5 Facts About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans

[mawilson 2,133]

Context. The solution cannot solely be that everyone just needs to find a new line of work, especially for those workers whose labor is still needed. For them, it's an insult to their contribution to our economy.

If their labor is needed, why are they out of work?

[Leatherneck 693]

If you believe that wealth is created in a vacuum then it's understandable why you think like that. However, wealth is not created in a vacuum - it is dependent upon many participants, from the workers to the consumers. The ever growing disparity between the wealthiest and poorest in this country is symptomatic of policies and economic forces that are destroying the American Dream. Too many American workers are being disenfranchised and that simply can't be remedied by telling them to find a new line of work. That's not only unrealistic, it's insulting to the very machine that produces wealth in this country.

Of course wealth is not created in a vacuum, any assertion of such would be silly and illogical. Dealing with changing economic forces is the nature of the beast, has been and always will be. To remain viable, business, government and individuals must adapt and change or get run over by the countries, governments and businesses that make the needed changes to continuing creating wealth.

There has always been a disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country as in many other countries. "The ever growing disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in this country is symtomatic of policies" generally traced to those in government totally ignorant of economic laws or hell bent on social engineering income/wealth and/or micro-managing the economy, business or entire industries.

What is unrealistic is to think you can punish success and take from wealth creators without consquences, no, that too does not happen in a vacuum. It is more insulting to think the American worker is not smart enough to know when it is time to find a new line of work, the America worker also knows it is not in his best interest to remain "disenfranchised." If one is not driven first by self interest to improve his life, career and economic wise, then what force on earth is strong enough to do so?

Sorry for the delayed response...I had to go create some more wealth.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There has always been a disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country as in many other countries. "The ever growing disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in this country is symtomatic of policies" generally traced to those in government totally ignorant of economic laws or hell bent on social engineering income/wealth and/or micro-managing the economy, business or entire industries.

Actually, the weakening of unions in this country coincides with the stagnant wages of so many workers, combined with globalization as many manufacturing jobs went overseas.

What is unrealistic is to think you can punish success and take from wealth creators without consquences, no, that too does not happen in a vacuum. It is more insulting to think the American worker is not smart enough to know when it is time to find a new line of work, the America worker also knows it is not in his best interest to remain "disenfranchised." If one is not driven first by self interest to improve his life, career and economic wise, then what force on earth is strong enough to do so?

Wait - who is being punished by what? Are you suggesting progressive tax policies punish the top wage earners to the point that it has stifled job creation? Do you have substantive facts to back that up? What countries do you know of that don't have progressive tax policies? Even a flat tax of say 15 percent means that if you earn a million a year, you'll pay more than a wage earner who makes only 30g's. So, are you advocating that everyone the exact same amount in taxes regardless of income? Because short of that, any tax policy that is a percentage of income means that those who make more will pay more. Secondly, as Warren Buffet has pointed out, the reality is that the top 1% actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than say a person earning 75g's per year.

[mawilson 2,133]

Secondly, as Warren Buffet has pointed out, the reality is that the top 1% actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than say a person earning 75g's per year.

"The top 1%" has a lot of people, some of whom are like me and others like Warren Buffett. I can assure you that my effective tax rate is not lower than someone's who makes $75k.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

If their labor is needed, why are they out of work?

[Captain Oates 911]

Heck what a bunch of Turkeys voting for thanksgiving

I am one of the 1% and if the rest of the 1% are like me, we wont stop until we own 100%

suckers

Edited October 8, 2011 by Austin Devon

[Leatherneck 693]

Actually, the weakening of unions in this country coincides with the stagnant wages of so many workers, combined with globalization as many manufacturing jobs went overseas.

Actually, the weakening of unions in this country coincides with the stagnant wages of so many workers, combined with globalization as many manufacturing jobs went overseas.

The main focus of my original comment was about the envy of the wealthy. You're all over the map with unions, wages and globazition.

Wait - who is being punished by what? Are you suggesting progressive tax policies punish the top wage earners to the point that it has stifled job creation? Do you have substantive facts to back that up? What countries do you know of that don't have progressive tax policies? Even a flat tax of say 15 percent means that if you earn a million a year, you'll pay more than a wage earner who makes only 30g's. So, are you advocating that everyone the exact same amount in taxes regardless of income? Because short of that, any tax policy that is a percentage of income means that those who make more will pay more. Secondly, as Warren Buffet has pointed out, the reality is that the top 1% actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than say a person earning 75g's per year.

Again, point was about the envy of the wealthy. This thread was started with "5 Facts About Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans." When you look at those "5 Facts" one important fact jumps out at me...the wealthy behave differently and use money in a different manner than the poor.

Look at those charts, stocks, bonds and mutual funds held by the wealthy---The wealthy understand the power of leverage, compounded interest, investing the profits and working toward a financially free retirement. While many of the poor fail to plan/save poorly, invest little in financial instruments and view SS as a retirement nest egg.

Debt held by the wealthy vs debt held by the poor---The wealthy understand the difference between good debt and bad debt and use debt to acquire assests, then allow those assets to finance their lifestyle. Unlike the poor, who outside of a 401(k), a small savings and a house have little in the way of assets. Buying 1 additional house over a persons working life could mean a different retirement vs buying a new car every few years and yearly vacations.

Income earned by the wealthy vs the income earned by the poor---Wealthy people let their money work for them and the poor work for their money, the rich buy businesses/real estate that spin off more income than W-2 wage (blue collar) earners could physically produce.

The amount of wealth the top 1 percent owns---The wealthy acquire assets that put money in their pocket each month and the poor acquire liabilities that take money out of their pockets each month. Give a person with a wealthy mindset and a poor person $100.000 each and the results of what is done with that money will be amazingly different.

The biggest difference between the wealthy and the poor is attitude and mindset. Most wealthy people EARNED their money, they did not pop out the womb rich. There is no shortage of incredible rages to riches stories across America.

1. Those that are wealthy are usually not the ones with 4-5 different babies moma and they did not knock-up girls in high school or college.

2. They were the ones at home on Friday night planning, researching, getting educated, designing, etc., while others were out boozing it up.

3. And when they worked, they did not run out and buy the latest pair of $80.00 sneakers, take vacations in the summer or buy the coolest cars.

4. They usually have higher education, although in America many wealthy have not completed university and it is no barrier to wealth creation.

5. They provided a service or created a product that solved a problem the market needed and was ready to pay for it.

6. Or they learned very early to invest their money in real estate, which has created more milllionaires than any other vehicle.

So when you look at those charts, there no magic, wizard behind the scene or magic fairy dust being sprinkled on the wealthy. They have a different mindset and behave differently with money and take advantage of opportunities.

[Leatherneck 693]

Actually, the weakening of unions in this country coincides with the stagnant wages of so many workers, combined with globalization as many manufacturing jobs went overseas.

My original comment was about the envy of the wealthy, you're all over the map with unions, wages and globalization.

Wait - who is being punished by what? Are you suggesting progressive tax policies punish the top wage earners to the point that it has stifled job creation? Do you have substantive facts to back that up? What countries do you know of that don't have progressive tax policies? Even a flat tax of say 15 percent means that if you earn a million a year, you'll pay more than a wage earner who makes only 30g's. So, are you advocating that everyone the exact same amount in taxes regardless of income? Because short of that, any tax policy that is a percentage of income means that those who make more will pay more. Secondly, as Warren Buffet has pointed out, the reality is that the top 1% actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than say a person earning 75g's per year.

Again, point was about the envy of the wealthy. This thread was started with "5 Facts About Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans." When you look at those "5 Facts" one important fact jumps out at me...the wealthy behave differently and use money in a different manner than the poor.

Look at those charts, stocks, bonds and mutual funds held by the wealthy---The wealthy understand the power of leverage, compounded interest, investing the profits and working toward a financially free retirement. While many of the poor fail to plan/save poorly, invest little in financial instruments and view SS as a retirement nest egg.

Debt held by the wealthy vs debt held by the poor---The wealthy understand the difference between good debt and bad debt and use debt to acquire assests, then allow those assets to finance their lifestyle. Unlike the poor, who outside of a 401(k), a small savings and a house have little in the way of assets. Buying 1 additional house over a persons working life could mean a different retirement vs buying a new car every few years and yearly vacations.

Income earned by the wealthy vs the income earned by the poor---Wealthy people let their money work for them and the poor work for their money, the rich buy businesses/real estate that spin off more income than W-2 wage (blue collar) earners could physically produce.

The amount of wealth the top 1 percent owns---The wealthy acquire assets that put money in their pocket each month and the poor acquire liabilities that take money out of their pockets each month. Give a person with a wealthy mindset and a poor person $100.000 each and the results of what is done with that money will be amazingly different.

The biggest difference between the wealthy and the poor is attitude and mindset. Most wealthy people EARNED their money, they did not pop out the womb rich. There is no shortage of incredible rages to riches stories across America.

1. Those that are wealthy are usually not the ones with 4-5 different babies moma and they did not knock-up girls in high school or college.

2. They were the ones at home on Friday night planning, researching, getting educated, designing, etc., while others were out boozing it up.

3. And when they worked, they did not run out and buy the latest pair of $80.00 sneakers, take vacations in the summer or buy the coolest cars.

4. They usually have higher education, although in America many wealthy have not completed university and it is no barrier to wealth creation.

5. They provided a service or created a product that solved a problem the market needed and was ready to pay for it.

6. Or they learned very early to invest their money in real estate, which has created more milllionaires than any other vehicle.

So when you look at those charts, there no magic, wizard behind the scene or magic fairy dust being sprinkled on the wealthy. They have a different mindset and behave differently with money and take advantage of opportunities.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Leatherneck

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Again, point was about the envy of the wealthy. This thread was started with "5 Facts About Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans." When you look at those "5 Facts" one important fact jumps out at me...the wealthy behave differently and use money in a different manner than the poor.

Come on. You really think the average American is just envious about the top 1% and if only they were on the top, they wouldn't be in favor of going back to the tax rates that were in place even during Reagan's term? Warren Buffet isn't envious. To dismiss the argument as nothing but envy is disrespecting the millions of hardworking Americans who have seen their wages stagnate while the top 1% earnings increase. This isn't about everyone wanting to be a millionaire. Most Americans just want to be able to afford a roof over their head, put food on the table, cloth their children, be able to pay for braces for the kid's teeth, help put their kids through college. They aren't all Willy Loman's, dreaming that one day they'll be sipping pina coladas in the Bahamas while servants fan them with palm branches.

The sobering reality is that tax policy does effect behavior. When the tax policies are progressive, they tend to discourage the hording of wealth and encourage sharing a bigger slice of the pie. So instead of a CEO making 300 times more than the lowest paid employee, the ratio would be back down to what it was in the 50's and 60's when we had the strongest Middle Class in this nation. Progressive taxation is necessary with capitalism or what happens is wealth funnels upward and becomes concentrated into the few. Although it may sound like average Americans just want a handout, what they really want is to have a tax policy that encourages better distribution of profits that so many of these corporations have reaped over the last few decades. While executive salaries went up exponentially, the average workers pay remained stagnant. Progressive taxation says, if you're earning over a million dollars a year chances are the people who work under you are not getting adequately compensated, and no, they don't also want a million dollar salary, they just want to be able provide a comfortable living for their families. This is what Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia already know and understand. You wanna see what Middle Class America once was, look to those countries. We have gone backwards instead of forward.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Leatherneck 693]

Wal Mart is governed by a board of directors, what any CEO is paid should not be be determined by what SOME in the public think is too much or excessive. The shareholders can protest executive pay at the annual meeting and the board can make changes, and if Wal Mart did not pay such a huge salary, some other company would.

Where is your outrage for salaries of over paid bureaucrats and politicians, both federal and state level? They too make a helluva lot more than some poor guy working 16 hour days that can barely feed his family. Those clowns in government produce very little in terms of value to the rest of us, but they sure can pump out layers of red type to strangle the productive citizenery.

Why is it if a professional boxer makes 10, 20 or 30 million for one fight, no one gives a rip?

Why is it when those progressives in Hollywood, make 10 or 20 million per movie, no one cares or bemoans how much actors/actresses earn. And isn't it ironic many of those Hollywood types speak ill of wealth and huge salaries when it is Wall St. or corporate earned? Yet, they don't refuse 10 or 20 million dollar film contracts, no refusal of $300.000-500.000-750.000 per episode syndicated TV shows, nor do they refuse multi-million dollar endorsement deals because they feel they make so much more than the average working Joe.

Same goes for well paid atheles earning multi million dollar yearly salaries...no one screaming about what those guys (women also) earn.

I guess earning millions is okay for some and not so for others...what people earn is determined by competition (and rightfully should be) and what the market will bare.

And that $8.75 per hr you have above, how much should a person with little to no skills earn per hour? That is an entry level starting wage, usually for high school kids, college students, retired people, those seeking a second job to earn extra income and those with no skills or for those using such a low wage as a stepping stone to a better income in the future. But, if one wants to remain at places like Wal Mart for many years and work their way up the ladder, that is an option only they can determine if years of low wages is worth the chance at better pay in the future.

Of course you can not adequately provide for a family on such a wage, that is not its purpose nor should one remain in such a job unless their skills will not allow them to compete in the market for better wages. Yeah, even folks with no skills need to eat and their is a place in the market for them to earn a living. When you have little to no skills, you have to start somewhere while you improve your skills and education, you can't demand high wages with physical labor only and no skills to accompany such labor.

I am sure sir, you are not still working at the same job you had as a high school kid or college student, if you worked during those times, you had no intention of remaining at a low wage entry level job...that is of course why you continued your education, so you could earn more. Entry level is just that, entry level...a place to start, not a place to stay.

[Leatherneck 693]

Come on. You really think the average American is just envious about the top 1% and if only they were on the top

Then what other reason for posting charts and stats as you posted? Everyone knows the wealthy have more, that's way it's called wealthy. People that think like you use such data to get those not in the 1% whipped up, why else would you do it? Yeah, you're making a point that is already understood.

they wouldn't be in favor of going back to the tax rates that were in place even during Reagan's term? Warren Buffet isn't envious. To dismiss the argument as nothing but envy is disrespecting the millions of hardworking Americans who have seen their wages stagnate while the top 1% earnings increase. This isn't about everyone wanting to be a millionaire. Most Americans just want to be able to afford a roof over their head, put food on the table, cloth their children, be able to pay for braces for the kid's teeth, help put their kids through college.They aren't all Willy Loman's, dreaming that one day they'll be sipping pina coladas in the Bahamas while servants fan them with palm branches.

Who best provides the mechanism for doing such? Government with tax redistrubution or capitalist and wealthy people willing to risk that capital to build and/or create industries that provide the opportunites for people to work?

The sobering reality is that tax policy does effect behavior. When the tax policies are progressive, they tend to discourage the hording of wealth and encourage sharing a bigger slice of the pie. So instead of a CEO making 300 times more than the lowest paid employee, the ratio would be back down to what it was in the 50's and 60's when we had the strongest Middle Class in this nation. Progressive taxation is necessary with capitalism or what happens is wealth funnels upward and becomes concentrated into the few. Although it may sound like average Americans just want a handout, what they really want is to have a tax policy that encourages better distribution of profits that so many of these corporations have reaped over the last few decades. While executive salaries went up exponentially, the average workers pay remained stagnant. Progressive taxation says, if you're earning over a million dollars a year chances are the people who work under you are not getting adequately compensated, and no, they don't also want a million dollar salary, they just want to be able provide a comfortable living for their families. This is what Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia already know and understand. You wanna see what Middle Class America once was, look to those countries. We have gone backwards instead of forward.

Sure tax policy can effect behavior, you do realize it can have a very negative affect also.

Progressive tax policies don't discourage the hording of wealth. If that was the case we would have no billionaires, no Oprahs, Bill Gates, etc. What it does cause is for those looking to build wealth to seek more creative ways to shelter, hide, delay payment of taxes, use wrtie-offs, seek special tax breaks/loop-holes, employ lawyers and accountants. The progressive taxation you so love is the very reason the tax code has become the massive volume of complicated legalese it is now. Wealhty people seeking to prevent the government from taking their money and politicians using the tax code to reward and to punish is why we have the mess we know as the tax code.

You have a strange idea of wealth and the creation of it. There is no one direction that wealth travels, wealth gets transfered constantly in many directions. In a capitalist system the chance to create wealth is open to all, not only the few. It is this same type of progressive lie (s) progressives and statist sold to poor people that got us the breast we know now as the IRS. It was sold as a way to punish rich people and make them pay. They, the poor would not be affected according to the progressives. The real reason for progressive taxation is power and control, yeah, progressives love to have power to control as much of a mans behavior and life as possible.

I subscribe to the original intent of taxation, which is what the founders wanted according to the Constituion at Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. They did not intend for the federal government to reach directly into your pocket and separate you from your money, but of course progressives being the big government control freaks they are, that was not enough for them...they wanted more power and control and we can thank the progressive/racist Woodrow Wilson for what we have today, along with the other scumbag progressives that caused this mess.

Taxation was intended to fund the limited government structure we inherited, not to punish rich people, not to redistribute wealth, not to fund the progressive agenda and not to social engineer society.

And can you please use a better example than Buffet? The man has his own tax issues, he is not very credible. His company Berkshire Hathaway owes taxes for 2002-2004 and 2005-2009, which he admits. If he really wanted to pay more in income taxes he should start but taking his money out of the company as regular income and stop taking the majority of his income from dividends and capital gains, that is why he pays 15% and not a bigger share.

Buffet is a tool for Obama in his 'get the rich' rethoric to whip up his base, while creating a diversion from his dismal economic record.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Leatherneck

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I have been thinking about this alot lately since the protests began. These figures might be alittle old but I still find them interesting income-wise. In terms of yearly household income if you are making roughly 280,000 USD your 1%. If you make 120,000 USD your in the top 5%. 87,000 is 10%.

I would hazard to guess that most of us here are at least flirting with the top 10%. Anyway, I think using 1% is probably incorrect - you have no political power with 280,000. Its more like the 0.01% who are running the nation and paying to provide the illusion of democracy to the masses.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sure tax policy can effect behavior, you do realize it can have a very negative affect also.

Progressive tax policies don't discourage the hording of wealth. If that was the case we would have no billionaires, no Oprahs, Bill Gates, etc. What it does cause is for those looking to build wealth to seek more creative ways to shelter, hide, delay payment of taxes, use wrtie-offs, seek special tax breaks/loop-holes, employ lawyers and accountants. The progressive taxation you so love is the very reason the tax code has become the massive volume of complicated legalese it is now. Wealhty people seeking to prevent the government from taking their money and politicians using the tax code to reward and to punish is why we have the mess we know as the tax code.

You have a strange idea of wealth and the creation of it. There is no one direction that wealth travels, wealth gets transfered constantly in many directions. In a capitalist system the chance to create wealth is open to all, not only the few. It is this same type of progressive lie (s) progressives and statist sold to poor people that got us the breast we know now as the IRS. It was sold as a way to punish rich people and make them pay. They, the poor would not be affected according to the progressives. The real reason for progressive taxation is power and control, yeah, progressives love to have power to control as much of a mans behavior and life as possible.

I subscribe to the original intent of taxation, which is what the founders wanted according to the Constituion at Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. They did not intend for the federal government to reach directly into your pocket and separate you from your money, but of course progressives being the big government control freaks they are, that was not enough for them...they wanted more power and control and we can thank the progressive/racist Woodrow Wilson for what we have today, along with the other scumbag progressives that caused this mess.

Taxation was intended to fund the limited government structure we inherited, not to punish rich people, not to redistribute wealth, not to fund the progressive agenda and not to social engineer society.

And can you please use a better example than Buffet? The man has his own tax issues, he is not very credible. His company Berkshire Hathaway owes taxes for 2002-2004 and 2005-2009, which he admits. If he really wanted to pay more in income taxes he should start but taking his money out of the company as regular income and stop taking the majority of his income from dividends and capital gains, that is why he pays 15% and not a bigger share.

Buffet is a tool for Obama in his 'get the rich' rethoric to whip up his base, while creating a diversion from his dismal economic record.

Statistically, it seems the top tax rates discourage higher pay at the top bracket FYI. (1940-2010)

My personal preference is for higher income taxes and lower corporate taxes.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Statistically, it seems the top tax rates discourage higher pay at the top bracket FYI. (1940-2010)

My personal preference is for higher income taxes and lower corporate taxes.

* with a better version of the AMT mind you.