I guess I am struggling to some extent with the math ... I really do like your scenario over mine, but there a number of things that stats can do with numbers that can provide both a rosier or darker pciture then reality will eventually prove.

Nonetheles ... more numbers are needed to understand the magnitude of the wealth transfer if indeed a government starved for cash allows the transfer to go untaxed. But that is another issue.

Using some approx. number if boomer households are 50% (probably low) of the pop'n and there are 400m people, and and avg household has 4 people (probably high), then we can conclude that there are 50m boomer household. So 35 million boomers on avg (and avg's can be deceptive if the the top 1% have 90% of the wealth) will receive 300k.

The top 10% that is 3.5m boomer households get 1.5m ... the total those household receive is 3,500,000 x 1,500,000 = 5,250,000,000,000 or 62.5% of the pot of gold.

The bottom 90% wil then on avg receive 31.5m households will receive 3.15T on avg that would be 100k ... a 50% reduction in the roiser picture presented. If the next 20% get 50% of the 3.15T ... that would mean that the 70% or 24.5m households would get on avg 64,285.

Also consider

Now if the top 1% of the top 10% get 15m (probably conservative) that would be 350,000 x 15,000,000 = 5.25T .. or all of the money allocated to the top 10%.

If they get 20 m(probably still conservative) it is 7T of the 8.4T.

One way or the others the nice avg's given by BC are unaffected by the permutations I have derived.

I provide this simply as a way to recognize the information provided is far too incompete to use as a basis for a conclusive statement about the future well being of the avg. citizen ability to go on a spending spree.

Of course cantjustread I prefer what you are suggesting, but I can not comfortably draw the same conclusions about a boom.

An old saying "liars figure and figures can lie".

Other thoughts?

orgy