America by the numbers, a look at the rich getting richer

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half.

BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.

A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid.

THIS YEAR, Donald Trump will earn $1.5 million an hour to speak at Learning Annex seminars.

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.

A MINIMUM WAGE employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.

SUCH A WORKER would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.

ELLISON RECENTLY posed in Vanity Fair with his $300 million, 454-foot yacht, which he noted is “really only the size of a very large house.”
A World of Difference

ONLY THE WEALTHIEST 20% of Americans spend more on entertainment than on health care.

THE $17,530 EARNED by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4.

5 OF AMERICA’S 10 richest people are Wal-Mart heirs.

PUBLIC COMPANIES spend 10% of their earnings compensating their top 5 executives.

1,730 BOARD MEMBERS of the nation’s 1,000 leading companies sit on the boards of 4 or more other corporations—including half of Coca-Cola’s 14-person board.

THE BIDDER who won a round of golf with Tiger Woods for $30,100 at a 2004 Buick charity auction could deduct all but about $200.

TIGER MADE $87 million in 2005, all but $12 million from endorsements and appearance fees.

THE 5TH LEADING philanthropist last year was Boone Pickens, in part due to his $165 million gift to Oklahoma State University’s golf program.

WITHIN AN HOUR, OSU invested it in a hedge fund Pickens controls. Thanks to a Katrina relief provision, his “gift” was also 100% deductible.

LAST YEAR 250 COMPANIES gave top execs between $50,000 and $1 million worth of wholly personal flights on corporate jets.

THIS PERK is 66% more costly to companies whose CEO belongs to out-of-state golf clubs.
A New Gilded Age

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT spends $500,000 on 8 security screeners who speed execs from a Wall Street helipad to American’s JFK terminal.

UNITED HAS CUT the pensions and salaries of most employees but promised 400 top executives 8% of the shares it expects to issue upon emerging from bankruptcy.

UNITED’S TOP 8 execs will also get a bonus of between 55% and 100% of their salaries.

IN 2002, “turnaround artist” Robert Miller dumped Bethlehem Steel’s pension obligation, allowing “vulture investor” Wilbur L. Ross to buy steel stock and sell it at a 1,000% profit.

IN 2005, DELPHI HIRED Miller for $4.5 million. After Ross said he might buy Delphi if its labor costs fell, Miller demanded wage cuts of up to 63% and dumped the pension obligation.

10 FORMER ENRON directors agreed to pay shareholders a $13 million settlement—which is 10% of what they made by dumping stock while lying about the company’s health.

POOR AMERICANS spend 1/4 of their income on residential energy costs.

EXXON’S 2005 PROFIT of $36.13 billion is more than the GDP of 2/3 of the world’s nations.

CEO PAY AMONG military contractors has tripled since 2001. For David Brooks, the CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB, it’s risen 13,233%.

AT THE $10 MILLION bat mitzvah party Brooks threw his daughter last year, guests got $1,000 gift bags and listened to Aerosmith, Kenny G., Tom Petty, Stevie Nicks, and 50 Cent—who reportedly sang, “Go shorty, it’s your bat mitzvah, we gonna party like it’s your bat mitzvah.”

FOR PERFORMING IN the Live 8 concerts to “make poverty history,” musicians each got gift bags worth up to $12,000.

OSCAR PERFORMERS and presenters collectively owe the IRS $1,250,000 on the gift bags they got at the 2006 Academy Awards ceremony.

A DOG FOOD COMPANY provided “pawdicures” and other spa treatments to pets of celebrities attending the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.

ONE OF MADONNA’S recent freebies: $10,000 mink and diamond-tipped false eyelashes.

PARIS HILTON, who charges clubs $200,000 to appear for 20 minutes, stiffed Elton John’s AIDS benefit the $2,500-per-plate fee she owed.

ACCORDING TO Radar magazine, Owen Wilson was paid $100,000 to attend a Mercedes-Benz-sponsored Hamptons polo match. When other guests tried to speak with him, he reportedly said, “That’s not my job.”



http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html


makes me pretty pissed off, seems like this country is turning into more of a oligarchy than anything close to a democracy. Ohh and here is a link to the sources unlike some other people who like to post nonsense, http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/sources.html
 
You see, the problem is, *clearly* a lack of personal drive and poor decision making. The only thing that separates these two classes of people is the decisions they made; we can simply choose to be extravagantly wealthy. It's obvious.

I dunno what those last few bullet points were about, but I didn't know Owen Wilson was a prick. Huh.
 
The top 10% wage earners also account for two thirds of the nation's tax revenue and the proportion has increased every year since 1949. Two sides to every coin.
 
Yeah yeah and America has the highest rate of unequality and poverty of all the rich western nations. What does anybody do about it? Not a damn thing.

That would be COMMUNISM!!!
 
I just don't understand people who would want to live in a country where you could watch the rich get poorer.
shrug.gif
 
[quote name='dopa345']The top 10% wage earners also account for two thirds of the nation's tax revenue and the proportion has increased every year since 1949. Two sides to every coin.[/QUOTE]

Not really since the top 10% wage earners* account for almost half of income.

I can't believe that in America we have more pity for the rich than the poor.


* I say this as a top 10% household.
 
[/schuerm]Go away vermin! If (and that is a might big if) you ever make more than $8 an hour you can post in this thread, vermin. Until then keep quiet till the big boss man let you speak![/schuerm]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I dunno what those last few bullet points were about, but I didn't know Owen Wilson was a prick. Huh.[/QUOTE]


He is, after all, he is the Butterscotch Stallion.

The rich never get poorer. If I won a $5 million lottery, I could live off the interest for the rest of my life. It's all investing, baby.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Not really since the top 10% wage earners* account for almost half of income.

I can't believe that in America we have more pity for the rich than the poor.


* I say this as a top 10% household.[/QUOTE]

I don't "pity" the rich. I just feel that if you're wealthy, and you acquired and made your money through legals means, then you should have the right to spend it anyway you want even if it means looking like a prick just like anyone else in this country.

And I say this as someone NOT in the top 10% of household income.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I don't "pity" the rich. I just feel that if you're wealthy, and you acquired and made your money through legals means, then you should have the right to spend it anyway you want even if it means looking like a prick just like anyone else in this country.

[/QUOTE]

Wasn't talking about you specifically but I agree * after taxes*. But in truth, no one does it all by themselves.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Wasn't talking about you specifically but I agree * after taxes*. But in truth, no one does it all by themselves.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I just assumed you were addressing me since you quoted me in your post.

However, it's gross misconception that the rich don't pay taxes. Let's say a political candidate came up with a plan that the bottom 50% of wage earners would only have to come up with 3% of the total tax revenue while the top 50% pay the rest. In addition, the top 10% have to pay 65% of the tax revenue of the government while the remaining 90% only need to come up with one-third of the tax bill. Most people would be all for it. That's exactly the system we have right now.

This was nicely summed up in a column the Boston Globe not that long ago.

http://www.boston.com/business/pers...tax_policy_the_beasts_of_burden_are_affluent/
 
[quote name='dopa345']Sorry, I just assumed you were addressing me since you quoted me in your post.

However, it's gross misconception that the rich don't pay taxes. Let's say a political candidate came up with a plan that the bottom 50% of wage earners would only have to come up with 3% of the total tax revenue while the top 50% pay the rest. In addition, the top 10% have to pay 65% of the tax revenue of the government while the remaining 90% only need to come up with one-third of the tax bill. Most people would be all for it. That's exactly the system we have right now.[/quote]

The problem is that it's all just a numbers game. Sometimes percentages are more relevant and sometimes raw numbers are.

For example, if somebody making 50k a year paid 90% of their income in taxes they'd have 5k left and they'd be pretty fucked. If somebody making 10 million paid 90% of their income in taxes they'd have 1 million left and they'd be living pretty damn fine. The current tax brackets don't go up nearly enough and although the rich do give the most money in taxes (obviously, since they have the most money anyway) the super-rich aren't taxed a high enough percentage. A guy making around 100k (the bottom of the top 10%) is going to pay about 15k plus 28% of 29k dollars or 8k dollars, making his total amount paid 23k, leaving him with 77k. Now this guy is going to be ok, but 23k is a reasonably high amount of money to somebody making 100k a year.

Now, if all the information I'm basing all this on is correct :p then the tax brackets stop with people making over 326k dollars. Now there aren't a whole lot of people that make more than that, I realize, but there are people that make much more than that. For example, Some CEO is making 5 million dollars a year, he has to pay 95k plus 35% of 4.675 million or about 1.64 million dollars. Now that is a shitload of money, that guy is paying around 2.5 million dollars in taxes, half of how much he is making.

But tell me, what is worth more to the individual? 23k to the person making 100k or 2.5 million to the person making 5 million?

This leads me to believe that the tax brackets need to be adjusted more, to at least make it a more graded system.

Besides that, and what others have mentioned, investments are what keep making the rich even richer and leave the poorer without opportunities. If the guy with 77k invests 10k a year he should be able to have everything he needs and support his family and still make a reasonable amount of money, but the guy taking home 2.5 million could invest 1 million a year, still have 1.5 million dollars to do with as he pleases, and since investments gain interest based on percentages (say 3%, something pretty low), the guy with 77k just made 300 bucks for no work, and the guy with 2.5 million just made 30,000 dollars for no work.

This is a really long (and pretty pointless) rant, but anyway, my point is that while the rich do pay most of the taxes, the money that they pay in taxes is not worth as much to them in real life. So the percentages really aren't relevant. I think there is still work to be done.
 
[quote name='SpazX']The problem is that it's all just a numbers game. Sometimes percentages are more relevant and sometimes raw numbers are.

For example, if somebody making 50k a year paid 90% of their income in taxes they'd have 5k left and they'd be pretty fucked. If somebody making 10 million paid 90% of their income in taxes they'd have 1 million left and they'd be living pretty damn fine. The current tax brackets don't go up nearly enough and although the rich do give the most money in taxes (obviously, since they have the most money anyway) the super-rich aren't taxed a high enough percentage. A guy making around 100k (the bottom of the top 10%) is going to pay about 15k plus 28% of 29k dollars or 8k dollars, making his total amount paid 23k, leaving him with 77k. Now this guy is going to be ok, but 23k is a reasonably high amount of money to somebody making 100k a year.

Now, if all the information I'm basing all this on is correct :p then the tax brackets stop with people making over 326k dollars. Now there aren't a whole lot of people that make more than that, I realize, but there are people that make much more than that. For example, Some CEO is making 5 million dollars a year, he has to pay 95k plus 35% of 4.675 million or about 1.64 million dollars. Now that is a shitload of money, that guy is paying around 2.5 million dollars in taxes, half of how much he is making.

But tell me, what is worth more to the individual? 23k to the person making 100k or 2.5 million to the person making 5 million?

This leads me to believe that the tax brackets need to be adjusted more, to at least make it a more graded system.

Besides that, and what others have mentioned, investments are what keep making the rich even richer and leave the poorer without opportunities. If the guy with 77k invests 10k a year he should be able to have everything he needs and support his family and still make a reasonable amount of money, but the guy taking home 2.5 million could invest 1 million a year, still have 1.5 million dollars to do with as he pleases, and since investments gain interest based on percentages (say 3%, something pretty low), the guy with 77k just made 300 bucks for no work, and the guy with 2.5 million just made 30,000 dollars for no work.

This is a really long (and pretty pointless) rant, but anyway, my point is that while the rich do pay most of the taxes, the money that they pay in taxes is not worth as much to them in real life. So the percentages really aren't relevant. I think there is still work to be done.[/QUOTE]

I shall summarize Spaz's post: if you don't like how much you pay in taxes, you're welcome to go earn $5.15 an hour. Stand up for your beliefs if they mean so much to you.
 
[quote name='dopa345']
However, it's gross misconception that the rich don't pay taxes. Let's say a political candidate came up with a plan that the bottom 50% of wage earners would only have to come up with 3% of the total tax revenue while the top 50% pay the rest. In addition, the top 10% have to pay 65% of the tax revenue of the government while the remaining 90% only need to come up with one-third of the tax bill. Most people would be all for it. That's exactly the system we have right now.

This was nicely summed up in a column the Boston Globe not that long ago.

http://www.boston.com/business/pers...tax_policy_the_beasts_of_burden_are_affluent/[/QUOTE]

Yeah we have a progressive system which means everyone pays the same amount of taxes on the same amount of $$. However, the article fails to include other "income" that the rich get like income on investments. Additionally, the rich are in a much better position to take advantage of deductions. So income taxe by itself, doesn't tell the whole story.

However I think you are pulling out the old straw man with the "the rich don't pay taxes" point. Who is saying that? I do hear people saying the rich don't pay enough but that is different.
 
bread's done
Back
Top