Tech Rich Get Richer 830
theodp writes "The economy is improving, at least for the super rich. After two years of declines, the aggregate net worth of the U.S.'s wealthiest 400 citizens leapt 10% in the past year to $995 billion, according to Forbes' annual ranking. The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East coast to the tech-centric West. Bill Gates capped off a decade in the top spot after his fortune increased by $3B to $46B. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held onto 3rd place, his net worth rising $1B to $22B. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who saw his fortune expand by more than $3B to $5.1B, was the top gainer on the list. And with a measly $1.4B, Jerry Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a 16-way tie for 162nd place."
55 Billion (Score:5, Interesting)
50 Years 1,100,000,000
12 months 91,666,667
4 weeks 22,916,667
7 days 3,273,810
24 hours 136,409
He could spend 136 Grand an hour for the next 50 years & still have money over, even without interest.
That's a HellOfALotOf Gin & Tonics.
D
I've always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
What do people do with all this money? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know what these people intend to do with such fortunes. I assume part of it is really stocks, and so it's company worth rather than personal worth, but still, I can't see ever needing more than, say, $2-3 million over the course of my entire life.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:2, Interesting)
Really mees up thier children's world view.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:3, Interesting)
The more money you have, the more you can imagine spending money on. You and I never think about buying our own private luxury yacht, complete with crew, helicopter, etc., because it's so beyond what we can afford. When, however, you look at your bank balance and realise that you can, but you just need to double your estate to make it worthwhile...
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)
Any one can give out any amount of money. Because in fact money is not really paper bills, but rather power to do as you please.
You too can be a millionare (Score:5, Interesting)
It can be quite sobering to find out that you are in the top 0.9% richest people in the world. Thats a hell of a lot of people poorer than you.
I'm sure people will rip this apart because it's based on global data, doesn't take into account cost variations in countries and 101 other things - but give it a go anyway.
What bothers me (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, corporate CEOs and super rich are much more productive than the average person....but their brains still tick at a mere 1000hz. They can still only speak at a slowish 150wpm and listen at the same rate. Their memories still have limited durations like all other mortal humans. It just isn't physically possible for them to have done the work of 10,000 other people.
The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
In some cases, the money was stolen from fortunes made by the ideas and productive results of employees of the company. Does anyone truly believe Jobs invented the imac and made it's phenomenal success possible? If you believe that, ask Wozniac what Jobs did with Wozniac's work at Atari.
Before someone accuses me of the obvious : no, I am personally involved in any of this. I'm simply noting the truth.
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really have sent out this many resumes then you could do a few things:
- Look at your resume again. Why are people not interested in it? What can you do to make it better? Get advice from friends and family who aren't afraid of being critical.
- Look at the roles you are going for. Are you being realistic? Can you do that role? Does your resume emphasise the fact you can do that role?
- Look at the way you go to interviews. Do you dress smartly? Do you research the company beforehand? Do you make sure that (without looking like you're licking someones backside) you stand out from the crowd?
- Look at the area you are trying to get a job. You may have to face the unfortunately reality that you have to move. I've never been to the US so I don't know - but is Indiana really that bad? How open are you to moving?
You've probably heard all this a million times. If you were based in the UK (and maybe even if you're not) check out a very good book called "Great answers to tough interview questions [amazon.com]".Best of luck.
Rich Get Richer (Score:4, Interesting)
From the CIA World Factbook entry for the United States:-
Bill still stinking rich (Score:2, Interesting)
There's another way to look at it.. (Score:1, Interesting)
1. Bill Gates.
2. The Developers working for him
Who created Amazaon?
1. Jeff Bezos
2. The many people working behind the scenes.
and the list goes on and on. Only in fantasy land could one argue that these people "deserve" to have a 10% increase in their net worth, while the people underneath them, who play an important part in keeping things going, make less and less.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:1, Interesting)
which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2, Interesting)
Show me some real statistics, anyone can say "Well the rich pay 92% of taxes" but without saying which taxes that number means nothing. The poor pay a greater percentage of the social security tax, and a greater percentage of their income in general goes to taxes. The poor pay the majority of all taxes, the rich only pay the majority of sales taxes.
So lets hike the sales taxes through the roof and get rid of the social security and income taxes so the rich can actually pay 92% of all taxes.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many, many Americans who would disagree with you. Granted, the lot of us aren't losing fingers to meat grinders, which are subsequently fed back to us in hotdogs anymore, but there *was* a recent article on Slashdot (I believe? maybe I read it somewhere else) that this generation is the first in a long, long time to have less than their forebears.
The solution to this economy, abolish pay raises! (Score:3, Interesting)
In George Bush's most recent speech, a new solution was put forward to help create jobs and spur growth, SALARY CAPS! Thats right, just like what we have in sports, a cap on your salary will allow companies to hire more workers with the same money. Add to the fact that we can get rid of overtime pay and make them work harder and longer for free, maybe we can even cut their salary and reduce to exactly $1 above their cost of living and set the cap right there.
Re:two IT jobs to have a life? (Score:1, Interesting)
So did I, I found a new one.
b) have to work for free or similar because there are too many people that are willing to do the same
Then they need to retrain/refine their skills. I've been there, done that.
c) have to work for 70 hours a week to have a life?
Maybe it's the lifestyle that needs to be scaled back rather than the salary scaled up. Again, been there. I'm making 30% less than I was 18 months ago. I cut back and moved on. Not easy, but it can be done.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but for the rich to get richer in the long term, not only the poor have to become poorer, but the rich-but-not-quite-so-rich also. Not only do the rich get richer, they become fewer in numbers also. (This economical principal was the driving force behind most empires since the Roman empire btw.; and it often played a role in the downfall of these empires also.)
I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!
Being just one of the richer ultimately doesn't cut it. You'll have to amass so much money that you become richer no matter what you do. As long as you actually have to work to earn your living or even make your income grow, you're in danger.
Of course, since this principal has lead to various kinds of slavery (like wage slavery) in the past, there is reason for concern about the ethics behind it also, not only about it's stability in the long term. The instability is obviously caused by the (slave) uprisings, (socialist) revolutions and independence struggles at the far corners of the empire.
This pattern runs like a red herring through history. It's just so damn tempting to take the short term profits, try to become part of the elite, and screw up in the long term in the process ("because somebody else will do it anyway").
Wise man say... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Marry It
2) Inherit It
3) Steal It
Re:You too can be a millionare (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly right. Politicians are busy trying to buy the votes of the elderly and convince the rest of the voters to let them get away with it by saying the elderly are on "low incomes". But they completely ignore that the elderly have masses of capital - owning their homes outright, share portfolios, etc, etc. If taxation is to be progressive, it should be based on wealth not income.
And the Middle Class gets richer too!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone's money is growing, its just that the CEOs have a LOT more money invested than I do. That's what makes the USA's model the best in the world, we have the most opportunities to better ourselves. Nothing is stopping me from investing my money any differently than the rich can, and with hard work, I'll have the money to live the lifestyle I want.
Besides, have you looked at the tax laws lately? A man and wife, combined income of $100k, which is two standard engineer salaries of 50k. Guess what, you're "rich". Not exactly "fair" is it, but hey, lets keep calling to tax the rich, and someday we'll realize we're taxing ourselves.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that by definition, rich people are rich because they can buy whatever they want. Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
Also, the earned income tax credit was originally a Republican proposal if my memory serves me correctly. The idea behind it is also based on the above logic. Poor people are deemed poor because they DON'T have the money to purchase what they want. By giving them back money (or just giving them money) you are pretty much guaranteed they are going to spend it. If you give $1000 to a person who makes $20,000 a year, they will spend it. GIve $1000 to a person who makes $200,000 a year and has $1.5 million in assets, they might not even cash the check mailed to them by the government.
Now, I will be the first to admit that none of this solves the problem of a consumer driven economy. But, I am struggling as much as the next man. I would much rather improve our currently corrupt economy so I can pay the rent than plan for the future. Once we get things under control, then we can talk about changing the way our society works.
Not even true in the way YOU mean it (Score:5, Interesting)
And, of course, you're still being disingenuous. The recent tax cuts were enormously disproportionately aimed at the wealthiest 5% of the population, and designed really not to benefit anyone else, like those who would actually spend the money and stimulate the economy. (Large increases in spending/purchasing are a much better economic stimulus than large increases in investment with no increases in spending, which is what these tax cuts give us. Ask any rational economist.)
And given that this tax cut is likely to be made permanent, and that we're likely to be hit with a full-on capital gains tax moratorium if Bush is reelected, you will have the amusing experience of seeing large numbers of the richest five percent in the country (the 'idle rich') paying literally no federal income taxes at all, whle the middle class works to support the infrastructure of the country that they enjoy. Reagan tried to do that several times, and I believe Bush Sr. did as well.
Bush's economic team is on record as saying, and I believe this is an exact quote, that they needed to 'shift the tax burden down the income spectrum'. I.e., the rich should pay less in taxes and the middle class pay more. You may agree with this, and that's your perogative, but if you claim it's not happening you're either being blind or you're deliberately trying to make it easier for the administration.
Either way, pretty sad.
-fred
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center -- the 2001 tax cut, once fully phased in, will deliver 42 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of the income distribution. (Roughly speaking, that means families earning more than $330,000 per year.) The 2003 tax cut delivers a somewhat smaller share to the top 1 percent, 29.1 percent, but within that concentrates its benefits on the really, really rich. Families with incomes over $1 million a year -- a mere 0.13 percent of the population -- will receive 17.3 percent of this year's tax cut, more than the total received by the bottom 70 percent of American families. Indeed, the 2003 tax cut has already proved a major boon to some of America's wealthiest people: corporations in which executives or a single family hold a large fraction of stocks are suddenly paying much bigger dividends, which are now taxed at only 15 percent no matter how high the income of their recipient.
Sounds like TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH to me!!!
Re:Not even true in the way YOU mean it (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of the world still lives that way... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyhow, your statment betrays a certain ethnocentrism. Pragmatically, you describe your wealth as evidence that "capitalism" has improved your standard of living incredibly from the level experienced by your grandparents. Indeed it has -- my own grandparents lived in unheated row housing in England when they were children. This seems more like a product of scientific progress, however -- capitalism is the mechanism whereby the capitalist uses his or her personal power (i.e access to capital) as leverage to gain even more access to capital. In other words, capitalism is about capital, not about progress.
There are still (billions of) people living like our grandparents in the world. There are still people who think of a block of ice as a fridge, and where many children and mothers die at birth. Their extreme powerlessness in the face of the capitalists makes it nearly impossible to demand their fair share of the "wealth" they generate, and that excess wealth is shipped over here to us.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your motives, and you make no pretensions to an egalitarian belief that capitalism can raise people up without sending others down. Frankly, though, even if you are sincerely interested in the welfare of other people, you should try to expand your consideration of who benefits to the "invisible" people who make your shirts, assemble your electronics, and still live like your grandparents did. I don't believe that capitalism is evil, or that it's a zero-sum game, but I do believe that there is a limit to which individuals can fairly accumulate the wealth generated by others. As you pointed out, a person can only eat so much caviar -- even so, it seems like there are people who will continue to buy new warehouses to store the caviar in for themselves, rather than recognizing this fact.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html
You will find that the oft-touted "top one percent" begins at $292,913. You will also find that the "top ten percent" begins at $92,754.
If you make more than $92,754, and many people on
Yes, of the 130 Million personal returns received by the IRS in 2001 119,400,717 made under $100,000.
As for the tax cut, it does not take much math to see how any broad tax cut will benefit the rich. The bottom 62% of tax filers paid 14% of the income tax collected. The top 38% paid 86% of the tax, with the top 3% paid 41% of the tax. If we cut every penny of tax out for everyone making under $50,000, it would reduce tax revenue by only 14%. Since those people are still paying taxes, it doesn't take too much effort to see how the tax cuts certainly were much more to the benefit of other than the $50,000 or less 62% of the population, now does it?
"The Rich" is NOT a hard to define group. It is patently obvious. This is not liberal-pinko conspiracy theory. That definition is not an absurdity, it is a fact.
Don't insult our collective intelligence by assuming we can't define our terms when you scarcely begin to define your own.
A rich man's voice (Score:3, Interesting)
Published on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 by the Washington Post
Dividend Voodoo
by Warren Buffett
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation o