4
0

Net Worth of Top 400 Americans is $2 Trillion


 invite response                
2013 Sep 16, 6:23am   25,292 views  72 comments

by freak80   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

Comments 1 - 40 of 72       Last »     Search these comments

1   CL   2013 Sep 16, 7:17am  

Remember, you're an American. We don't envy the wealthy here because we know that one day, we'll be rich like they are!!!

It's all working as designed, don't you see?

Meanwhile, the people who picket and demand "fair wages" and other silly things, like "health" or luxury items like "cars" or "heat" just don't understand. The more the wealth goes to these people, the more likely you are to get some good jobs and your income will rise too!

Wait...what?

"Typical U.S. family got poorer during the past 10 years"
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fast-food-protests-hit-los-angeles-thursday-20130829,0,7294893.story

"The fast-food industry used to employ mostly younger people just trying to make some extra money as they went through school. Now, workers are older and depend on the work to feed families. Analysis by the Economic Policies Institute shows that the average age of minimum-wage workers is now 35, and that 88% are 20 and older."

2   curious2   2013 Sep 16, 7:25am  

Well, $2T/400 is only $5 billion/person, and some of the 400 have even less than that. Housing only ever goes up, so by 2015 even a one bedroom in Stockton will cost more than $10 billion. People need to live, right?

3   Dan8267   2013 Sep 16, 7:28am  

And I'm sure each of those 400 persons are personally responsible for $5 billion dollars of wealth creation. Yes, those 400 persons combined generate as much wealth as 150 million Americans do. They literally shit gold and have had diarrhea for the past several decades.

This figure alone shows how fucked up capitalism is today.

And yet, the bottom 150 million Americas think they are only one lucky break away from being one of these 400.

4   FunTime   2013 Sep 16, 7:35am  

Dan8267 says

And yet, the bottom 150 million Americas think they are only one lucky break away from being one of these 400.

Well, two or three of them are going to win a lottery only to spend it right back in five years! Of course, even then they won't have this kind of money. That kind of money is inconceivable to most people, which keeps the economy strong.

5   JH   2013 Sep 16, 7:48am  

curious2 says

Well, $2T/400 is only $5 billion/person, and some of the 400 have even less than that. Housing only ever goes up, so by 2015 even a one bedroom in Stockton will cost more than $10 billion. People need to live, right?

Yes, isn't it ironic that, while the wealth concentrates to a smaller and smaller fraction at the top, housing increases for all?

One would think that only mansions would be increasing in value??

6   humanity   2013 Sep 16, 8:43am  

Honest Abe says

Income disparity is greater now after five years of skilled leadership from Comrade Barakovich H. Obama than at any other time in recent history.

Yes. All you have to do even things out is lower taxes for the rich er, correction, that is, the job creators.

7   freak80   2013 Sep 16, 10:56am  

Abe,

What should evil commie Obama do to reduce the disparity?

If he raised taxes on those 400 people would you call him a communist?

Your idiocy is on display for everyone.

8   curious2   2013 Sep 16, 2:18pm  

"Of the 400 richest Americans, 314 saw their nest egg grow, Forbes said.

“Basically, the mega rich are mega richer,” said Forbes Senior Editor Kerry Dolan."

Translation: QE and ZIRP are working as designed. Cue the Fed's probable next Chair, currently Vice Chair, whose "crucial role in creating the Fed’s current policies could inhibit her ability to make necessary changes." No changes are necessary, 80% of the Forbes 400 confirmed; the 20% who didn't increase their net worth may expect to do better next year.

9   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 16, 3:45pm  

freak80 says

Net Worth of Top 400 Americans is $2 Trillion

"Net worth" defined as claim to assets less claims to assets by vendors... what is left goes to the founders of top companies they created...

Are you going to complain the top 5% owners/founders of Walmart, Ford, IBM, Google, and hundreds more somehow are undeserved in their ownership of their companies.

no biggie.. the income generated by the assets get taxed several times over.
and not to mention the salary and other expenses that generate incomes to employees and vendors also get taxed by city, county, state and state.. domestic and international.

there is no free ride here.. of "net worth".

10   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 16, 3:49pm  

Dan8267 says

And I'm sure each of those 400 persons are personally responsible for $5 billion dollars of wealth creation. Yes, those 400 persons combined generate as much wealth as 150 million Americans do. They literally shit gold and have had diarrhea for the past several decades.

Yes.. they created wealth for themselves and many many jobs... wealth creation
for millions of people ...

dont you hold a job ? or do you work for the government...

11   Dan8267   2013 Sep 16, 4:02pm  

thomaswong.1986 says

Yes.. they created wealth for themselves and many many jobs... wealth creation

for millions of people ...

Only an idiot believes that any executive is creating billions of dollars of wealth simply by monopolizing the means of production and siphoning off the wealth production of others. Anyone who believes that deserves to be poor.

12   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 16, 5:07pm  

Dan8267 says

Only an idiot believes that any executive is creating billions of dollars of wealth simply by monopolizing the means of production and siphoning off the wealth production of others. Anyone who believes that deserves to be poor.

you do understand the balance sheet.. I do! its pretty simple..

they are the founders/owners and its their company they created...

they are not siphoning anything.. they are providing plenty of jobs

to employees, contractors and vendors ....and paying lots of taxes.

so they are wealthy.. big deal.. they spent their lives working.. not smoking weed!

13   Ceffer   2013 Sep 16, 5:27pm  

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!

14   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2013 Sep 16, 5:52pm  

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.

15   freak80   2013 Sep 16, 10:19pm  

thomaswong.1986 says

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.

16   Honest Abe   2013 Sep 17, 3:08am  

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.

17   freak80   2013 Sep 17, 3:11am  

lulz.

18   Honest Abe   2013 Sep 17, 3:52am  

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.

19   freak80   2013 Sep 17, 4:04am  

Honest Abe says

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.)

Honest Abe says

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.

20   mell   2013 Sep 17, 4:13am  

dodgerfanjohn says

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.

21   Honest Abe   2013 Sep 17, 4:18am  

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

22   freak80   2013 Sep 17, 4:37am  

Honest Abe says

Freak - get out of the victim zone, quick, before its too late!!

What are you talking about?

23   Honest Abe   2013 Sep 17, 5:13am  

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?

24   freak80   2013 Sep 17, 6:00am  

Who is "the man"?

25   Honest Abe   2013 Sep 17, 6:22am  

You haven't, and you're not going to, read The Millionaire Next Door, are you?

May I ask, why won't you?

26   Dan8267   2013 Sep 17, 6:28am  

Ceffer says

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.

27   drew_eckhardt   2013 Sep 17, 7:05am  

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.

28   freak80   2013 Sep 17, 7:08am  

Honest Abe says

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?

29   JH   2013 Sep 17, 7:10am  

drew_eckhardt says

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...)

30   freak80   2013 Sep 17, 7:13am  

Dan8267 says

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.

31   drew_eckhardt   2013 Sep 17, 8:26am  

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.

32   edvard2   2013 Sep 17, 8:31am  

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.

33   JH   2013 Sep 17, 8:40am  

edvard2 says

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?

34   Honest Abe   2013 Sep 17, 8:49am  

You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.

35   drew_eckhardt   2013 Sep 17, 8:51am  

edvard2 says

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.

36   edvard2   2013 Sep 17, 8:52am  

JH says

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.

37   HEY YOU   2013 Sep 17, 11:44am  

Assholes left me off the list.

38   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 17, 4:56pm  

freak80 says

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...

39   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 17, 5:11pm  

JH says

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.

40   edvard2   2013 Sep 18, 12:58am  

thomaswong.1986 says

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.

Comments 1 - 40 of 72       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions