U.S. Wealth Concentration: The Most Accurate Current Estimates

[unhappycamper]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/62961/u-s-wealth-concentration-the-most-accurate-current-estimates

U.S. Wealth Concentration: The Most Accurate Current Estimates
Economic Equity
by Eric Zuesse | July 8, 2015 - 8:41am

CURRENT REALITIES:

Wealthiest Tenth (10%) of Americans Own 75% of America; They Draw 40% of All U.S. Income.
Wealthiest Hundredth (1%) of Americans Own 43% of America; They Draw 20% of All U.S. Income
Wealthiest Thousandth (0.1%) of Americans Own 22% of America; They Draw 8% of All U.S. Income.
Wealthiest Ten-Thousandth (0.01%) Own 11.2% of America; They Draw 5% of All U.S. Income.
Wealthiest 0.0025% (Forbes 400) Own 2.75% (of all trackable privately-held wealth, not including ‘non-profits’ that are controlled by them).
That last (2.75%) is this $2.29 trillion divided by this $83,296 billion (representing all of the privately owned wealth in the U.S.), in the final quarter of 2014.
Incidentally, the wealthiest tenth are worth over $1 million and draw incomes above $200,000; so: they’re all “millionaires” in common parlance; all of the “top 10%” are.
Following will be mirror-images of the above-cited breakdowns:
Poorest 90% of Americans Own 25% of America; They Draw 60% of All U.S. Income.
Poorest 99% of Americans Own 57% of America; They Draw 80% of All U.S. Income.
Poorest 99.9% of Americans Own 78% of America; They Draw 92% of All U.S. Income.
Poorest 99.99% of Americans Own Less Than 88.8% of America; They Draw Less Than 95% of All U.S. Income.

Poorer 50%: Comprehensive figures for the wealthier and poorer 50% of Americans haven’t been published as recently, However, for the year 2010, the wealthier 50% of Americans owned 98.9% of America, and the poorer 50% of Americans owned 1.1% of America. That was the year after the crash had supposedly ended in 2009. The last prior year in that same study was 2007, the economic peak, and it showed the wealthier half owning 97.5% of America, and the poorer half owning 2.5% of it. In other words: the losses from the Wall Street economic crash went overwhelmingly to the poorer half of the U.S. population (their wealth going down from 2.5% to only 1.1% of America’s total), because of the bailouts to Wall Street. Wall Street complains about “welfare programs,” as if it’s the poor who get bailed out; but those complaints are merely part of Wall Street’s — and their billionaires’ — scams that are targeted to sway fools. The figures show the exact opposite to be the actual truth. America is overwhelmingly a kleptocracy by the top against everybody else; not a “welfare state for the poor.” That’s just aristocrats’ scam, pumped by the economists they hire, and by the ‘news’ media which are controlled by aristocrats, and believed by suckers they fool.

HERE ARE THE TRENDS:

Right before the crash, in 2006 and 2007, the top 1% owned 33.8% of America; they drew 21.4% of all U.S. income.

A Congressional Research Service study, "An Analysis of the Distribution of Wealth Across Households, 1989-2010,” found that between the economic peak in 2007, and the end of the opening phase of the Wall Street bailouts in 2010, wealth-inequality in America soared, rising even faster than it had been rising during the George W. Bush years. As a consequence, whereas in 2007, the top 1% owned 33.8% of America, by 2010 this figure had risen to 34.5% — and the latest figure is 43%; so, this soaring is continuing (it wasn’t occurring only at the start of Obama’s Administration). What was bad under Bush has thus become lots worse under Obama, despite all of Obama’s rhetoric against wealth-inequality. And yet the Wall Street bailouts continue (under the guise of “QE”), as if the trickle-down policies of Obama and the Republicans had “ended” the “recession” for Americans generally, instead of only for the top 1% — which latter was the reality, and which reality makes a mockery of economists, who say that the “recession ended in 2009." “Ended,” for whom? The policy is to bail out the megabanksters who made trillions from the MBS scams that brought the economy down — those people were bailed out when they were deep in the hole — while not bailing out their homeowners and cheated investors, who never recovered; statistics show they continue to suffer from those crimes. As a consequence, under Obama, wealth has risen only for the wealthiest of Americans.

[Sherman A1]

1. K&R!

thanks for posting.

[lostnfound]

2. Not exactly "mirror image", it would be interesting to know what the poorest 10 % has...

But obviously that would likely be a negative number in terms of net wealth.

But even comparing the top 1% to the bottom 50 %..
Top 1 % own 43"%
Bottom 50% own between 1.1% and 2.5% -- say, 2%.

Imagine a wealth tax on the top 1% getting distributed to the bottom 50%.. What effect would that have?

With a one-time wealth tax of 20% -- then 8.6% gets distributed from the 1%ers to the bottom half, the 1%ers are left with 35%, and the bottom HALF get to QUINTUPLE their wealth, going from 2% to 10.6%. The wealthy lose 20%, while half of the country increases what it has by 500%.

The country could theoretically DOUBLE the wealth of the bottom half, by imposing a tax of just 5% on the wealth belonging to the 1%ers.

Of course, the wealth is sometimes tied up in illiquid assets like land, and the bottom half likely wouldn't hold onto that wealth; they'd spend it on necessities and small luxuries, but wouldn't that be a big boost to the economy?

Doing these calculations based on income rather than wealth would be interesting.

[Hydra]

3. Of course it would be a huge boost to the economy if the money moved down

Say, if that tax on the rich was used to create a minimum income fund for everyone. I'd be for a doubling or tripling of minimum wage, but that wouldn't necessarily change the dynamic we're in- it would still be a work culture for the lower rungs of the ladder while the upper rungs would still be on the ownership model.

[lostnfound]

4. Is your idea that a minimum income fund would be better that doubling or tripling minimum wage?

Interesting phrase, a "work culture". Is it your idea that a minimum income would allow some of the lower rungs to vacate the "work culture"?

I remember the uber-right Mort Zuckerman writing that the secret advantage to the A,erican economy is a desperate working class. The lack of job security makes us eager to work..

Interesting experiment starting in Ultrecht, to have a guaranteed minimum income.

I think it would be preferable, because the culture would become vibrant with the creative energies of millions of people who are currently too tied to the hamster wheels. Maybe a resurgence of "artisans" who supplement their living producing things in more satisfying ways than the current job market allows.

[Hydra]

5. Yes, I think I minimum income would be a better option for a couple of reasons

One thing is climate change- we currently run a consumer based economic model- more productivity and consumption is not desirable in a limited system.

For another thing, I'm not sold on the idea that everyone needs to work. Kids need parents, older people need their kids, and artists and scientists need to be allowed to do their thing. I guess I'm suggesting quality over quantity.