Democratic Primaries

Uncle Joe

(58,364 posts) Wed Dec 4, 2019, 03:54 PM Dec 2019

Wealth of the richest Americans:

Link to tweet

The U.S.’s historic economic expansion has so enriched one-percenters they now hold almost as much wealth as the middle- and upper-middle classes combined.

(snip)

The top 1% of American households have enjoyed huge returns in the stock market in the past decade, to the point that they now control more than half of the equity in U.S. public and private companies, according to data from the Federal Reserve. Those fat portfolios have America’s elite gobbling up an ever-bigger piece of the pie.

The very richest had assets of about $35.4 trillion in the second quarter, or just shy of the $36.9 trillion held by the tens of millions of people who make up the 50th percentile to the 90th percentile of Americans -- much of the middle and upper-middle classes.

(snip)

In turn, those investments make the wealthy eligible to put money into exclusive hedge funds and private equity funds. Many such funds require $5 million of investments to qualify.

(snip)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/one-percenters-close-to-surpassing-wealth-of-u-s-middle-class

There is a nice interactive graph

on the link except it's kind of depressing if you happen to be in the bottom 90% of Americans,

the trend under the status quo aka: (return to normal) does not look good.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wealth of the richest Americans: (Original Post) Uncle Joe Dec 2019 OP

How much do they need before they become drunk with power too? JoeOtterbein Dec 2019 #1

Just under three million, I'd guess. LanternWaste Dec 2019 #4

Maybe nine million fits better? JoeOtterbein Dec 2019 #8

Editors at outlets like this should have a hard rule on the x and y axis. TidalWave46 Dec 2019 #2

Convenient he never mentions millionaires as obscene anymore. LanternWaste Dec 2019 #3

To be in the top 1% one would need an annual income of 500,000+ a year. Uncle Joe Dec 2019 #5

I never argued 'the top 1%'. But I can see why you require that artificial limit LanternWaste Dec 2019 #6

Until we come up with a different label for people with a net worth of tens or hundreds of millions Uncle Joe Dec 2019 #7

Or have a net worth of more than $10 million, like Mark Ruffalo. But Bernie's OK with that. LongtimeAZDem Dec 2019 #9

and Mark is for raising taxes on himself for the public good, and as I stated upthread. Uncle Joe Dec 2019 #10

Doesn't change the hypocrisy of railing against the 1% while touting support of a 1%er LongtimeAZDem Dec 2019 #11

That's what you continue to miss, Uncle Joe Dec 2019 #12

Whatever LongtimeAZDem Dec 2019 #13

Here's a good visualization redqueen Dec 2019 #14

JoeOtterbein

(7,702 posts)

1. How much do they need before they become drunk with power too?

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 03:57 PM

Dec 2019

Sorry, I forgot they already are.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

4. Just under three million, I'd guess.

Reply to JoeOtterbein (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:19 PM

Dec 2019

Sorry... I forgot that doesn't validate the narrative.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

JoeOtterbein

(7,702 posts)

8. Maybe nine million fits better?

Reply to LanternWaste (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 05:30 PM

Dec 2019

[link:https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/28/joe-bidens-net-worth-how-the-2020-presidential-candidate-built-a-9-million-fortune/#3d19b8f104dd|

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

TidalWave46

(2,061 posts)

2. Editors at outlets like this should have a hard rule on the x and y axis.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:02 PM

Dec 2019

If you can fit the full spectrum on either then you must do it. Statistics 101.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

3. Convenient he never mentions millionaires as obscene anymore.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:18 PM

Dec 2019

In a statement, the senator said his tax returns "show that our family has been fortunate." (which I'd imagine is "kind of depressing if you happen to be in the bottom 90% of Americans...&quot

(space provided free (whew!) of charge below for distinction lacking relevant difference)

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Uncle Joe

(58,364 posts)

5. To be in the top 1% one would need an annual income of 500,000+ a year.

Reply to LanternWaste (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:28 PM

Dec 2019

(snip)

Americans Now Need at Least $500,000 a Year to Enter Top 1%

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/one-percenters-close-to-surpassing-wealth-of-u-s-middle-class

(snip)

One can easily be a millionaire or even two million and not make anything close to that kind of income, a million being only one thousandth of a billion dollars.

Having a net worth of hundreds of millions is different story but they're still referred to as millionaires, not "hundreds of millionaires" and Bernie has consistently referred to the 1%

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

6. I never argued 'the top 1%'. But I can see why you require that artificial limit

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:37 PM

Dec 2019

Otherwise, it would appear we're holding obscenely wealthy people to one standard, and those obscenely wealthy people who we consider sacred cows to another, much lower standard... all out of political convenience rather than the courage of our convictions.

I get it.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Uncle Joe

(58,364 posts)

7. Until we come up with a different label for people with a net worth of tens or hundreds of millions

Reply to LanternWaste (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 04:45 PM

Dec 2019

in the English language other than millionaires, it is what it is.

"I get it."

I don't believe you do but good luck with that.

The 1% has always been the target.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

LongtimeAZDem

(4,494 posts)

9. Or have a net worth of more than $10 million, like Mark Ruffalo. But Bernie's OK with that.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 05:36 PM

Dec 2019

That puts him in the top .5%, and he's averaged over a million per year since 2012, and vastly more than that in the last few.

I expect Bernie to publicly reject his endorsement, of course.

Sorry, forgot the tag: