• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How the Richest 400 People in America Got So Rich

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
shadow9d9 said:
Yet the lowest percentage, which is all that matters.
Click to expand...

When the rates on the upper class were 70% and up, they didn't pay as great of a percentage of the taxes collected as they do today. Taxes are about collecting more revenue, not what seems fair.
 
Matt1970 said:
When the rates on the upper class were 70% and up, they didn't pay as great of a percentage of the taxes collected as they do today. Taxes are about collecting more revenue, not what seems fair.
Click to expand...

The didn't earn as great a percentage then either.
 
Matt1970 said:
Yep, they make more money and that must be stopped.

400 people are NOT sitting on half the entire US wealth.

U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth%2C_2007.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

It's closer to 5% so 15 Million people are sitting on 1/2 of the US Wealth, not 400. And by comparison the top 5% pay 41% of all Federal Taxes. Maybe leech has a new meaning I didn't get a notice on.
Click to expand...

This aint 2007 anymore. And you use net worth and not financial wealth. Who lost all their money in 2008? Who got bailouts?

To show the difference for 2007 alone:
wealth-distribution-2007.gif


Kinda reminds me abit of this (2009):
motherjones-wealth-distribution-feb-2011.JPG


And a real example of wealth distribution compared to Sweden. (2011):
us-v-sweden.png
 
Last edited:
Incorruptible said:
How are they "leeches" the real leeches are the people on welfare and government bureaucrats
Click to expand...

Let me answer this for you.

They are leeches because to a large degree they influence policy for their direct benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Whereas you have people on welfare that simply don't contribute in any way to the process or policy.

You could argue that welfare is a tool used to garner votes, but you would still need to ignore the fact the rich and big business directly benefit from welfare and social safety nets.
 
Your graph is pretty much the same as mine which both show 400 people do not own 50% of the wealth. And Sweden has the population of NY City. Nice comparison.
 
Matt1970 said:
Your graph is pretty much the same as mine which both show 400 people do not own 50% of the wealth. And Sweden has the population of NY City. Nice comparison.
Click to expand...

So you wish to cover wealth distribution behind size? France and Germany aint so much different than Sweden.

The graph you link is from 2007. Before average joe lost his money, while rich got bailouts. To compare the median household networth dropped from 126400$ in 2007 to 77300$ in 2010.

There is a reason why 45mio americans live in poverty.
 
Last edited:
sportage said:
You have to figure in your wonderful 401K takes most of the risk from the employer and places it on the shoulders of the worker.
Pretty slick if you ask me.
Considering the success rate at killing off unions AND pensions.
Which for the large part, were not tied to how the market is doing.
But that a dog for a different day...
Click to expand...

Can someone explain this? As far as I'm concerned, my 401k contribution is coming out of my own wages, plus a match by the employer. How is it taking any risk away from the employer? I must be missing something.

Ok, I am assuming that the 401K is in lieu of pensions that are non-existent now. I guess thats what the post meant.
 
lotus503 said:
Let me answer this for you.

They are leeches because to a large degree they influence policy for their direct benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Whereas you have people on welfare that simply don't contribute in any way to the process or policy.

You could argue that welfare is a tool used to garner votes, but you would still need to ignore the fact the rich and big business directly benefit from welfare and social safety nets.
Click to expand...

Americans are getting it.

Took a long time but enough have been so negatively affected they are starting to think about ways to go against the 1%.

The Occupy Movement was just the beginning.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Americans are getting it.

Took a long time but enough have been so negatively affected they are starting to think about ways to go against the 1%.

The Occupy Movement was just the beginning.
Click to expand...

I am just amazed how so many "supposed" american republicans allow a tiny elite group to mislead them and control them like puppets.

Or is it some dream that these people one day hope to sit in the top? Thats about as likely as winning the lottery.

I really cant understand why anyone would allow an regressive tax system. Unless they have a gun to their head perhaps. Or simply dont know any better.
 
Last edited:
Incorruptible said:
LOL at you thinking you "got" me

Yes, REAL Conservatives do.
Click to expand...

Not at all, it was a honest question. Since almost every politican you listen to is very pro spending in terms of the military. And most would know that the military spending amount is..ridiciously. Right now the US is headed the same way as the Soviet. Way too high military cost compared to what the country and bear. Someone forgot to cut spending after the cold war.
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK said:
So conservatives support military spending cuts?
Click to expand...

A lot of us do. Do we really need over 100,000 troops just stationed at bases overseas? We could cut $100 Billion for Defence and still have by far the most powerful Military capable of crushing any other Military around the world.
 
ShintaiDK said:
.
Or is it some dream that these people one day hope to sit in the top? Thats about as likely as winning the lottery.

I really cant understand why anyone would allow an regressive tax system. Unless they have a gun to their head perhaps. Or simply dont know any better.
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that most Americans believe in the american dream of being self made, that in the USA you can become anything you want if you work hard enough.

The reality is that the USA is the least socially mobile of all the rich countries in the world (ref The spirit level page 160). That not only makes it far less likely to be self made, but that the USA is the worst country to try and do it in. But in my opinion that is one reason why they argue for policy that keeps the wealthy wealthier than them.

There are lots of other reasons, belief in trickle down economics, maybe a belief that capitalism in its purist form is the most productive or perhaps maybe some of them are ignorant of the facts of the situation. We are all after all largely ignorant of the things we don't spend our days doing and choosing experts to follow is hard to judge as an outsider.
 
Matt1970 said:
A lot of us do. Do we really need over 100,000 troops just stationed at bases overseas? We could cut $100 Billion for Defence and still have by far the most powerful Military capable of crushing any other Military around the world.
Click to expand...

You could also cut 400B$ and still have the same.

I dont think any amount over 300B$ for the military can really be excused for a country the size of the US. And even 300B$ would be considered very very high.

Both the debt and the US infrastructure could both benefit greatly from the reduction.

9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png
 
Last edited:
BrightCandle said:
I would hazard a guess that most Americans believe in the american dream of being self made, that in the USA you can become anything you want if you work hard enough.

The reality is that the USA is the least socially mobile of all the rich countries in the world (ref The spirit level page 160). That not only makes it far less likely to be self made, but that the USA is the worst country to try and do it in. But in my opinion that is one reason why they argue for policy that keeps the wealthy wealthier than them.

There are lots of other reasons, belief in trickle down economics, maybe a belief that capitalism in its purist form is the most productive or perhaps maybe some of them are ignorant of the facts of the situation. We are all after all largely ignorant of the things we don't spend our days doing and choosing experts to follow is hard to judge as an outsider.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
ShintaiDK said:
You could also cut 400B$ and still have the same.

I dont think any amount over 300B$ for the military can really be excused for a country the size of the US. And even 300B$ would be considered very very high.

Both the debt and the US infrastructure could both benefit greatly from the reduction.

9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png
Click to expand...

You are probably right but what is the likelyhood of getting that through the House and Senate?
 
ShintaiDK said:
9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png
Click to expand...

Its also worth mentioning that several of the comparison counties here are also massive spenders on military as percentages of government income. The USA is still famous as its federal budget is completely dominated by military spending (ref latest USA federal budget summary) whereas many other countires like the UK are dominated by social security (ref latest UK budget).

The USA could definitely reduce its military spend and secure not only its homeland but its interests abroad. When you have enough spend to occupy 2 countries and still defend home and then likely invade and oppress another its quite impressive but its costing a pretty penny.
 
BrightCandle said:
Its also worth mentioning that several of the comparison counties here are also massive spenders on military as percentages of government income. The USA is still famous as its federal budget is completely dominated by military spending (ref latest USA federal budget summary) whereas many other countires like the UK are dominated by social security (ref latest UK budget).

The USA could definitely reduce its military spend and secure not only its homeland but its interests abroad. When you have enough spend to occupy 2 countries and still defend home and then likely invade and oppress another its quite impressive but its costing a pretty penny.
Click to expand...

Military spending has become a lynchpin of corporate welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top