So, artificially inflated stock prices artificially inflate the wealth figures of the richest Americans? Yeah, that makes sense. EDIT: Wait, this is income, not "wealth". I rescind my initial response.
In 1980, there were 4,000 millionaires. In 1988 there were 64,000. Nice that the top 1% isn't so much an exclusive club anymore.
I thought this thread was going to be about President Obama's Democratic National Convention acceptance speech being held at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte.
Just about every homeowner in the SF Bay area is a millionaire. Well, certainly many of them. If they borrowed against their equity a $million, they'd not show that as income, but would have bought a $million yacht or whatever. The whole top 1% thing is full of crappy insinuations.
Exactly, and for tax purposes, Warren Buffet is not considered a 1% taxpayer, based on the $100k 'salary' he reports, and the federal taxes he pays on it. IRS data for Buffett at this link.
Yet a neurosurgeon who works 80 hour weeks and spent 12 years in schooling after college while saving lives is part of the greedy 1%.
So while he gets the opportunity to attend college, socialize and learn in a educational environment for 12 years while I dig ditches and bust my butt for 12 years . . . and then after all that time he is learning while I am working he now wants to go to work, get paid more than 99% of the population and not see his taxes increased. What a country for 1%!
His capital gains are on the sale of his stock in his own company, not the stocks the company trades. If his cost basis in his shares is $.01, he made nearly all that money as long term capital gains and truly did pay 15%. The only additional tax he'd have paid is on the $.01, which Likely was after tax money.
The whole 1% thing is more emotional than factual, so a single chart doesn't really mean much. Is "1%" based on income? A single year of income? A single year of regular income? Or is it based on all income, including money that has already been taxed once? Or is it based on wealth, which includes money and property that has often accumulated over the course of decades? I honestly don't know which it is, and it seems that many just pick whichever definition suits their purpose and then sticks it at the top of a chart. (Not that westknob did that. I'm just saying.) Ed O.
You do understand 1% is always 1%? And 99% is always 99%? Count the people dying in poverty compared to 1980, and get back to me.
Two guys paint widgets, get paid by the hour. The first guy paints 2 an hour and does a shitty job. The second guy paints 10 an hour and does a great job. Why shouldn't the 2nd guy get paid more by the hour? Isn't that "disparity?"
Since the first guy is probably in a union, and the second guy is not (meaning he must work hard to keep his job), I'm guessing that the guy who paints 2 an hour not only gets paid more, but he also has his retirement set by age 50.
when i grow up im gonna be a unicorn rider, the best in all the land, as only a eunuch could grand climacteric sonnets will be written with an air of grandeur consistent with the significance of my feats placed away inside my cage, my testes get the best of me now that they flee, its up to god, to kindly bless the rest of me i mount my steed, my one horned stallion, jaunting fancy free he leads the way, i steer the course, for all the world to see clouuuuuud daaaaancing, make the heavens cry clouuuuuud daaaaancing, always live and never die
