Home > Graphics, Plutonomy, upward income redistribution > Who are the 1 percent in the USA and how much do they make? (2 charts)

Who are the 1 percent in the USA and how much do they make? (2 charts)


Sources:  Sources: Occupations of top 1 percent: John Bakija, Williams College (PDF); asset ownership: Edward N. Wolff, Bard College (PDF); income growth: The World Top Incomes Database

  1. henry1941
    August 25, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Isn’t anyone receiving income from the rent of land? Who is getting this revenue stream?

  2. August 25, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    A question that perhaps would help answer “Who is getting this revenue stream?”.Income from the rent of land?

    What is the dollar amount of All residencial and commercial real estate mortgages, and what is the average rate and average years remaining on this amount ?

    Anyone, please, an answer.

    The answer to this question could be also the answer to, “To lower taxes,you must raise revenue somewhere.How does a government fund, “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”” at the same time reduce personal income taxes to zero ?…
    Perhaps the answer lies in how you redistribute the wealth of a nation; as well as how you acquire it.” by Justaluckyfool (Google)

    • August 26, 2012 at 9:13 am

      Too right. How do you think banking became so very profitable? The vast majority of loans, let alone mortgages, have land as collateral. It’s the safest bet since ‘they ain’t making any more of it’.

  3. Alice
    August 26, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Carol – they (banks) have mortgages yeah sure because thats what banks do – make loans with their excess reserves but hang on a minute – the real reason that they got so fat is forced subsidies by way of peoples captured savings the people cant touch.

    SUPER – (n industry subsidy in reality – a form of protection?) a guaranteed bank fattening income stream which would be fine if the banks hadnt gotten so big they managed to buy the governments that thought it was a good idea for people to save for their reirements (never mind that most people already did that anyway without legislation) – but I am damn sure the land which houses a family is not inherently as evil as the Georgists would have us all think.

    • August 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      Actually banks were not the main source of mortgages in the UK until the deregulation of the 80s – mutual building societies were. The explosion of credit fed straight into land values and it is banks, real-estate speculators and legatees who have hoovered up the proceeds.

      No one is suggesting that land is ‘evil’. Have no idea where that idea comes from. It’s the ‘expunging of resources from neoclassical economics’ (a la Martin Wolf) which is evil, so there is general ignorance about the role of land in the economy.

  4. Alice
    August 26, 2012 at 11:33 am

    What is more of a nusisance is not the issue of land tax but of tax failure of governments for dramatically lowering the taxes on the rich since 1970s..

    Doh – we have gross inequality now. I dont wonder why.

    • August 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm

      The rich own the most valuable land. You can’t hide land in a tax haven.

  5. henry1941
    August 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Alice – some income is earned from the work done by the people who did the work. Other income comes from work done by other people ie not the people in whose pockets it ends up. Taxes that do not recognise and respect the difference are legalised theft.

    I don’t know any “Georgists” who would have anyone think that the land on which a family home stands is inherently evil. George was not particularly concerned with land on which families have their homes. The really valuable land is of course that used for productive activities, in particular, urban land in commercial use.

    • August 27, 2012 at 11:26 am

      The problem is though, that by taxing productive land more highly than non-productive residential land, residential land, required for providing the basic human need of shelter, has become relatively vastly more expensive. The land market is totally dysfunctional.

      • August 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm

        What if :
        The Fed were to be the direct lender of all real estate loans,residential and commercial.
        These loans would be equal in terms and conditions that is at 2% for 36 years and the mortgages would be assumable.
        What is the value of all real estate in the US ?
        If the Fed were to make $100 trillion available it would be an income to the US Treasury
        of $5.5 TRILLION per annum.
        Like “Justaluckyfool” says,”To quote Einstein,’Make It Simple’.
        justaluckyfool ,” Perhaps the answer lies in how you redistribute the wealth of a nation; as well as how you acquire it.” (read more-Google)

      • henry1941
        August 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm

        justaluckyfool :
        What if :
        The Fed were to be the direct lender of all real estate loans,residential and commercial.

        That does not really solve the problem which is that the rental value of land should be collected by the government, used to cover the reasonable expenses of government and the surplus distributed equally to all citizens.

      • August 28, 2012 at 6:22 pm

        ****”That does not really solve the problem which is that the rental value of land should be collected by the government, used to cover the reasonable expenses of government and the surplus distributed equally to all citizens.”
        *****Justaluckyfool asks,”How does $5.5 trillion “collected by the goverment” not do just that?”
        If the governed were to receive $5.5 trillion revenue per year, do you think that would help over time to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”” at the same time reduce personal income taxes to zero ? Fund SS, whatever and who ever’s healthcare.

  6. Ignacio
    August 27, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Now i understand why those rich guys are so worried with inflation…

    • Alice
      August 28, 2012 at 12:38 am

      yes Ignacio – you have it in one. Low inflation favours those who have the wherewithall to be lenders ie the powerful financial sector and its elite clubs and its captured affiliates and subsidiary members who serve this club, our central banks.

  7. August 27, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    P.S.
    If the governed were to receive $5.5 trillion revenue per year, do you think that would help over time to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”” at the same time reduce personal income taxes to zero ? Fund SS, whatever and who ever’s healthcare.

  8. August 28, 2012 at 6:48 am

    Jefferson warned the country that banks could not be trusted and represented a real threat to out new democracy. Golly gee, who would have ever guessed !

  9. Alice
    August 29, 2012 at 1:39 am

    Fred – I agree. Jefferons warning about the threat to democracy by banks was correct. With help from the mainstream media in vile service who worshipped Wall Street and every excess and freedom in the financial sector, the threat has now materialised.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.