Missing: median US Black household wealth, $24,100; median US Hispanic household wealth, $36,100. Numbers as of 2019. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...
[deleted]
Wealth Shown to Scale
141–147 of 147 posts
Re: Wealth Shown to Scale
#142Missing: median US Black household wealth, $24,100; median US Hispanic household wealth, $36,100. Numbers as of 2019. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...
[deleted]
Re: Wealth Shown to Scale
#143The top 400 wealthiest could purchase 246 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, and still have about $2B in change ($5M each). The US has 10 (of 20 total US carriers). Or, put another way, the top 400 could duplicate the entire US Navy fleet 5 times over (so, like, 55 super carriers, 100 carriers, 340 destroyers, 330 submarines, 2560 F/A-18E/F, etc.) and still have $370B in change ($925M each).
Re: Wealth Shown to Scale
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely it. Any taxes on just the ultra wealthy raise so little money for the rest of the population that any large scale money raising requires taxes on doctors, lawyers, engineers, small business owners, etc. Pro-government spending advocates don’t like to emphasize this because people become a lot less supportive of these things when they see members of their own community getting hit.
> Any taxes on just the ultra wealthy raise so little money for the rest of the population that any large scale money raising requires taxes on doctors, lawyers, engineers, small business owners, etc. That's very much untrue. What is true is that no one even bothers reducing the favorable tax treatment of the ultrawealthy, only taxing high-end labor income and pretending. As long as both long-term capital gains and p…
> That's very much untrue
How so? It’s basic math. The middle and upper middle class is still responsible for the vast majority of income.
> you arent really taxing the ultrawealthy. You could raise tremendous revenue
See, you’re getting confused because it’s not “tremendous” in the scheme of tax revenue. The only thing that would accomplish is helping with income inequality (i.e. it’s punitive towards the rich). This is fine if that’s your goal but it’s not going to pay for anything like basic income, universal healthcare, or major infrastructure. It won’t even balance the existing budget.
> The reason that isn't done isn't that you can't raise enough revenue that way,
Yes it is, full stop. A 100% tax rate on the top .1% would bring in about 500 billion annually (~$3 mil * 150 mil filers * 0.001) . That’s not even enough to cover the “cheap” infrastructure bill being proposed.
> they earn vastly disproportionately ought to be untouchable.
Careful with that. You’re also talking about how much of the middle classes retirement is structured there. Long term capital gains are used by everyone.
Re: Wealth Shown to Scale
#145Re: Wealth Shown to Scale
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden's promise has already morphed into "household's making more than $400,000", not individuals. Suddenly all those dual tech worker couples in Silicon Valley are wealthy!
Context: According to [0], $400,000 is in the top 1% of individual income across the US. It's in the top 3% of household income within California [1] and top 2% in SF/Oakland/Fremont [2]. 0: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ 1: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/ 2: https://dqydj.com/2018-income-percentile-by-city-calculator/
Right, this puts them in the category of lawyers, doctors, small business owners, etc.
It’s no longer a tax on the rich, it’s just a tax on successful upper middle class.
Re: Wealth Shown to Scale
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden's promise has already morphed into "household's making more than $400,000", not individuals. Suddenly all those dual tech worker couples in Silicon Valley are wealthy!
Dual tech worker couples making more than $400k in Silicon Valley are wealthy, and always have been. There's no suddenly about it. They aren't ultrawealthy members of the capitalist class, sure. But they are definitely wealthy, and pretending that they aren't is just phenomenally out of touch.
“Wealth” is not income. Thinking like yours changes the calculus on if specialization is worth it.
Train for 10 years to be a doctor to make $400k a year for 10 years at 50% taxes or just work for 20 years at 150k at 30%?