Net Worth of Top 400 Americans is $2 Trillion
invite response
2013 Sep 16, 6:23am 25,536 views 72 comments
« First « Previous Comments 15 - 54 of 72 Next » Last » Search these comments
freak80
2013 Sep 16, 10:19pm
so they are wealthy.. big deal.. they spent their lives working.. not smoking weed!
Right, most people spending their whole lives working can expect to be billionaires someday. If they don't get filthy rich, it's because they were just lazy.
The far-right delusion in a nutshell.
Freak, you're too trapped in your liberal victim mentality, try reading "The Millionaire Next Door".
Not reading has the same negative effects as being unable to read.
Lulz, is that the best 'ya got? Seriously, have you read The Millionaire Next Door? It would be an eye opening experience for you.
The beautiful thing about America, which is rapidly disappearing, is opportunity. Where the little guy can start up a small enterprise and if things work out, become very successful.
You've heard countless stories of rags to riches like Famous Amos, Dell, and others...haven't you?
Bottom line? Government creates wealth disparity by crushing men's initiative, and opportunity through smothering red tape, laws, codes, permits, rules, regulations, fees, surcharges, taxes, etc., etc., etc. That's how the rich get richer, by the lack of competition, graciously brought to you by Federal, State, County, City, and local governments.
freak80
2013 Sep 17, 4:04am
Where the little guy can start up a small enterprise and if things work out, become very successful. You've heard countless stories of rags to riches like Famous Amos, Dell, and others...haven't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
(By the way, the survivorship bias is how prayer "works." But that's another topic.)
Government creates wealth disparity by crushing men's initiative, and opportunity through smothering red tape, laws, codes, permits, rules,
regulations, fees, surcharges, taxes, etc., etc., etc.
Sure, we can go back to the days before any kind of safety codes, environmental protections, and employee protections if you'd like. They called it the glided age. It was a living hell (for all but the top 1%). You should be happy, since the USA is rapidly moving in that direction.
Lol the economically autistic on this site could start by voting for people who aren't going to appoint fed chairmen who will implement policy that benefits the elite rich. I though you ding dongs hated tickle down economics?
And lol@capitalism = bad. Traitorous fucks. Dense socialism is working so well for the Europeans.
While I mostly agree, I am not even sure that there is more monetary socialism over there in Europe. I mean, given the choice I'd rather have equal opportunity for education for everybody rather than equal opportunity to buy an overpriced house in a Fed propped up market. If you measure the monetary power the Fed has (had) and what they did with it you could easily say there is an equal amount of socialism in the US, in the worst form, as privatized gains for the crony capitalists and socialized losses for the rest.
Freak - get out of the victim zone, quick, before its too late!! I checked Amazon for you - The Millionaire Next Door is available in paperback for just $3.32 or kindle for $8.12. I encourage you to broaden your horizon. Do it now, its for your own good.
You'll thank me later. Respectfully,
H. Abe
freak80
2013 Sep 17, 4:37am
Freak - get out of the victim zone, quick, before its too late!!
What are you talking about?
It appears like you believe that "The Man" is holding everyone else down, and if it wasn't for the evil 1%'rs everyone else would be far better off. The greedy capitalists are causing all the financial problems in America so we need to tax them to death.
They make all the money so there is none left for anyone else. And lastly it seems like you feel that no one can get ahead...because of the rich folks. Am I right?
You haven't, and you're not going to, read The Millionaire Next Door, are you?
May I ask, why won't you?
Dan8267
2013 Sep 17, 6:28am
That would add divided equally to the net worth of every man, woman and child in US about 5714 dollars.
Now, all we have to do is find out a way to get it from them. Retirement here I come!
I would argue that in order to siphon off that wealth, they had to destroy tens times as much. The parasites are not very efficient.
2T is only $281 for each of the 7.11B earthlings which is not interesting.
Split among the 315M Americans it's still only $6350 and not interesting.
The whole 99 vs 1% or rest of us versus the Forbes 400 is a manufactured distraction from the real issue which is the government versus the citizens apart from the corporatist interests they pass laws for.
I know blue-collar workers from places like grocery stores who bought houses and put themselves through school decades ago. They didn't make more money (in real terms) than such people do today. They did OK and moved up in life because the government hadn't acted as much to enrich key industries at the peoples' expense.
Big deals include
1. Paying $15,000 a year to for profit insurance and health care companies because we have neither free markets nor universal not for profit coverage (other OECD 24 governments spend less per capita to cover all of their citizens than we spend to get for profit care for the 25% of Americans who are too old or poor to be profitable).
2. Paying $80,000 for college degrees from state schools not $20,000 which is quadruple what they were in 1978 using inflation adjusted money because of federal money and laws like those exempting student loans from discharge in bankruptcy.
3. The Federal Reserve governors appointed by politicians whose campaigns were paid for by corporatist interests acting on their behalf to prop up house prices by manufacturing $350 a month per household or $4200 per year to buy mortgage backed securities. Our kids are better off with $120K starter homes and 8.5% interest rates than $200K homes at 3.5% (assuming 1% property taxes and 20% down the payments are the same, although the later takes a down payment 2/3 larger). We're better off when our emergency funds are earning 5% not 0.1%.
The increases also aren't newsworthy. That's a consequence of their money being in equities. Although long term annual stock increases tend to be about 7% in real money or 10% in nominal dollars, there's a cyclical component and they're affected by things like the Fed's interest rate manipulation. The Wilshire 5000 is up 18% in the last year which means people like the Koch Brothers and Bill Gates are actually lagging with their 16% and 9% respectively.
freak80
2013 Sep 17, 7:08am
You haven't, and you're not going to, read The Millionaire Next Door, are
you?
May I ask, why won't you?
Can you give me a free copy?
JH
2013 Sep 17, 7:10am
Our kids are better off with $120K starter homes and 8.5% interest rates than $200K homes at 3.5% (assuming 1% property taxes and 20% down the payments are the same, although the later takes a down payment 2/3 larger)
Word!
And remember, so many downpayments today are only 3.5%.
Low interest = more affordable is complete bullshit. A phallacy (def: taking a phallic up your...)
freak80
2013 Sep 17, 7:13am
I would argue that in order to siphon off that wealth, they had to destroy tens times as much. The parasites are not very efficient.
Agree.
For example, destruction of domestic industrial infrastructure in the name of short-term profit doesn't make the country wealthier as a whole, it only benefits the very top.
Buying up competing businesses and shutting them down in order to raise prices benefits the top vs. regular consumers.
Right, most people spending their whole lives working can expect to be billionaires someday. If they don't get filthy rich, it's because they were just lazy.
No, but most people can expect to be millionaires and stop working without compromising their middle class lifestyle assuming they don't waste money on crap like large (the median new house is 50% bigger than 30 years ago although families are smaller) houses and new cars (the average loan payment is $465 a month).
$400 a month over 40 years will net $1M given the 7% real returns averaged by the S&P 500 over the last 50 years which in turn will allow a $30K/year draw.
Scale that up to a more reasonable number like 15% of gross income (in line with the delta between the new 41% debt-to-income ratio advocated for house purchases and the classic 28% front-end ratio) and you'll replace your pre-retirement income.
For example the median household with a college degree makes $73K/year. $912 a month yields $2.3M which allows a $69K annual draw which is somewhat better than the $62K/year left over before savings.
Few people do this apart from public service union members who don't have a choice (for instance San Jose police and fire workers contribute 21% of their base salary to cover pension and retiree health care; combined with the city's share that pays out 90% of base salary after 30 years) although it's possible for the rest of us.
I think a simple means to compare the way thing are versus now is to look at what the tax rates used to be in the 50's. Back then tax rates for the upper crust of society was markedly higher. As in 1950, the upper end of the earning populace paid 90% income tax on their earnings. Yet there wasn't any running for the doors to other countries. At that same time, the middle class flourished in perhaps the most robust period for the middle class.
There is a correlation between the health of the middle class and the taxes on the upper classes. In the 1900's- 1920's and then starting in the 70's-today, tax rates were low for the upper class, as they still are. During both periods the working and middle classes did much worse than when it was the other way around when tax rates were higher on those in the upper classes.
So taking all emotion out of the debate, if you boil it down to mathematics, what is better when it comes to a healthy economy? A: Cut taxes for the uber-wealthy at the expense of stagnate wage growth and lower living standards for the middle and working classes- whom make up the gross majority of the population- or raise taxes on the wealthy and increase wages and the living standards for the majority? If history is proven a good teacher then there is indeed a tie between taxation and the health of various classes.
JH
2013 Sep 17, 8:40am
If history is proven a good teacher then there is indeed a tie between taxation and the health of various classes.
It makes me wonder: is there a politically viable way to redistribute wealth? One would think that in a democracy it should be relatively easy. However, will it take another economic crisis on par with the Great Depression? A crisis in which the super rich lose control of the financial markets?
I think a simple means to compare the way thing are versus now is to look at what the tax rates used to be in the 50's. Back then tax rates for the upper crust of society was markedly higher. As in 1950, the upper end of the earning populace paid 90% income tax on their earnings. Yet there wasn't any running for the doors to other countries. At that same time, the middle class flourished in perhaps the most robust period for the middle class.
Although the marginal rates were high wealthy people didn't actually pay them and comedians joked about tax shelters like earthworm farms.
In 1977 we had a 70% tax rate which applied to incomes in excess of $203,200; although most of the wealthy's income was things which had lower taxes like capital gains which were taxed at 39.875%. Even that wasn't paid - in 1977 $45,338,000,000 was realized in capital gains but just $8,232,000,000 paid in capital gains for an effective tax rate of 18.2%.
Following Reagan's reforms which dropped the capital gains rate to 20% in 1982 $90,153,000,000 were realized in capital gains on which $12,900,000,000 were paid in taxes which is essentially identical in real dollars to what the government got at nearly 40%. Subsequent years have similar numbers.
High rates only apply to the moderately well off. As a middle class guy saving for my retirement I'm likely to incur the 35% death tax, but can't do anything about it because I need my principal to live off in old age. The Obamas are wealthy enough not to need all of their money which allows them to move about $9M out tax free via their gift tax exemption (before that money has appreciated). Mark Zuckerberg with even more money and tax tools at his disposal gave $37M tax free to his unconceived children.
This is as one would expect. Politicians aren't going to act too contrary to the interests of the people paying to elect them. That means PACs and the 0.4% of us who make campaign contributions large enough to require FEC reporting. With the majority of many candidates donations at the $10K/couple limit for primary + general elections that in turn implies wealthy patrons.
Policies which both benefit those people and don't screw us too badly are the best we can hope for.
It makes me wonder: is there a politically viable way to redistribute wealth? One would think that in a democracy it should be relatively easy. However, will it take another economic crisis on par with the Great Depression? A crisis in which the super rich lose control of the financial markets?
No there isn't. What needs to be taken out of the discussion though is the emotional side and instead discuss the mathematical side. This is a money problem. You can't expect to have an economy based on a model where the majority of the money is concentrated at the top. But yet the issue has itself become so politicized that any mention of any idea in which to switch that model is fiercely resisted or made into some sort of grossly emotional discussion about "Fairness"
What really needs to happen is a recognition of the need for reactive economics. The way that capitalism works is that it basically feeds off itself until it collapses. The goal for all is to capture the windfall profits it generates between inevitable collapses. The idea is to win more than you lose and in the end come out ahead. But the thing is that booms and crashes have become far more severe in the last few decades. Its because there is less and less willingness on either side of the isle to react to an ever-changing market. Its impossible to come up with a taxation model that is static. Instead we need a system that automatically reacts to the markets. Raise taxes when times are good, lower them when they are bad. If the lower and middle classes aren't getting what they need from the taxes they pay, then seek other means to tax others- such as the upper percentile wealthy- to compensate until the middle and lower classes can catch up. Its an ever-changing model.
Either way, a balance has to be struck.
Right, most people spending their whole lives working can expect to be billionaires someday. If they don't get filthy rich, it's because they were just lazy.
The far-right delusion in a nutshell.
Move west young man, take the risk and look for new opportunities..
my great grandfather did ! yours were still stuck in New York...
It makes me wonder: is there a politically viable way to redistribute wealth? One would think that in a democracy it should be relatively easy. However, will it take another economic crisis on par with the Great Depression? A crisis in which the super rich lose control of the financial markets?
Bill Gates tied his wealth to Fighting medical disease.. billions to employ a few narrow defined medical professions. There is no economic benefit for many here.
On the other hand, Howard Hughes spent (or invested) millions/billions into many different business, Aerospace, Film/Entertainment, Casinos/Hotel, Oil Drilling, airline, Medical Research and other investments..
Clearly HH employed many people across all levels of economic classes and provided good incomes. The results speak for itself over the past decades.
We need more Howard Hughes types able to invest and reinvest into the economy and allow people to benefit with a good standard of living.
We need more Howard Hughes types able to invest and reinvest into the economy and allow people to benefit with a good standard of living.
Well, for once I agree with you. The important part of your statement is HOW employers treat their employees. The fact of the matter is that doing so is good business sense. Pay your employees well, give them decent benefits, and chances are they'll be loyal to you and stay for a long time, all the while working to improve your business. This is a model that has proven successful over time.
Yet many businesses today- and in particular some in the service industry- do not treat their employees well where they pay their workers poorly and give them nary any benefits. This in turn makes for high turnover, less loyalty, and less innovation. While this seems to have worked for some companies whom make windfall profits despite this and because of the money they are saving from not paying their employees well, this model is not really that sustainable and it would behoove the companies who treat their employees in such a manner to change their course.
No there isn't.
Sure there is. Let failed companies fail, don't blow freshly printed fiat money up their asses. Might not be all that's needed, but it surely is the most important thing, more important than taxes.
But the thing is that booms and crashes have become far more severe in the last few decades. Its because there is less and less willingness on either side of the isle to react to an ever-changing market. Its impossible to come up with a taxation model that is static. Instead we need a system that automatically reacts to the markets.
No, it's because on every crisis we shove freshly printed fiat money up the failed sectors and TBTFs, anybody wonders why the crisis become more severe? You don't need anything except for getting out of the way when bad bets blow up, The tail risk assures that bubbles, if at all, will be very small. Simple.
Tie tax deductions to job creation.
It really is that simple.
That's a good suggestion.
Y
2013 Sep 18, 2:27am
More like:
Those that spend their lives working instead of smoking weed cannot expect to be a billionaire, but the vast majority of them can expect to live a comfortable life without having to suck off the taxpayer's tit.
so they are wealthy.. big deal.. they spent their lives working.. not smoking weed!
Right, most people spending their whole lives working can expect to be billionaires someday. If they don't get filthy rich, it's because they were just lazy.
The far-right delusion in a nutshell.
You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.
Worked in the French revolution.
The means to offshore large amounts of money/assets were very limited back then though ;)
JH
2013 Sep 18, 5:05am
But the thing is that booms and crashes have become far more severe in the last few decades. Its because there is less and less willingness on either side of the isle to react to an ever-changing market. Its impossible to come up with a taxation model that is static. Instead we need a system that automatically reacts to the markets. Raise taxes when times are good, lower them when they are bad.
So you are suggesting that government control of markets has weakened (purposely) in the past few decades, and the result has been a more "free" market? The problem of course is that...
The goal for all is to capture the windfall profits it generates between inevitable collapses.
...so rather than, say, raising taxes to mitigate the gains and distribute the wealth during a boom, those in charge would rather keep the boom going to stuff their pocketbooks. (My issue with that of course is that during the bust, the TAXPAYERS make sure the bust doesn't hurt those who profited from the boom...)
It's an interesting idea. But how do you reconcile it with the bailout and QE infinity? It seems to me that these stimuli are unprecedented. As if the government is actually meddling more than ever...
No, it's because on every crisis we shove freshly printed fiat money up the failed sectors and TBTFs, anybody wonders why the crisis become more severe? You don't need anything except for getting out of the way when bad bets blow up, The tail risk assures that bubbles, if at all, will be very small. Simple
That might be a point if not for what causes recessions to start with. When you have a smaller chunk of the population commanding the bulk of the money, then they are in turn going to be making most of the investments and when they do so, the bigger their investments, the larger the bubble grows, and it grows faster. When that pops you get appropriately sized recessions as a result. JH says
...so rather than, say, raising taxes to mitigate the gains and distribute the wealth during a boom, those in charge would rather keep the boom going to stuff their pocketbooks.
All I'm saying here is that like it or not, the US government is heavily involved in our economic system and it does so with tax policy. As of the last number of decades the tax policy we use has been utterly static. Perhaps an analogy would be if you owned a sprocket factory. If you sold every single one you could make then that indicates you should make more to keep up with demand. But if they started selling poorly, well of course it would then make sense to reduce production to adjust to the new amount of demand.
We don't do that here in the US with our tax system. Instead there is a very strong resistance to any sort of change in the tax policy which at this juncture grossly favors the upper classes and was done so because we were all told this would lead to more jobs and higher wages for everyone else. That has not happened and we've given it 30+ years to work. If that isn't working then its time to try something else.
When you have a smaller chunk of the population commanding the bulk of the
money, then they are in turn going to be making most of the investments and when
they do so, the bigger their investments, the larger the bubble grows, and it
grows faster. When that pops you get appropriately sized recessions as a result.
That is a good point - one of the reasons why things were bubbly in 1920's was specifically because tax policy allowed the super wealthy to keep most benjamins and they heavily speculated. Although to be fair the bubble grew even more because even regular people kept investing on margin due to promise of easy money and perhaps to keep up with the joneses in the roaring 20s.
JH
2013 Sep 18, 5:59am
That has not happened and we've given it 30+ years to work. If that isn't working then its time to try something else.
Yes, I agree. That is the period of one generation. Once the boomers who voted for these tax policies are gone, hopefully we move on to the type of system you are suggesting.
JH
2013 Sep 18, 6:00am
the bigger their investments, the larger the bubble grows, and it
grows faster. When that pops you get appropriately sized recessions as a result.
And you get inappropriately huge stimulus to soften the blow for the rich...
Yet many businesses today- and in particular some in the service industry- do not treat their employees well where they pay their workers poorly and give them nary any benefits. This in turn makes for high turnover, less loyalty, and less innovation.
service industry has never been great unless your a sole proprietorship. but we wrongly still have written off the mfg sector which we need to recapture it.
hat is a good point - one of the reasons why things were bubbly in 1920's was specifically because tax policy allowed the super wealthy to keep most benjamins and they heavily speculated. Although to be fair the bubble grew even more because even regular people kept investing on margin due to promise of easy money and perhaps to keep up with the joneses in the roaring 20s.
everyone was specutling without visablity to what they were actually speculating on...
there was no visibility and standardization on quarterly and yearly financial statements until the SEC act of 1933/34. People threw money blindly into stock
they had no idea of revenues and earnings.
« First « Previous Comments 15 - 54 of 72 Next » Last » Search these comments
2 Trillion is more than the combined net worth of half of all Americans.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/combined-net-worth-of-the-400-richest-americans-rises-again-to-2-trillion-1.1456755