The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

Professional athletes and celebrities aren't exactly pushing laissez-faire economics while simultaneously shipping jobs to Mexico and China.

Aren't they? Aren't you? If you have a mutual fund or hold stocks or bonds in any company, they may well be doing just that on your behalf. Most people, particularly those with mutual funds, have no clue what they're companies are doing. They just want profits.

What central bank is privately owned?

The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is privately owned by a cartel of banks. They issue US currency and manage monetary policy of member banks.

There are much better students of American History on this site than me, but what I believe Mr. Moore is doing is to continue the Jeffersonian debate about big business and individual freedom. Whilst the official line is that the US is the land of the free, how free are you when the wealth created, and the money system itself, is in the hands of so relatively few?

Are you happy with this deal? or is it a case of persuading the slaves to vote for slavery?

A valid question coming from someone whose country used to have one of the most rigid caste systems in the world and where vast wealth was held by a tiny minority of less than 1% creating one of the most lopsided wealth distributed societies in the world.

I do NOT say that as a criticism but merely as an observation because the very same was true in France and yet France's system violently collapsed while the British system largely dismantled itself peacefully. I want to touch on that later.

The hallmark of stability in a democracy is a prosperous middle class. The more disparate wealth becomes, the more precarious the political system becomes.

I'm really tired and going to bed but I will comment on this later. Right now, there are two arguments which are being widely ignored and I'd like to advance them for discussion. The first is merely an observation that it's very easy for the rich to remain rich because the financial system is rigged in their favor. The more money you have, the easier it is to generate money and do so with relatively few taxes. Income does not equal wealth. There are various taxes which people have to pay, but on the whole, the US has much lower tax rates on the very rich than most other industrialized nations. That is why so many of them live here. The second point I'd like to make is that very little wealth is actually held in anything that's easy to target. The very rich tend to stay rich because they hold interest in companies they own. Next to nothing is ever done in their personal name. Their companies may, but frequently do not, pay income taxes though they may pay other taxes in the course of doing business. That lovely Fifth Avenue Beaux Arts mansions that so-and-so lives in is likely owned by a personal holding corporation and given over for use to the company's owner as compensation. It pays to be poor on paper and rich in holdings (wealth). Through corporations and trusts, such onerous taxes as estate taxes, can be avoided to the greatest degree possible. So yes, the top 1% may pay more in income taxes, but the tax laws of the US are setup so that they pay less percentage of their true income (as opposed to taxable income) than the average working Joe.

Keep in mind that wealth now is ridiculously portable compared to how it was only a short time ago. Corporations faced with high taxes can offshore in a heartbeat. A rich person can expatriate fairly quickly and easily to income tax haven nations who make such immigration very easy. Tax the rich too much and the second that the taxes become too onerous, they'll leave and find somewhere else to put their wealth. The US taxing you too much? Move to Mexico, setup as a Mexican corporation, and then do all the business you want in the US courtesy of NAFTA with the only difference being you'll be paying far less in taxes to the US if quite a bit more in bribes though that expense will be relatively minor compared to the US taxes and payrolls you'd be paying.
 
7

798686

Guest
We're bad people, now, aren't we, Joll?

Oh, well, tough. That's how it falls sometimes. I kind of like being the bastard. Despite how sweet I am, I like being an asshole. Even though I'm not. :wink:

LOL :rolleyes:

Actually - there always seem to be slightly differing ratios of this cropping up in the media: Top 5% earns more than other 95%; top 10% earns more than remaining 90%, etc.
Because the scale is kinda top heavy, I wonder if it works whatever ratio you choose? (top 29.25% earns more than remaining 70.75% anyone?).

[Now go and post on the Lisbon thread, Nick. A fledging Euro-Superstate with new President and bona fide political identity affects you lot too. :redface: ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy, give us 200 (600?) words.
I would really like to hear you on this subject.

well, if i had to crystallize it, i'd probably make it Bill Murray's doomsday speech from Ghostbusters...

"dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria"

but i tend to think the end of days will follow a pattern of a combination of enivironmental factors, (deforestation, rising seas, drying lands) disease, hunger, dwindling resources, polluted water fresh water supplies, contaminated oceans/seas, not to mention, ongoing major warfare over those dwindling supplies, affecting mostly the third world. in the 3rd world countries where very little is needed to touch off strife on a regular level of lunacy (religious conflict between christians and muslims in africa, tribal conflicts in africa such as the hutus and the tutsi) the congo, etc...will now be touched off by a constant warring over resources, which exacerbates the tensions, and eventually causes the types of modern genocides occurring on a much more regular scale.

massive droughts and starvation, and the economic climate making support and assistance from the developed world less and less frequent and sizeable.

probable nuclear exchanges, eventually between several major states (India and Pakistan would be #1 on my probability list. Israel and Iran a very close second.)

China eventually will invade Taiwan, and we will not be able to defend it, considering how much of our debt china holds, not to mention our economic situation and military cuts.

much of the environmental catastrophes have to do with rising seas, droughts, crop damage etc.

eventually, the developed world will survive fairly well for the most part, but the 3rd world, is really on the edge of total disaster.

history always shows that given a choice between famine/starvation and war to stay alive and take food, humans choose war.

same principle as with water and borders...the Pentagon's Marshall Report spells out the situation pretty well (in the report about climate change and potential calamities in 2004)

China India and Pakistan are already at the highest tensions in certain border areas....then add in a concern over water supply in those areas, and three countries with historic hatred and nuclear weapons...

as the Harvard Professor Steven LeBlanc Noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died.

I tend to take an even darker view than Marshall, adding in my own expectations of calamities, based on human behavior and probabilities.

how is that for sunshine? :biggrin1::wink:
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
True that...
While some athletes do make an obnoxious amount of money for what they do, I doubt anyone of them are in the top 1% tax bracket either. Plus, if you somehow can't perform your duties you don't get a bonus of $24 Million.

well, with all due respect VB, that is not true...i am assuming that you do not pay much attention to the business of sport out of lack of interest, (please note, i am just assuming that sporting business is simply not something that occupies a great deal of your thought/time as an important part of your life...no insult intended)

the top 1% "tax bracket" does not really exist...

there really is only 1 way to interpret the "top 1%"...and that is the richest three million people in this country (roughly 1% of the populus)

the top tax bracket is 35% federal, for those earning over $372,950 per year and up

-the minimum salary for a major league baseball player is $390,000 (that is to say, anybody playing in the major leagues regularly, cannot earn less than that) which means that every major league baseball player is in the top federal tax bracket.

- the minimum salary for an NBA basketball player, for 2009-2010, starts at
$442,000 dollars for a player with zero years in the league...the minimum increases for every year spent in the league: for example:

years of service.....minimum salary
1.............736,420
2............825,497
3............855,189
4............884,881
5............959,111
6............1,033,342
7............1,107,572
8............1,181,803
9............1,187,686
10+........1,306,455

--

NFL Minimum salary

2009

yrs served....min salary
0..........310,000
1..........385,000
2.........460,000
3.........535,000
4-6......620,000
7-9......745,000
10+......845,000





The average salary per player for the three major sports leagues above are:

MLB - $3.15 million (2008)
NBA - $5.356 million (2009)
NFL - $1.1 million (2009)


plus, each of those athletes receive a pension fund after they retire



as for someone not performing their duties getting bonuses, well, that is not true either...all contracts in the NBA and MAjor League Baseball are "Guaranteed"...the NFL is the only one where the full portion of salary is not guaranteed, due to the relevance of injury, but even still, usually %60 is guaranteed.


i would say, that anyone who plays in any of the three sports leagues mentioned above, for a minimum period of time of about 2-3 years, would be in the top 1% of americans in terms of wealth.


in the NFL there are for last year at least 25 players making over $12 million and hundreds more making in the 1-5 million, and 5-10 million dollar range (don't forget, there are roughly 1700 NFL players at any one time)


the baltimore ravens football team alone, has 22 players earning between 1 and 10 million dollars a year. another 14 players earn between 500k to 1 million a year.

(this is an interesting sortable salary matrix for all nfl players and teams)

Baltimore-Ravens Salaries | Baltimore-Ravens Player Salaries | 2009 Baltimore-Ravens Salary



this is the same in terms of baseball salaries and teams (sortable)

the baltimore orioles baseball team has 9 players earning between 1 and 8 million a year

Baltimore-Orioles Salaries | Baltimore-Orioles Player Salaries | 2009 Baltimore-Orioles Salary


the LA Lakers basketball team has 11 players earning between 2 and 24 million a year

Los-Angeles-Lakers Salaries | Los-Angeles-Lakers Player Salaries | 2009 Los-Angeles-Lakers Salary


----
with regards to the actual ownership of wealth in this country with rregards to the gist of the thread, i would say this chart depicts it very accurately in this survey by the Federal Reserve Board from 2004

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/Wealth2004.gif

---


the top 1% of this country is referred to as the "Upper" or "Capitalist" class.

it is defined most recently, by these scholars, Thompson and Hickey. and Beeghley in two different studies



Thompson/Hickey -
Upper Class = 1%
income of $500,000+ a year

Beeghley -
"Super Rich" = 1% (.9% actually)
income of $350,000+ a year



pretty much all athletes, even the barest minimum that play in these leagues for any time over 2-3 years are among the richest 1% of this nation.



there are only about 15,000 total americans who earn over $9.5 million a year in this country...a great many of them are pro athletes
 
Last edited:

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,877
Media
9
Likes
3,761
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In the end, money is money. It doesn't matter where it came from, whether you earned it by hard working or not. Is money worth more because you worked for it? Absolutely not, it's worth the same amount. So does it matter where it came from? I don't think so.

really? so you think the CEO of United Health Care truly "earns" $57,000 per hour while the average annual income of Americans hovers near $40,000 per year?

And he does this in part by denying coverage for clients who pay health insurance premiums just to enhance the company's bottom line so Wall Street is happy and investors, who do NOT work hard, get better returns on their investment.

.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
A valid question coming from someone whose country used to have one of the most rigid caste systems in the world and where vast wealth was held by a tiny minority of less than 1% creating one of the most lopsided wealth distributed societies in the world.

I do NOT say that as a criticism but merely as an observation because the very same was true in France and yet France's system violently collapsed while the British system largely dismantled itself peacefully. I want to touch on that later.

The hallmark of stability in a democracy is a prosperous middle class. The more disparate wealth becomes, the more precarious the political system becomes.

What is often overlooked in UK history is the fact that we had a "Glorious Revolution" some 100 years before the US and France for that matter. The issues were pretty much the same and the political mouthpiece was John Locke whom Jefferson and Franklyn numbered amongst their role models. The revolution was almost bloodless and I suppose that that suggests that Monarchy is an exceptionally good form of Government when you want to change it.

Anyway what I wished to pick up on was your last point. I am not so sure that this remains true in Europe. The traditional professional Middle Class may earn $150,000 but their disposeable income after tax and the "right" sort of housing and educational committments can be no better than someone on $75,000 without those committments.

The Middle Class need to understand that they are being socio-politically engineered, their class lifestyle choices are costing them very dear. The majority of the US Middle Class are to my knowledge vehemently opposed to the European system and I can not blame them. Where is Wyld Goosey?

But then as you say Jason, try to get money out of the super rich? Not a chance, so if you want the social policies of Europe, you will have to tax the Middle Class. Good luck Barak, it isn't going to happen.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Is it to late to get in the nba for a bloke who is to short and to fat to play? how about the nfl?

btw some premiership footballers earn £120000k a week!

well, while undoubtedly the international footballers earn quite a pretty penny, Like Ronaldo, Messi etc...but they do not even compare to the highest earning basketball/baseball/football guys...but their wealth is certainly nothing to sneeze at! :biggrin1:
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,877
Media
9
Likes
3,761
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
...the LA Lakers basketball team has 11 players earning between 2 and 24 million a year...

looking at only that one statistic to prove a point...

and yet, when it comes time to "celebrate" the earth moving significance of this team's accomplishments the City of Los Angeles is expected to pick up the tab for a parade with all its requisite and associated expenses.

The Lakers' organization can afford to dole out tens of millions of dollars to a worthy few off the backs of ticket purchasers and advertisers hawking goods to the masses but can't afford to pay $1M to fund a parade through the streets. Those are tax dollars that would otherwise go to fund other important civic responsibilities to benefit the many.

We do indeed have an unfair wealth distribution system in this nation and it's about time we reverse it.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Please, let's not fall into the trap of "redistributing" your neighbor's wealth, the guy who makes perhaps $100,000 a year.

Nobody's talking about him.

We're talking about the CEO who owns 5 billion dollars of financial wealth... and redistributing some of that wealth back into the country's infrastructure and to the have-nots in the form of a healthcare system... I know, I know. SO Marxist! So unreasonable. That CEO can survive on just one billion, I'll bet.


oh, and by the way Trinitom..i forgot, and almost let you get away with this one..."We're talking about the CEO who owns 5 billion dollars of financial wealth..."


your average CEO does not own 5 billion dollars of financial wealth.

the few CEO's who actually do own that type of wealth, are CEO's of *THEIR OWN COMPANY THAT THEY FOUNDED*

people like
Warren Buffet - BErkshire Hathaway
Lawrence Ellison - Oracle
Michael Dell - Dell Computer
Jeff Bezos - Amazon
Eric Schmidt - Google
Charles Ergen - DISH Network
Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
Ralph Lauren - Ralph Lauren
Shelly Adelson - Las Vegas Sands
Fred Smith - Fed Ex
Steve Jobs - Apple

just to name a few.

these meanies aren't just some random CEO, who walked in started sucking huge money out of the company while running it badly...they are the people who *FOUNDED* and *BUILT* these companies, employed millions of people, and reaped the deserved benefits.


and just FYI...of the Forbes 400, just released....37 of the top 50 are self-made, and built their companies. 7 others, were the heirs to Wal Mart and Mars Candy.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
looking at only that one statistic to prove a point...

and yet, when it comes time to "celebrate" the earth moving significance of this team's accomplishments the City of Los Angeles is expected to pick up the tab for a parade with all its requisite and associated expenses.

The Lakers' organization can afford to dole out tens of millions of dollars to a worthy few off the backs of ticket purchasers and advertisers hawking goods to the masses but can't afford to pay $1M to fund a parade through the streets. Those are tax dollars that would otherwise go to fund other important civic responsibilities to benefit the many.

We do indeed have an unfair wealth distribution system in this nation and it's about time we reverse it.

laughable.

if you did not want the parade, you did not have to have it.

and of course in your screed, you forgot to mention that the most important amount of money comes from TV money and the legitimate selling of LAkers Paraphenelia.

if you don't like it, don't watch the Lakers, buy their gear, or go their games.

otherwise stop complaining.

cities sponsor parades for civic pride. ever hear of the St Patrick's Day Parade?

as for those "earth moving accomplishments", the Lakers do a significant amount of things for the Los Angeles community of which they are a part.

they help employ thousands of people at the Staples Center.
they pay massive amounts of money in tax to the city of los angeles based on their 170 - 190 million in revenue per year.

oh, and of course you did not bother to mention the LA Lakers Charitable foundation, which does a ton of good things every year and has been doing it for decades....

LAKERS: FOUNDATION


and i do not even like the Lakers or Basketball

so grow up.