Oh, To Be In The Top 0.1%
It is the time of year to remember the neediest. It is getting easier to do so, because there are many more needy. The chart above comes from a paper by Emmanual Saez and Gabriel Zucman:
Click here for reuse options!The authors compared the share of wealth held by the bottom 90% of families with that of those at the very top. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America’s wealth; the top 0.1% had a quarter. From the beginning of the Depression until well after the end of the second world war, the middle class’s share rose steadily, thanks to its own rising income, broader home- and share-ownership, and collapsing wealth among richer households. Since the early 1980s these trends have reversed. The top 0.1% (160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
40 responses to Oh, To Be In The Top 0.1%
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Eric Trommater December 26th, 2014 at 11:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JmFa2Q40lg
edmeyer_able December 26th, 2014 at 11:32
Many will look at this chart and feel depressed but if he took world wide figures not many in the US would fall in the lower 90%, an income of 23K US puts you in the top 2.51%.
So count your blessings not what you don’t have.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
mea_mark December 26th, 2014 at 11:47
This is why we need more people like Warren in Government. We need people that understand that there is a growing problem with inequality and are willing to tackle the problem.
edmeyer_able December 26th, 2014 at 11:57
In my eyes the problem lies in the tax code, too many industries are getting away w/o paying anything to do business here.
mea_mark December 26th, 2014 at 12:03
The problem is distributed all over the place, from tax code to wages. The accountants and lobbyist of the rich have been writing laws for too long that favor the rich.
Dwendt44 December 26th, 2014 at 12:32
Less than 30% of corporations pay anything in income taxes.
amongoose December 28th, 2014 at 00:25
The tax code is not about revenue, it is about behavior modification.
How about a flat tax you could fill out on a 3×5 card.
Or a VAT, or anything that would keep favors from becoming tax law.
stevesharkman December 28th, 2014 at 09:21
lol!
She is the 1% you idiot!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 09:34
That depends on whose figures you use. The Internal Revenue Service says an adjusted gross income, or AGI, of $343,927 or more will put you in the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Clearly with a net worth value of around 14.5 million she meets those qualifications but so do many others.
If you would like to compare that to the 1% of the wealthiest Americans or total wealth held by the household (subject of the article) she comes nowhere near the 1%.
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 09:37
No you’re the idiot for calling a moderator an idiot. You’re now banned, hope you’re having a nice morning.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 09:49
Why the hell didn’t I think of that last night, buried 30 deep in NRA trolls?
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 10:32
Sometimes the simple solution is the best solution. You just got caught up in all the Trolly drama.
fancypants December 31st, 2014 at 22:34
lol
jasperjava December 28th, 2014 at 12:08
Personal wealth isn’t the issue. Ideology is. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was extraordinarily wealthy, but his policies benefited the poor and middle class.
If Warren is too rich for you, who will you vote for instead? Mitt Romney?
fancypants December 31st, 2014 at 22:33
and one of the very few if any who is more then willing to expose them
Idiotic ? only if you vote for the gop
nola878 December 26th, 2014 at 11:55
Eat the Rich: there’s only one thing they’re good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now – come back for more
Eat the Rich: I gotta get this off my chest
Eat the Rich: take one bite now, spit out the rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNXw8pe-y4E
Dwendt44 December 26th, 2014 at 11:32
Less than 30% of corporations pay anything in income taxes.
StoneyCurtisll December 26th, 2014 at 11:48
This pretty much sums it up.
http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/TMW2014-02-19colorlowres11.jpg
StoneyCurtisll December 26th, 2014 at 12:48
This pretty much sums it up.
http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/TMW2014-02-19colorlowres11.jpg
fahvel December 26th, 2014 at 15:51
and they earned it by hard work and community awareness and….. hell, who am I trying to fool?
fahvel December 26th, 2014 at 16:51
and they earned it by hard work and community awareness and….. hell, who am I trying to fool?
Robert M. Snyder December 26th, 2014 at 20:38
Here’s a link to the actual research paper:
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf
If you look at Figure 2, you can plainly see that only FINANCIAL wealth was considered by the authors. (pensions, currency, deposits, bonds, equities, sole proprietorships, partnerships, and housing).
What about MATERIAL wealth?
Let’s say I win the lottery tomorrow. If I put that money into the bank, invest it in bonds, or buy a house, then it would be considered as wealth by this study. But if I use it to buy a BMW for my wife, a pickup truck and a fishing boat for myself, and a Caribbean cruise for my entire extended family, it would not be counted as wealth by this study.
Every time someone goes into Best Buy and purchases a big screen TV, they are converting financial wealth into material wealth. They are giving money to someone who already has a lot in return for possessions. Those possessions are also a type of wealth.
thud January 4th, 2015 at 18:20
Average wealth of 73m. And you contend that my habits as a consumer is why I’m not one of them? Utter drivel.
Robert M. Snyder December 26th, 2014 at 21:38
Here’s a link to the actual research paper:
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf
If you look at Figure 2, you can plainly see that only FINANCIAL wealth was considered by the authors. (pensions, currency, deposits, bonds, equities, sole proprietorships, partnerships, and housing).
What about MATERIAL wealth?
Let’s say I win the lottery tomorrow. If I put that money into the bank, invest it in bonds, or buy a house, then it would be considered as wealth by this study. But if I use it to buy a BMW for my wife, a pickup truck and a fishing boat for myself, and a Caribbean cruise for my entire extended family, it would not be counted as wealth by this study.
Every time someone goes into Best Buy and purchases a big screen TV, they are converting financial wealth into material wealth. They are giving money to someone who already has a lot in return for possessions. Those possessions are also a type of wealth.
thud January 4th, 2015 at 19:20
Average wealth of 73m. And you contend that my habits as a consumer is why I’m not one of them? Utter drivel.
Robert M. Snyder December 26th, 2014 at 20:53
The study counted the following things as wealth: pensions, currency, deposits, bonds, equities, sole proprietorships, partnerships, and housing.
In order to have more of this type of wealth, a person could: put more money into their pension fund or savings account, buy bonds, or invest in real estate. But many people with good salaries choose to rent apartments and spend their money on travel, entertainment, electronics, and other things that were not counted as wealth by this study.
Robert M. Snyder December 26th, 2014 at 21:53
The study counted the following things as wealth: pensions, currency, deposits, bonds, equities, sole proprietorships, partnerships, and housing.
In order to have more of this type of wealth, a person could: put more money into their pension fund or savings account, buy bonds, or invest in real estate. But many people with good salaries choose to rent apartments and spend their money on travel, entertainment, electronics, and other things that were not counted as wealth by this study.
Robert M. Snyder December 26th, 2014 at 21:06
The real culprit: (this chart is from the study)
Robert M. Snyder December 26th, 2014 at 22:06
The real culprit: (this chart is from the study)
amongoose December 27th, 2014 at 23:25
The tax code is not about revenue, it is about behavior modification.
How about a flat tax you could fill out on a 3×5 card.
Or a VAT, or anything that would keep favors from becoming tax law.
stevesharkman December 28th, 2014 at 08:21
lol!
She is the 1% you idiot!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 08:34
That depends on whose figures you use. The Internal Revenue Service says an adjusted gross income, or AGI, of $343,927 or more will put you in the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Clearly with a net worth value of around 14.5 million she meets those qualifications but so do many others.
If you would like to compare that to the 1% of the wealthiest Americans or total wealth held by the household (subject of the article) she comes nowhere near the 1%.
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 08:37
No you’re the idiot for calling a moderator an idiot. You’re now banned, hope you’re having a nice morning.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 08:49
Why the hell didn’t I think of that last night, buried 30 deep in NRA trolls?
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 09:32
Sometimes the simple solution is the best solution. You just got caught up in all the Trolly drama.
fancypants December 31st, 2014 at 21:34
lol
jasperjava December 28th, 2014 at 11:08
Personal wealth isn’t the issue. Ideology is. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was extraordinarily wealthy, but his policies benefited the poor and middle class.
If Warren is too rich for you, who will you vote for instead? Mitt Romney?
fancypants December 31st, 2014 at 21:33
and one of the very few if any who is more then willing to expose them
Idiotic ? only if you vote for the gop
fancypants December 31st, 2014 at 21:39
should have read the opinion / facts of a true visionary before shipping our jobs overseas and south of the border
fancypants December 31st, 2014 at 22:39
should have read the opinion / facts of a true visionary before shipping our jobs overseas and south of the border