plans managed by Fidelity Investments hit 200,000 in the third quarter of this year, up from 196,000 in the previous quarter."
60% of Americans don't own stock.
60% of all stock is owned by the top 0.1%.
80% of all stock is owned by the top 10%.
The average 401k balance is about $100K. When you subtract the top earners from that, the average balance drops to about $50K.
So your argument that we should pour our savings into the stock market is...?
Flash is forgetting to include the words "federal income", before taxes.
Try reading more carefully:
Top 1%: 19.72% of income and 37.32% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 5%: 35.20% of income and 58.23% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 10%: 46.56% of income and 69.47% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 25%: 68.43% of income and 85.97% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 50%: 88.41% of income and 96.96% of all federal individual income taxes
But not because most -or all- of them earned it...but because they inherited it, or married into it.
So you want to leave that part out because it totally changes the complexion of the argument you're making.
The sad thing is that the link you thought would help your argument actually helped mine by pointing out that when it comes to teachers, unless you inherit wealth or marry a higher earner, you're probably never going to come close to having $1M in a retirement account through just the wage you get.
It does not. My statement that many teachers have retirement accounts with over $1 million is what you questioned. Those who inherited it or have a second earner does not affect it. If only 1,000 teachers have a retirement account of that amount it still proves my point.
Try reading more carefully:
Top 1%: 19.72% of income and 37.32% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 5%: 35.20% of income and 58.23% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 10%: 46.56% of income and 69.47% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 25%: 68.43% of income and 85.97% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 50%: 88.41% of income and 96.96% of all federal individual income taxes
All this is bullshit because the increase to their income has been far greater than their share of the tax burden.
In other words, their tax burden has not increased commensurate with their share of income gains.
It does not. My statement that many teachers have retirement accounts with over $1 million is what you questioned.
Right, because you tried to frame it as if those teachers somehow saved their meager wages when the reality is that most -possibly all of them- inherited those millions or combined their savings with their spouse's.
So that totally changes your argument, doesn't it?
You're exercising sophistry when you say that there are many teachers with over $1M saved for retirement by omitting or withholding the information that at least half of them inherited those millions and had nothing to do with the wages they got as teachers, and a still-to-be-defined-by-you number of them combine their savings with their spouse's to get to $1M.
You didn't qualify your statement with any of that because you wanted people to believe in this stupid market-based system of 401k's by holding up working class people as an example of its merits, when all you've done is hide and obscure the whole truth because it's inconvenient for you.
That's why suddenly the fact that they're teachers is "irrelevant", when it was the entire relevant point you were making.
You're terrible at this.
If only 1,000 teachers have a retirement account of that amount it still proves my point.
But you don't even know that for sure! You're just pulling it out of your ass.
And before, you said it was most teachers, then you said it was 100,000, now you're saying it's 1000...and you're not moving goalposts and redefining parameters?
The fact of the matter is that you haven't done the work to know what you're talking about.
You're leaving it all up to your conventional wisdom, which I would argue is totally and completely fucked, and it's why you are forced to play this sophist game of lowest-common-denominator that culminates in you calling your own argument's subject "irrelevant".
What a fucking joke.
No, you said "teachers saved millions".
Turns out that's not really true, is it?
Let's look at my actual statements to see what I said. It is too easy to prove your lies:
There about about 10 million millionaires in the U. S. and many of those are teachers, plant workers, etc. who steadily contributed to retirement accounts over many years. 208
A teacher with a 403(b) working 40 years can easily have over $1 million if they stay invested in stocks during that period.
I also have a friend who owns an investment firm who has several clients who are plant workers and teachers who retired early because they accumulated over a million.
My original statement was that there are a lot of teachers who have over $1 million in their retirement account.
I said a lot of teachers have a retirement account of $1 million plus.
I said have a retirement account of $1 million or more.
When you put all these teachers together, then yes, they have saved millions (and plant workers, city and county employees...)
We know it's not true because your own link says half of the teachers inherited that wealth. Then your link goes on to say how another amount (still undefined because you refuse to do that research) are married to high earners and their combined savings tops $1M. Which is wholly different than a teacher saving that much on their own.
Also, according to your link, most teachers quit within 5 years. So most of them won't even come close to saving $1M in a retirement account of any kind.
Then those that inherited, have a spouse, or quits are not the ones with over $1 million in their retirement accounts, are they? They are obviously not the ones I am talking about. All that does is reduces the total number who have over a million which proves my point.
The average 401k balance is about $100K. When you subtract the top earners from that, the average balance drops to about $50K.
So your argument that we should pour our savings into the stock market is...?[/QUOTE]
Not for those who have been teaching for 40+ years. Obviously teachers who quit before 5 years are not going to have anything. It is compounded interest over the years that increases your total.
The argument to pour your savings into the stock market is to gain an average of 10% per year and have a far larger retirement income than the alternatives. Unlike Social Security, you have large amount at your death to leave to whomever you wish and do not put the burden on the taxpayers.
If Fidelity 401(k)s have 200,000 accounts over $1million, add the other investment firms, the 403(b) and IRA accounts, you easily get thousands of teachers with a retirement account over $1 million.
So, my original point that "There about about 10 million millionaires in the U. S. and many of those are teachers, plant workers, etc. who steadily contributed to retirement accounts over many years" is easily verified. Bringing up trivial diversions like some inherited it and some is from a second earner does not negate the reality that many have that amount in their retirement accounts.
There about about 10 million millionaires in the U. S. and many of those are teachers, plant workers, etc. who steadily contributed to retirement accounts over many years.
So again, you're moving the bar!
So "many" doesn't really mean anything, and is just your gut-based estimate because you're too lazy to know the actual number.
OR you do know the actual number, and it's either not impressive, or it comes with a lot of qualifiers like "inherited wealth" or "combined savings with a partner".
You know, the things the link you gave said that you obviously didn't read or know about?
Then those that inherited, have a spouse, or quits are not the ones with over $1 million in their retirement accounts, are they?
Yes they are!
Your own fucking link says they are!
Flash, come on. This is bullshit from you. Just admit you were wrong, you misspoke, you exaggerated for effect, etc. because that's what you did.
You tried to shift the goalposts to broadly encompass everything while withholding the context because it made your argument "irrelevant".
Like, you literally said that it wasn't relevant that they were teachers, even though you kicked this whole thing off by singling out teachers!
Wow. Like...wow.
Not for those who have been teaching for 40+ years. Obviously teachers who quit before 5 years are not going to have anything. It is compounded interest over the years that increases your total.
Maybe it does. We don't know. You certainly don't know.
You don't even know how many teachers saved $1M without the help of inheritance or a higher-earning spouse.
In fact, you absolutely refuse to do that work.
It's pretty obvious why.
The argument to pour your savings into the stock market is to gain an average of 10% per year and have a far larger retirement income than the alternatives. Unlike Social Security, you have large amount at your death to leave to whomever you wish and do not put the burden on the taxpayers.
SS is a burden on taxpayers?
No, tax cuts are a burden on taxpayers because tax cuts end up resulting in revenue declines, which result in spending cuts, which result in increased out of pocket expenses for taxpayers.
BTW - since the start of the Russia Tax Cut you love so much, the DJIA has grown at its slowest pace since the Great Recession.
If Fidelity 401(k)s have 200,000 accounts over $1million, add the other investment firms, the 403(b) and IRA accounts, you easily get thousands of teachers with a retirement account over $1 million.
No you don't.
This doesn't show that work at all.
This is you making a guess because you're too lazy to do the actual work required to find this out.
So now you have shifted the goalposts again.
So, my original point that "There about about 10 million millionaires in the U. S. and many of those are teachers, plant workers, etc. who steadily contributed to retirement accounts over many years" is easily verified.
NO! It's not verified at all! You haven't verified anything. In fact, what you've done is dig your own hole deeper because the links you provided showed that, for just teachers, at least half of them have inherited wealth. Then, a-yet-to-be-defined-by-you number of teachers have combined retirement savings with their spouses...then you just guessed that there were 100,000 teachers that had $1M saved. Then you guessed again that it was only 1,000.
Now, you're trying to rig your shitty argument, post-hoc, by dumbly saying that millions of people have millions saved in their retirement accounts and some of them could be teachers, workers, etc, but you don't know for sure because you haven't done that work. All you've done is lazily substitute your own flawed conventional wisdom for the work, and then shit it forth on an anonymous thread where you know your bullshit will never be held to account.