Thank you for this Excellent post, Anon 2:
Where did all the money and jobs go?
The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth.
- Including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is $500 to $1.
- From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's total income.
- The bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%.
- Between 2002 and 2006, it was even worse: three-quarters of all the economy's growth was captured by the top 1%.
- The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record.
- Workers lost an average of 25 percent off their 401k. The wealth of the 400 richest Americans increased by $30 billion, bringing their total combined wealth to $1.57 trillion.
- The 400 richest Americans have more wealth than 155 million people combined.
- 2009 was a record-breaking year for Wall Street bonuses, as firms issued $150 billion to their executives. 100% of these bonuses are a direct result of our tax dollars.
- If we used this bonus money to create jobs, we could have paid an annual salary of $30,000 to 5 million people.
- US workers are now working more hours and have become dramatically more productive, but their pay is actually declining.
- Increases in wealth are going straight into the pockets of the Economic Elite.
Yet the rich complain their taxes are too high.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Oh - you forgot one thing though....
The Richest 1% have told themselves that they are ENTITLED to the wealth they have.
What have they done to "deserve" it?
Taking the rest of the country hostage to their incredible avarice and virtually DEMANDED WELFARE payouts - and GOT them - from the taxpayer who were taken to the cleaners by same for decades prior and will be for generations to come.
I wrote years ago to CNN about America becoming a third world country and just recently Ariana Huffington released a book about that very same subject.
Takes many Americans a while before they can see the reality right under their noses and what will be in store for them.
Unfortunately, the ones supporting the 1% (the Repugs) don't deal with reality and still will be singing cumbaya under the apple tree in their Walmart clothing.
I have to say, that I don't agree with about 98% of what CJP believes and he knows that. However, I truly believe that he is a nice man, and I probably would genuinely like him as a person. Although he and I dont agree, and we have gone back and forth on a couple of occasions, he has always been a gentleman and I have never felt hatred from him. (I could be wrong, but I just haven't gotten that vibe from him)
In turn, I have appologised when I have been out of line (the one time that I had too much to drink and kinda lost it---and I WAS out of line, remember that, CJP?)The thing is, you can disagree with someone without HATING them, Anon2. People may disagree with you, but that doesn't make them evil, stupid, racist, or hateful. Different points of view, that's all.
I really liked RG and he and I hardly ever agreed! But aside from our differences RG was a very nice person, and he enjoyed the debate. He was rarely insulting when we disagreed. Maybe he was just more secure.
You don't like the debate. I don't know what it is, maybe vanity, but you seem to want to just post things all day never be challenged, and not engage in a healthy discussion. You are hostile to anyone that sees things differently.
So...you are going to get your wish. You can just post and hate all you want---the only one on the blogsite! Whoopie! Enjoy. You can just cut and paste all day long from now on---and no one will challenge you. No one will be here to read it, but no one will be challenging either.
It occured to me that the people that made this blog really fun are all gone and you are all that is left. You aren't fun. You could have been---but your hatred gets in the way.
Bye schweetheart!!
No explanation necessary!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/olbermann-small-business_n_736418.html
Olbermann: GOP Uses 'Small' Business' Tag To Help Save Huge Companies Billions
"The "small" businesses that Republican lawmakers say will suffer if the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire are not so small after all, MSNBC's "Countdown" reported Tuesday.
Some of these businesses, which include big names in engineering and finance, are "large" in terms of revenue, payroll and distribution, but "small" in terms of ownership, the report, by David Cay Johnston and Chris Hayes, has found.
According to the Republican tax logic, a small number of owners is the sole criterion for a "small business." Such businesses, which according to the Joint Committee on Taxation accounted for 94 percent of all U.S. businesses in 2007, include partnerships, sole proprietorships and S corporations, a designation that allows owners to report profits and losses on their personal tax return, rather than on the company's.
"'Small business' is a brand name," MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said.
The report found that businesses with billions of dollars in annual revenue fall under the small business category. Bechtel, a global engineering and construction company that is considered a "small business" under this logic, took in $31 billion last year. Ferrellgas, a propane company, earned $2 billion in revenue last year. McIlhenny, another "small business," which makes Tabasco sauce, made $250 million in revenue in 2007.
Other names include auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Also on the list are the collection of "small businesses" owned by the billionaire Koch Brothers, who this year tied for fifth on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, and who were profiled last month by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker.
Bloomberg first reported this unusual tax logic on Monday. The Republican "small business" designation, the report said, would apply even to individuals with no employees at all. It could include actors, athletes and authors -- even President Obama."
Forbes:
The Richest People in America:
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400#p_1_s_arank_-1_
2nd link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/richest-americans_n_736182.html
400 Richest Americans Got Richer This Year As Most Americans Networth Tanked.
"The top 400, all of whom are worth at least $1 billion, saw their combined wealth increase 8 percent this year, to the dizzying total of $1.37 trillion, according to analysis from CNN."
Did the average Joe in American get an 8% raise? Bet your bottom dollar - NOT!!
Looking at the above figure of $1.37 trillion, that was about what Dumbya created in debt. How about these billionaires donating their billions to the government to pay down the debt? Hilarious? Well ya, but nice entertaining that thought for a moment. It's NOT as IF these billionaires do owe anything to the American people who made them rich isn't it?
The link below should have been posted as the 1st link in my previous post because then both previous links will fall more into place:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html
Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality, Support 'More Equal Distribution Of Wealth': Study
"Americans vastly underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in America, and we believe that the distribution should be far more equitable than it actually is, according to a new study.
Or, as the study's authors put it: "All demographic groups -- even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy -- desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo."
The report (pdf) "Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School (hat tip to Paul Kedrosky), shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number is closer to 84 percent.
More interesting than that, the report says, is that the respondents (a randomly selected 5,522-person sample, reflecting the country's ideological, economic and gender demographics, surveyed in December 2005) believed the top 20 percent should own only 32 percent of the wealth. Respondents with incomes over $100,000 per year had similar answers to those making less than $50,000. (The report has helpful, multi-colored charts.)
The respondents were presented with unlabeled pie charts representing the wealth distributions of the U.S., where the richest 20 percent controlled about 84 percent of wealth, and Sweden, where the top 20 percent only controlled 36 percent of wealth. Without knowing which country they were picking, 92 percent of respondents said they'd rather live in a country with Sweden's wealth distribution.
As the new Forbes billionaires list, released Wednesday, testifies, the richest Americans are getting richer, even as the country as a whole gets poorer. After 2005 income inequality continued to balloon."
I disagree with the basic argument in the original post as well as some of the comments. If you look down the Forbes' 400 list, combined they have created millions of jobs. Nobody gets rich on their own. Going down the list, Bill Gates' Microsoft employs 30,000 people. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway employs 222,000. Between the two of them, they have given away over $60 billion. Larry Ellison's Oracle employs 105,000. The list goes on. Are we worse off because these people make so much money? On the contrary. Mr. Gates has created much more than the 30,000 jobs his company directly employs. The entire PC industry was created with his efforts, spawning millions of jobs worldwide. Thats why the concept of taxing people to "create jobs" makes no sense. They are much better at creating jobs than the government because the jobs they create are actually productive.
The argument that the economy is a pie where if they have a large piece, we are all left to share the scraps is flawed. Our economy is so complex, it consists of millions of markets. When an individual creates a market, that is wealth that would have otherwise not existed. Our economic system is dependent upon the voluntary exchange of goods and services. If you don't like the fact that Bill Gates is so rich, don't by a PC. Don't buy a mac either because Steve Jobs is on the list as well. Don't buy any of Mr. Buffet's goods either: Fruit of the Loom underwear, GEICO auto insurance, etc. We are not worse off because these individuals have amassed so much wealth - our standard of living has increased substantially...which is what economic growth is really all about.
The information were very helpful for me, I've bookmarked this post, Please share more information about this
Thanks
Post a Comment