Occupy Wall Street revived the discussion about income inequality, i.e., that the top 1% have an unfairly large share of the income. While there are very few numbers quantifying the issue, it is generally assumed that a person needed $500,000 in adjusted gross income to be included in that top 1%.
However, there is some new research from the London School of Economics and the University of California relating to wealth owned, as opposed to income. Using information from the IRS, they have concluded:
1. The bottom 90% of Americans own 25.6% of the wealth.
2. The next 9% own 34.6% -- thus, the bottom 99% own 60.2%.
3. The next nine-tenths of 1% own 18.3% -- thus, the bottom 99.9% own 78.5%
4. The next nine-tenths of one-tenth of 1% own 10.4% -- the bottom 99.99% own 88.9%
5. The top one-tenth of one-tenth of 1% of Americans own 11.1% of the wealth.
The vast majority of the top 1% don't feel their wealth has expanded that much. The top 1% of the top 1% have seen their share of the wealth quadruple since the Reagan Revolution. Therefore, 99% of the top 1% have not benefited as much as the top 1% of the top 1%, so they feel maligned by Occupy.
The methodology of this research is a little suspect. While they had good data from the IRS: because the data was available annually, because the income is broken down by asset class, and because of the huge sample size-- translating those income levels into asset values requires a changing capitalization rate every year. There is a lot of subjectivity with that, although I'm not sure yet how it could be skewed by political bias.
Stated differently, the 16,000 families in the top 1% of the top 1% own 11.1% of America's wealth! Fairness is an unfair word is describing this process of increasing wealth in fewer hands. However, it does beg the question of when will too much wealth be in too few hands. If the top 1% owns 39.8% of the wealth now, is it OK for them to own 49.8% of it? How about 59.8%?
Nobody argues that the top 1% of the top 1% owning 100% of the wealth is good for society? At what point does this concentration of wealth become harmful to social stability? How will we know when enough is enough? What has to happen first? The question is begged . . .
However, there is some new research from the London School of Economics and the University of California relating to wealth owned, as opposed to income. Using information from the IRS, they have concluded:
1. The bottom 90% of Americans own 25.6% of the wealth.
2. The next 9% own 34.6% -- thus, the bottom 99% own 60.2%.
3. The next nine-tenths of 1% own 18.3% -- thus, the bottom 99.9% own 78.5%
4. The next nine-tenths of one-tenth of 1% own 10.4% -- the bottom 99.99% own 88.9%
5. The top one-tenth of one-tenth of 1% of Americans own 11.1% of the wealth.
The vast majority of the top 1% don't feel their wealth has expanded that much. The top 1% of the top 1% have seen their share of the wealth quadruple since the Reagan Revolution. Therefore, 99% of the top 1% have not benefited as much as the top 1% of the top 1%, so they feel maligned by Occupy.
The methodology of this research is a little suspect. While they had good data from the IRS: because the data was available annually, because the income is broken down by asset class, and because of the huge sample size-- translating those income levels into asset values requires a changing capitalization rate every year. There is a lot of subjectivity with that, although I'm not sure yet how it could be skewed by political bias.
Stated differently, the 16,000 families in the top 1% of the top 1% own 11.1% of America's wealth! Fairness is an unfair word is describing this process of increasing wealth in fewer hands. However, it does beg the question of when will too much wealth be in too few hands. If the top 1% owns 39.8% of the wealth now, is it OK for them to own 49.8% of it? How about 59.8%?
Nobody argues that the top 1% of the top 1% owning 100% of the wealth is good for society? At what point does this concentration of wealth become harmful to social stability? How will we know when enough is enough? What has to happen first? The question is begged . . .
