5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans

[Guy Incognito]

I'm more of a value/contrarian/dividend investor.
If it is overvalued, time to sell.
If it is at a stable value and the dividend is good, buy.
If it is under valued, buy.

Good strategy. That's the reason why I'm into PMs, they are incredibly undervalued right now.

I don't hold any.
That stuff is way overvalued.
The pricing is mostly driven by economic fear.

Couldn't disagree more, except with respect to gold, which is way overvalued [edit: actually, with the recent gold correction it is just about right]. It's why I like silver so much, which is undervalued at the moment. Even base metals like copper and nickel are also going nowhere but up as fiat currency continues to get devalued.

You're really putting all your eggs in one basket when you have all your investments tied up in fiat money. If nothing else, at least shares in a gold/silver mine, but they have a volatility that I don't like.

You seem to think that economic fear is something to be disregarded, but markets are all emotion. The fear is palpable, and it is not going away, because it is a very realistic fear.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Nah, I think he's alluding to the current market volatility, which makes it seem to be bad to do the passive buy and hold strategy.

It doesn't just seem bad. You've probably got a better shot at getting rich at the Seminole Hard Rock than you do playing the stock market these days. Low risk investing simply cannot keep pace with inflation.

If you continue to play by the old rules, the ones they came up with back in the fat days, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Guy Incognito]

So no one has moved in class since Bush2? I don't follow.

Not no one, just fewer. There is no more mobility because the economic collapse which Bush caused has demolished the status quo. There was a massive wealth redistribution scheme that was begun by Reagan a rapidly accelerated under Bush, to selectively deregulate and pool money in the hands of the ultrawealthy. After the crash, the conservative investing strategy that paid off for a generation stopped paying off. If you invest too passively you bleed money now. If you take too many risks you are basically gambling. So, sure, there is some class mobility. But you're as likely to get rich from the casino or the track as you are from the stock market.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'd be curious to see that data broken down. My first inclination is to argue that those cheaper goods are mostly luxury items. No denying that digital cameras, cell phones, TVs and the like are much, much cheaper (which is why so many poor people have them). But is it true with the things we rely on most? Transportation? Housing? Health care? Those things represent the biggest expenses for most households.

Housing, transportation and medical care are more expensive, in dollar amount, but (and this is important) we get much more per person, per dollar, than in the past.
Transportation (cars specifically) are more durable and more fuel efficient, which can translate to a lower lifetime cost, than vehicles in prior years and that doesn't take in to account the safety increases.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Good strategy. That's the reason why I'm into PMs, they are incredibly undervalued right now.

I believe PM's to be overvalued but not all commodities, like alum and copper.

Couldn't disagree more, except with respect to gold, which is way overvalued [edit: actually, with the recent gold correction it is just about right]. It's why I like silver so much, which is undervalued at the moment. Even base metals like copper and nickel are also going nowhere but up as fiat currency continues to get devalued.

You're really putting all your eggs in one basket when you have all your investments tied up in fiat money. If nothing else, at least shares in a gold/silver mine, but they have a volatility that I don't like.

You seem to think that economic fear is something to be disregarded, but markets are all emotion. The fear is palpable, and it is not going away, because it is a very realistic fear.

If I were to invest in gold or silver, it would be in physical form, whether it be small rings or some form of small measurable amount.

Economic fear is usually, very exaggerated.
All I see are businesses, that are very interested in people trading them their "worthless" paper dollars, for PM's.
That says a lot to me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Bull****. You're perfectly willing to take all these great things provided to you by society, but when you're asked to contribute to society in turn, suddenly you owe it nothing. Aren't you the ones always talking about parasites?

complete crap. The rich are rich mainly because they provide a lot of value to society

and they get absolutely no additional value FROM GOVERNMENT despite paying so much more TO THE GOVERNMENT than others

 

[winston53660]

complete crap. The rich are rich mainly because they provide a lot of value to society

and they get absolutely no additional value FROM GOVERNMENT despite paying so much more TO THE GOVERNMENT than others

I guess we should make the wealthy build their own roads so their employees can get to work.

 

[What if...?]

I guess we should make the wealthy build their own roads so their employees can get to work.

That's a terrible idea.

They'd just charge their employees to use them!

Wage slavery is vastly superior to chattel slavery.

It shifts the costs of maintaining the livestock onto the livestock. Turning costs into profits.

 

[Ikari]

Luck is an imaginary thing, it doesn't exist.
Chance on the other hand does and if you prepare yourself, you can overcome obstacles that are thrown in your way or at least diminish the damage done.
Proper planning and all that.

Economic mobility is dependent on multiple factors, corporate capitalism is just one of the many negatives in this word.
On the other hand, throwing in the towel and claiming defeat is a sure way to never advance.



Of course.
You don't need the wealth of rich people to build yourself up.
You need to properly plan and then make alternative plans, if those things go awry to a least diminish the damage.

This is simplistic at best and cannot be aggregated to the whole of the population. Particularly given the corruption of the markets into the corporate capitalist model we have now where economic mobility is shunted even further.

A proper plan with diminished damage is a good idea, but it's not going to work out all the time. Not everyone wins, even if they planned accordingly.

 

[Alyssa]

It's probably splitting hairs on my end, but I prefer the term, chance.

Luck, to me, denotes a supernatural effect.
Which I don't really believe in.

yeah same effect. Some people have good "chance" and others don't.

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess we should make the wealthy build their own roads so their employees can get to work.

that's stupid. roads are basically financed with gasoline taxes. does one millionaire who pays 400K a year in income tax use more federal services than say 100 million americans who pay less income tax total than that one millionaire?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It points out the irrelevance of the fact, and, how it's misleading.

Mathematically, it's normal and expected. It's not following individuals, so it's only a gap between 0 and near zero earnings, and the very highest.
Given population growth, and global expansion, and ever-increasing opportunities to access larger markets that young kids can jump in and dominate (see facebook, google, yahoo, etc.), the top is and should be increasing dramatically. So take any time today, and 20 years from now the bottom earners should be fairly flat, relatively close to 0. Those earning the most, should be some percentage of the overall markets, which are ever-increasing(*). Again, it's not individuals, so only if you keep doing the same job, for the same wage, your entire life, would this be relevant.

Put more simply, if you earned nothing twenty years ago, and earned nothing today, you'd have flat income growth.
If you instead grabbed 10% of the video game market via business venture 20 years ago you'd get $500M in revenue. Holding that share you'd then have 4x that, or $2B in revenue.
Assuming you get compensated in some way based on percentage, what happens to your income with respect to the $0 earners (or near 0 such as min wage).? And since that is not a figure based on individuals over time (the gap is not following the same people), it doesn't prompt any call to action..other than today is better than every before to participate in world market growth (well, not today, but you get the idea).

A far more comprehensive analsyis can be found here that takes into account entitlements, size of the brackets, and work:
Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States

I read the study, and I have a few things to point out:

1. Their study looks at income after capital gains, taxes and "welfare state" payments, so it's a measure of relative income distribution after our social mechanisms kick in, as opposed to Census data that looks at money income before taxes. Thus, it's a poor measure of income extracted from the private economy. If the Heritage Foundation is trying to show that the welfare state is necessary, this study is a good start.

2. It's a 2004 study looking at 2002 data, meaning almost all of the Bush tax cuts are not represented. This study uses the same basic tax rates as under Clinton.

3. The study does not refute wage stagnation. Median incomes have been stagnant at the lowest levels but have gone up significantly at the higher quintiles.

4. Some of it is just common sense. Those who are unemployed for any significant time, for example, (around 5% in 2002?) are necessarily going to work fewer hours and will necessarily be in a lower quintile than they otherwise might have been.

My favorite part of the study was adjusting the household income data for population representation. Those numbers were surprising to me and very interesting. I thought that was the study's strongest case. Those numbers are somewhat self-reinforcing, however, as households with more working adults will likely have higher household income.

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

 

[winston53660]

that's stupid. roads are basically financed with gasoline taxes. does one millionaire who pays 400K a year in income tax use more federal services than say 100 million americans who pay less income tax total than that one millionaire?

If that millionaire is expecting employees to show up to work on publicly financed roads yes that millionaire is benefiting more from the public road system otherwise they would have to build their own roads to get employees to work.

 

[atrasicarius]

that's stupid. roads are basically financed with gasoline taxes. does one millionaire who pays 400K a year in income tax use more federal services than say 100 million americans who pay less income tax total than that one millionaire?

Yes, because if it weren't for those roads, I guarantee that he wouldn't be a millionaire. People do not exist in a vacuum.

 

[TurtleDude]

If that millionaire is expecting employees to show up to work on publicly financed roads yes that millionaire is benefiting more from the public road system otherwise they would have to build their own roads to get employees to work.

this is just plain stupid

maybe the employees should pay because its how they earn income through their job

Your attempt to demand more money from those who pay far more than they use is well known but poorly reasoned. Indeed its emotobabbling not rational thought behind those pathetic posts

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, because if it weren't for those roads, I guarantee that he wouldn't be a millionaire. People do not exist in a vacuum.

and if it weren't from income redistribution, many of the poor would be vulture bait

the rich pay far more than they use, the poor far less

 

[atrasicarius]

and if it weren't from income redistribution, many of the poor would be vulture bait

the rich pay far more than they use, the poor far less

:rofl
Income redistribution? Look at the thread your in. Income is only being redistributed in one direction, and it's not the direction you want it to be. The poor people would be fine if it weren't for their income being redistributed to the top.

 

[TurtleDude]

:rofl
Income redistribution? Look at the thread your in. Income is only being redistributed in one direction, and it's not the direction you want it to be. The poor people would be fine if it weren't for their income being redistributed to the top.

I don't consider making money through work, enterprise, investments etc to be REDISTRIBUTION

redistribution is the government taking wealth and giving it to people mainly to buy their votes or their allegiance

 

[atrasicarius]

I don't consider making money through work, enterprise, investments etc to be REDISTRIBUTION

redistribution is the government taking wealth and giving it to people mainly to buy their votes or their allegiance

You mean like bailouts and subsidies?

 

[Karl]

complete crap. The rich are rich mainly because they provide a lot of value to society [...]

Mmmm... you've just valued rich people higher than poor people. I see the subsequent chattel comment was on the mark... and that the Kool Aid must be tasty

[...] and they get absolutely no additional value FROM GOVERNMENT despite paying so much more TO THE GOVERNMENT than others

You should visit a few third world countries, then you would see the value. Beyond basic civility (security, sanitation, and public utilities), in general terms that value consists of an obedient and semi-educated supply of workers and servants. And as already noted by others, if a corporation's 10,000 workers use public facilities to commute to work, then that corporation receives 10,000 times the government benefit than it would individually (I realize that corporations are not people, but am arguing in right wing terms -- in other words, inaccurately ).

Futher, if all social programs (welfare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) were turned off tomorrow, as the GOP/TeaParty/RightWingTalkMedia advocate, how long do you think it would be before the ultra-rich Walton family business (Wal-Mart) went bankrupt?

Lastly, as to who pays what,
the bottom 20% pay a 4.8% effective federal tax rate while the top 20% pay 25.8%; this while
the bottom 20% have 4.7% of the after-tax income while the top 20% have 52.1% (CBO 2009 report, Table 1 (2006 data)). If you add in effective state and local tax rates the much ballyhooed yet fallacious right wing 'free ride' claim will falter even further.

 

[Karl]

I don't consider making money through work, enterprise, investments etc to be REDISTRIBUTION

redistribution is the government taking wealth and giving it to people mainly to buy their votes or their allegiance

Hmmm.... the right loves to make up definitions for existing words. Perhaps they should try an argument to fit the facts rather than redefining the facts to fit the argument?

In any case, your earlier comment about "demanding" more money from the rich struck a chord: the government setting tax rates are simply capitalism at work -- they charge what the market will bear

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean like bailouts and subsidies?

find one post of mine where I support those

and bailouts sure saved a lot of union jobs

 

[TurtleDude]

Mmmm... you've just valued rich people higher than poor people. I see the subsequent chattel comment was on the mark... and that the Kool Aid must be tasty


You should visit a few third world countries, then you would see the value. Beyond basic civility (security, sanitation, and public utilities), in general terms that value consists of an obedient and semi-educated supply of workers and servants. And as already noted by others, if a corporation's 10,000 workers use public facilities to commute to work, then that corporation receives 10,000 times the government benefit than it would individually (I realize that corporations are not people, but am arguing in right wing terms -- in other words, inaccurately ).

Futher, if all social programs (welfare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) were turned off tomorrow, as the GOP/TeaParty/RightWingTalkMedia advocate, how long do you think it would be before the ultra-rich Walton family business (Wal-Mart) went bankrupt?

Lastly, as to who pays what,
the bottom 20% pay a 4.8% effective federal tax rate while the top 20% pay 25.8%; this while
the bottom 20% have 4.7% of the after-tax income while the top 20% have 52.1% (CBO 2009 report, Table 1 (2006 data)). If you add in effective state and local tax rates the much ballyhooed yet fallacious right wing 'free ride' claim will falter even further.

complete horsecrap

The rich are more valued as taxpayers.

and I have no duty to pay your share of what you use
from each according to their ability is not something I have much use for

in nature, you provide for yourself or you starve. That is the starting point of reality

not that the rich have a duty to take care of the unproductive or untalented or even the unlucky.

 

[TurtleDude]

Mmmm... you've just valued rich people higher than poor people. I see the subsequent chattel comment was on the mark... and that the Kool Aid must be tasty


You should visit a few third world countries, then you would see the value. Beyond basic civility (security, sanitation, and public utilities), in general terms that value consists of an obedient and semi-educated supply of workers and servants. And as already noted by others, if a corporation's 10,000 workers use public facilities to commute to work, then that corporation receives 10,000 times the government benefit than it would individually (I realize that corporations are not people, but am arguing in right wing terms -- in other words, inaccurately ).

Futher, if all social programs (welfare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) were turned off tomorrow, as the GOP/TeaParty/RightWingTalkMedia advocate, how long do you think it would be before the ultra-rich Walton family business (Wal-Mart) went bankrupt?

Lastly, as to who pays what,
the bottom 20% pay a 4.8% effective federal tax rate while the top 20% pay 25.8%; this while
the bottom 20% have 4.7% of the after-tax income while the top 20% have 52.1% (CBO 2009 report, Table 1 (2006 data)). If you add in effective state and local tax rates the much ballyhooed yet fallacious right wing 'free ride' claim will falter even further.

rates what stupidity

the top 1% have 22% of the income yet pay 40% of the income tax

the bottom 50% have about 12% of the income yet pay less than 4% of the income tax. the top few percent ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE who pay A HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX burden than their share of the income

 

[MaggieD]

Uh oh im igniting class war:ssst:....
Can you say a coming oligarchy? And the right seems to be perfectly okay with this... They complain about "mob rule" but isnt an oligarchy "mob rule"?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?


5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans | Economy | AlterNet

Yes, I have a response. The median hourly earnings of "all" workers in the U.S. was $18.48 in 2009. Median. Half make more. And, OMG!! Half make less. That's a 50% concentration of wealth. OMG!! I think those workers making more than $18.48 an hour should give up some of their earnings so those who make less can make more. Let's redistribute the average earnings of all workers in the United States!! Interested? Hands, please? Anybody??

http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-29940_23422-64409--,00.html

Oh! And, by the way, the average union carpenter makes, probably, twice that. Let's see those union carpenters share some of that wealth!!