If you make under 85,000 dollars a year, click this topic

[SwastikaPyle]

Link to original post: [drupal=3307]If you make under 85,000 dollars a year, click this topic[/drupal]



In between loading times on Mass Effect 2, I had time to create this map of what America would look like if we divided financial wealth into territory, based on data gathered by UCSC, available here.



1% of America's wealth in this map = 1% of America's land.


As you can see, the wealth gap in America is pretty amazing. 1 person (or the top 1% of earners in America) would have 42% of the entire country to himself.

The next 19 richest people would have about 50% of the entire country to themselves.

That little section up there that barely encompasses New England, about 7% of America's land, has the bottom 80% of Americans, people making roughly 85,000 dollars a year or less.

80 guys all cramped together in that little spot.


I thought that money was supposed to 'trickle down,' or something. Thanks, Reagan.
Kind of hurts to see how worthless you really are

 

[john!]

And what are those 1% doing with their money?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

That's a really interesting visual to display that. I had never thought of it that way, so good stuff.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

And what are those 1% doing with their money?

I'm pretty sure it's going back into their own pockets, accumulating as much wealth as possible to ensure their children's prosperity for generations to come.

Btw, that's a chart showing that CEO pay ratio compared to minimum-wage earners has changed from 78:1 into a staggering 821:1.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Nice graph. I think that living in the east and west coast can get so expensive that you need to make at least six figures in order to keep paying the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. Cities like New York are especially expensive in this regard and many families who can't afford the lifestyle head into the midwest for cheaper cost of living.

Even though the wealthiest people in the United States make a lot of money, it should also be taken into consideration that they played on a number of factors involving investing the time spent getting an education, chasing risky business ventures, and running the rat race on a daily basis. In addition, these corporate CEOs are the ones who provide jobs for new employees who are looking for a fresh start in the job market.

There are corrupt people like Goldman who sold a set of stock options that were faulty and tried to make a profit by shorting the stock: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17goldman.html. But on the other end there are businessmen like Bill Gates who plan to donate all their earnings to charity and to set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

I'm sorry but I can't see eye to eye with people who advocate more socialist policies and an increase in spending to provide more pensions and programs for the unemployed, the underprivileged, and the impoverished. In school everyone takes a loan and gets slapped over by excessive interest. But that's part of the cost in future investment and increasing human marketing potential. Everything you do in life is an investment of time and a theoretical risk of getting a justifiable return.

Many people take advantage of the system by getting employed for just the sheer amount of time it takes to receive unemployment checks for a couple of months. In addition, a number of individuals don't even bother to try getting jobs and simply live off welfare. Just like all billionaires are not evil people, the same can be said for poor, impoverished people who are trying to make things work.

Businesses and free markets are good for the economy. If Microsoft wasn't such a profitable company, I probably wouldn't have the money to afford a computer and wouldn't have the venue of reading and responding to your blog.

 

[Geist]

Yeah the wealth gap in the US is starting to look more and more like the wealth gap in third world countries. And the worst part is no one can do anything about it.
SwastikaPyle always makes great blogs, good ****

lol mass effect 2 loading times.

 

[cutter]

I read Parade magazine's annual "What People Earn" report a few weeks ago and it's just ****ing ******** to see the continuing increase in the gap of the rich and everyone else. Like seriously, I feel so sick to my stomach seeing CEO X or entertainer Y make $15+ mil while someone with a normal job that graduated with a good college degree makes just $50,000. I can't seem to find the corresponding article that goes with it, but in that Parade magazine it showed how the gap between the rich and everyone else has increased over a 25 year time period, and it only keeps getting worse.

I'll have more on this later.

 

[Zajice]

I currently make $0 a year cause I'm jobless.

 

[Grunt]

I don't understand why the cutoff is $84,000.

 

[bleyva]

i see where youre going with this, but the wealthy in our country are far to strong to be challenged by peasant uprisings a la 1790s France.

if we're gonna destroy those people, we need to do it through the internet.....somehow.......

 

[verge]

I don't understand why the cutoff is $84,000.

tax brackets im assuming

 

[Browny]

Something bugs me about this...

That picture looks much more like a 34.6%, 63.7% and 2.7% spread by area >_> (I have free time )

 

[sandwhale]

meh...All this shows is that one has enough freedom in life to be able to dream of financial succes and live a life of ease and power, which is a good thing.

What you should really want to know is what percentage of the population lives in poverty (can't suffice their simple needs). That's were the injustice lies because seriously, 85k a year? You plan on giving the guy that wins that amount some of the millionairs money so that finally justice is made and he can by himself that home cinema he's been wanting for months?

 

[Jonas]

Viva la capitalism

 

[JesiahTEG]

Ummm how about if someone wants money, they go ahead and make it? There are plenty of ways to make a lot of money, people just aren't ambitious enough, or blame some sort of lack of resources for their poverty. Work overtime. Save 5 grand over the span of a year. Start a business. Don't **** it up. There ya go.

One way off the top of my head. There are so many ways to make money, there's really no excuse to make less than 100,000 a year unless you want to. It's all about choices.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Ummm how about if someone wants money, they go ahead and make it? There are plenty of ways to make a lot of money, people just aren't ambitious enough, or blame some sort of lack of resources for their poverty. Work overtime. Save 5 grand over the span of a year. Start a business. Don't **** it up. There ya go.

One way off the top of my head. There are so many ways to make money, there's really no excuse to make less than 100,000 a year unless you want to. It's all about choices.

That's a lot easier said than done.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I don't understand why the cutoff is $84,000.

I looked up the incomes by percentage instead of just plain financial wealth (paycheck vs your total financial assets including house, cars, business, stocks, etc.) The bottom 80% of Americans income started at around 85,000 a year or less.

I actually made a slight mistake on the chart, the 1% could actually read 'the top 1% of the top 1%,' since the top .01% makes way, way more than the lowly millionaires could ever dream of having.

Luckily they end up shouldering most of the bill when it comes to tax time, since a big chunk of America actually doesn't make enough money to pay into federal taxes.

edit: oops I quoted the wrong post, sorry DJBrowny

 

[Browny]

I hope you realise I was talking about the areas in the picture only lol. I just noticed that the '19' area is almost twice as big as the 1, despite representing 50.3% and 42.7% respectively >_>

 

[M.K]

I love the term "The bottom 80%".
Why not just make it 100% xD

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Wow, How could you live with so much money? I mean after you have everything you want, shouldn't you want to share your happiness with other people?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

1. Most of those assets are illiquid and not easily exchanged.
2. Even after donating large amounts they are still wealthy.
3. Most of those funds are reinvested to make more profit.

 

[Cherry64]

Ummm how about if someone wants money, they go ahead and make it? There are plenty of ways to make a lot of money, people just aren't ambitious enough, or blame some sort of lack of resources for their poverty. Work overtime. Save 5 grand over the span of a year. Start a business. Don't **** it up. There ya go.

One way off the top of my head. There are so many ways to make money, there's really no excuse to make less than 100,000 a year unless you want to. It's all about choices.

congratulations, your a dumb ***. The rich wish to keep getting richer, They wish to monopolize, capitalize on everything they can, why in the **** would they let you start up a business that MAY JEOPARDIZE THIS. simply put they won't, If your idea for a business is so awesome, then the big corporate guys will decide to Out do what your doing because they have more money. As humans we judge with our eyes, so if you saw a decent looking garage with some unknown title on it, and sitting right next to it a giant Garage with Microsoft clearly supporting it, then I'm guessing you'd feel safer leaving your car with the microsoft guys than the guys beside them. All of this is done for Security, See if something happens to your car, you can sue microsoft garage for a **** ton of money, but it's not even about the money, it's about your Car, you brought it in the get it fixed, would you take it to the people you know nothing about, or the guys you've heard plenty about, and know they have money for the best mechanics.

The rich will just keep getting richer, and yes I'm aware of the laws against Monopolies, but I am cynical enough to believe that 1 guy owns Microsoft, Shell, Apple, and Walmart. someone not wanting to be known about, for if he was, he'd have to pay large sums of money to the government for the Monopoly Tax and have to relinguish his stranglehold on computers, and other such things.

 

[Foy]

The rich are rich because they know how to make money loser and no one else does.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

congratulations, your a dumb ***. The rich wish to keep getting richer, They wish to monopolize, capitalize on everything they can, why in the **** would they let you start up a business that MAY JEOPARDIZE THIS. simply put they won't, If your idea for a business is so awesome, then the big corporate guys will decide to Out do what your doing because they have more money. As humans we judge with our eyes, so if you saw a decent looking garage with some unknown title on it, and sitting right next to it a giant Garage with Microsoft clearly supporting it, then I'm guessing you'd feel safer leaving your car with the microsoft guys than the guys beside them. All of this is done for Security, See if something happens to your car, you can sue microsoft garage for a **** ton of money, but it's not even about the money, it's about your Car, you brought it in the get it fixed, would you take it to the people you know nothing about, or the guys you've heard plenty about, and know they have money for the best mechanics.

The rich will just keep getting richer, and yes I'm aware of the laws against Monopolies, but I am cynical enough to believe that 1 guy owns Microsoft, Shell, Apple, and Walmart. someone not wanting to be known about, for if he was, he'd have to pay large sums of money to the government for the Monopoly Tax and have to relinguish his stranglehold on computers, and other such things.

The reason why monopolies are not allowed is to allow for competition to drive the market. Numerous companies can provide a similar good. If there is another company that can distribute the same good at a lower price, then people will drive towards that product instead of its alternatives. This will cause the other company to lose profits and will lead them to reduce their prices in order to remain competitive. In this sense, no company is infallible, even if it is a huge conglomerate as long as it does not maintain an absolute monopoly.

 

[rvkevin]

There's not a law against monopolies. There are only laws against illegal ones. If someone is able to make a liter of Coke for a penny, they will legally monopolize the soda market. If they are only dumping their product to drive out the competition, then that is a predatory practice, which is illegal. I don't mind that they want to make a produce cheaper and better than the competition in order to monopolize the market, that's a driver for innovation.

 

[vanderzant]

Luckily they end up shouldering most of the bill when it comes to tax time, since a big chunk of America actually doesn't make enough money to pay into federal taxes.

Anyone ever seen this analogy before?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What happens to the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ‘But he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

There's not a law against monopolies. There are only laws against illegal ones. If someone is able to make a liter of Coke for a penny, they will legally monopolize the soda market. If they are only dumping their product to drive out the competition, then that is a predatory practice, which is illegal. I don't mind that they want to make a produce cheaper and better than the competition in order to monopolize the market, that's a driver for innovation.

It just seems that in actual court cases, the Department of Justice can use a wide range of provisions ranging from the vague Sherman Antitrust Act, to sections of the Clayton Antitrust Act, and even newer alterations to the law in order to back up their normative opinion of the case.

 

[maryannb369]

It doesn't make sense

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Yes Vander, I've seen that analogy a million times, and subsequently dismissed it every time due to it's faulty nature. The math alone is wrong:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

In our current tax bracket (pretty much since the year 2001 actually) the tenth man would be paying around half that, and honestly with our current system, it seems to me like the rich have already devised many clever ways of 'moving out' even though they have the lowest tax bracket they've ever had in America's history (like angry housewives you guys seem to treat them as in all of your analogies.)

Back when the rich actually had high taxes (the 50's and 60's, otherwise known as The Golden Age of Capitalism), they paid 90%. After JFK lowered it to 71%, your analogy might have been more relevant, but that was a long time ago, maybe around the end of the Reagan years. Thanks to Reagan's efforts to dismantle the unions (the chief opposition against corporate influence in Washington) and Bush's tax cuts, it's now about 1/3rd what it used to be. And they might all leave if we think about reversing that even a little.

 

[HyperEnergy]

Just for reference, my responses are bolded and what I am responding to are italicized.



@Cherry64

The rich wish to keep getting richer, They wish to monopolize, capitalize on everything they can, why in the **** would they let you start up a business that MAY JEOPARDIZE THIS. simply put they won't, If your idea for a business is so awesome, then the big corporate guys will decide to Out do what your doing because they have more money.

So have you tried to start a business which had been then become ruined by those rich folks or seen it happen to someone else? If you haven't, why are you pretending to be an expert on the mindset of the rich?


As humans we judge with our eyes, so if you saw a decent looking garage with some unknown title on it, and sitting right next to it a giant Garage with Microsoft clearly supporting it, then I'm guessing you'd feel safer leaving your car with the microsoft guys than the guys beside them. All of this is done for Security, See if something happens to your car, you can sue microsoft garage for a **** ton of money, but it's not even about the money, it's about your Car, you brought it in the get it fixed, would you take it to the people you know nothing about, or the guys you've heard plenty about, and know they have money for the best mechanics.

I don't see what the problem is here. If a new car mechanic wants to start up a business next to one of his strongest competitors, I'd expect him to have a plan to provide better service than his competition and a way to let his potential customers know this.


The rich will just keep getting richer, and yes I'm aware of the laws against Monopolies, but I am cynical enough to believe that 1 guy owns Microsoft, Shell, Apple, and Walmart. someone not wanting to be known about, for if he was, he'd have to pay large sums of money to the government for the Monopoly Tax and have to relinguish his stranglehold on computers, and other such things.

Just because you are cynical enough to believe something doesn't make it fact.



@SwastikaPyle

Yes Vander, I've seen that analogy a million times, and subsequently dismissed it every time due to it's faulty nature. The math alone is wrong:

I find it odd that you would argue about the math being wrong when the math is irrelevant to the point of the analogy.


In our current tax bracket (pretty much since the year 2001 actually) the tenth man would be paying around half that, and honestly with our current system, it seems to me like the rich have already devised many clever ways of 'moving out' even though they have the lowest tax bracket they've ever had in America's history (like angry housewives you guys seem to treat them as in all of your analogies.)

Isn't it the government's job to make sure that the rich can't use "clever ways" to cheat the tax system? You know, those guys that collect the taxes. And before we even get there, how do you know that the rich have their lowest tax bracket in history?

And assuming taxes actually do get raised for the richest people, what then?



@Vrael

That's a lot easier said than done.

Indeed, if you want to make millions of dollars a year and more then it should be obvious that you will have a difficult time actually getting up to that level.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

That graph is all fine and good, but do you have any idea how much those people get taxed?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

That graph is all fine and good, but do you have any idea how much those people get taxed?

Sometimes when I write something really witty and intellectual, I wonder whether or not I should post it. This is because of the reduletu tribe. It's a tribal group who hail from the Southwest regions of Southern America and have learned how to reply to threads on the internet. Unfortunately they can only read for one minute before their hands hit the keys and write out a response. The redulertu have spread far and wide across the Earth. The people who are redulertu don't even know it and spread their practices to new sresu unknowingly causing a massive pandemic as we know it. The like of which man has never seen before.

 

[Jim Morrison]

the reduletu

The redulertu

Which one is it, I'm interested in this tribe.