Top 1% of Americans own 56% of US stock - Bottom 90% own just 12% of stock (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

It's quite a figure and the share held by the top 1% is growing. When you consider the free rein that corporations have to act politically and that those decisions are controlled almost exclusively by the extraordinarily wealthy in a board room where the corporation is legally bound to act in the interest of its shareholders (i.e. the 1%), what does that mean for the bottom 90%? Not in the top 1%? Sucks to be you.

The wealthiest US households are strengthening their grip over corporate America. The richest 1 per cent of Americans now account for more than half the value of equities owned by US households, according to Goldman Sachs. Since 1990, the wealthiest have bought a net $1.2tn in company stakes, while the rest of the population has sold more than $1tn.

Three decades ago, ownership was also lopsided, but the top percentage point of Americans by wealth only controlled 46 per cent of all US equities held by households. By the end of September 2019, that proportion had hit a record 56 per cent, amounting to $21.4tn, according to the investment bank’s calculations. That includes both public stock and ownership stakes in private companies.

“The wealthiest households have been by far the biggest driver of positive household equity demand,” Goldman Sachs analysts, led by Arjun Menon, said in the report.

“Accelerating US economic growth and rising stock prices should continue to support equity purchases by the top 1 per cent.” Recommended LexEquities World economy/stocks: Piketty is right Premium As of September 2019, the bottom 90 per cent owned $4.6tn of equities, or 12 per cent of the total, the analysts noted.

How America’s 1% came to dominate equity ownership

Wealthiest households have bought $1.2tn of company stakes since 1990

www.ft.com

 

[dtc]

I am just curious why you say wealth inequality is due to tax policy.

The bottom 45% of income earners pay no federal income tax. I guess I don't understand how tax policy could help increase the wealth of these earners.

I can make this argument easily.

Tax policy has deprived the United States of necessary funding for infrastructure, education and social programs which would lead to increase income for those at the bottom.

Instead of investing in opportunity for those who are at the bottom of our economic strata, we have cut taxes for the wealthiest among us and watched as the poor stay poor and the rich become demigods.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm always astounded that anybody who isn't part of that 1% on the right, doesn't demand that the Republican leadership of their party address this disproportionate and ridiculous wealth/income disparity. It's like it's not even an issue on the right, but why?

I guess they're more concerned with conservative judges, abortions and guns.

I’ll post these again

 

[JRad]

Wages haven’t even come close to keeping up.

I just happened to be looking at the worker's rights poster in the break room yesterday - I cannot believe the minimum wage is still 7.25. If you can pull off 40 hours a week, you're at like 15k/year.

 

[JimEverett]

How much would a 60 year old who's never made more than 35k / yr have in his retirement account and how would that provide for him when he lives until he's 90?

Do I need to do the math for you or do you get what I'm putting down?

What about the 65 year old woman who's never worked outside of the home? How much does she get? When she lives to be 100 what's she eating?

Oh yeah, one more thing to add.

When you take the single largest pool of wealth in the world which is what the cumulative total of SS would be and you release it into a market like the ones we have now, what happens to earnings? When the party in power who's agreeing with you seeks to deregulate and absolve any financial advisers from responsibility to their clients, what happens?

You remember all the stories of NFL players broke after 5 years?

When you give a 60 year old person who's never made more than 35k in their lives say $200k in retirement assets in lieu of SS and that person invests it who manages it? What happens when they get ripped off? What happens when the increased pool of cash chasing returns diminishes returns and drives prices of already ridiculously over-valued stocks up.

Yeah. Thought so.

There are ways to work it out for people who are near or who are at retirement age. Perhaps they stay in the current system, or a two-tiered system that would "guarantee" them a payment equivalent to the current system. A sort of government guarantee like we give bank deposits and payments on many student loans.

As far as people not knowing what to do with their money - as I said earlier, the investments would be done in qualified plans. People could not be taking their money and investing it all in Tesla. Further, perhaps you tack on more regulations as to what constitutes qualified plans - but right now I don't think we have a problem of rampant corruption in qualified plans.

You have the opportunity to create tremendous wealth for people in the "bottom half" - but let us not do it due to "risk." And while being worried about the dangers of investing just keep griping about rich people getting richer by taking that "risk." LOL.

 

[superchuck500]

I just happened to be looking at the worker's rights poster in the break room yesterday - I cannot believe the minimum wage is still 7.25. If you can pull off 40 hours a week, you're at like 15k/year.

I just grabbed this chart really quickly - but there are others like it. But it does show just how costly it has become in the US to do three things: (1) get healthcare, (2) higher education, and (3) childcare. I think it goes to the point made earlier that having children is probably the single strongest drag on accumulation of wealth. If you have a family, you're more likely to need more healthcare (more people = more healthcare needs), you're going to likely have higher-education costs, and you're going to likely need to pay for child-care.

It's an ironic reality for modern America - a nation that prides itself upon the American dream including a safe, healthy, and prosperous family unit. It also puts American families on the the hamster wheel - because increased healthcare and education costs likely puts families in need of dual-income. But that introduces increased childcare costs that substantially cut into the benefits of dual-incomes. It doesn't eliminate the dual-income gains, so people still choose to do it - but it means that gains are marginal while, at the same time, reducing quality of life (less time with kids, more time at work, more child-rearing done by paid childcare).

Price Changes Over the Last 20 Years Prove the Economy is Rigged

The U.S. economy is constantly changing. We track the percentage increases and decreases of every major expenditure affecting your life for the past 20 years.

howmuch.net

 

[CoolBrees]

As mentioned before, the cap is $137k for 2020. That isn’t rich people. That isn’t even the working rich. That is a regular professional in mid to large cities.

I would be more in favor of a floor for paying in than a cap, to be honest. Or an inverse scale. This isn’t a program for people who can afford it, and it never was intended to be.

The thought that Bill Gates will receive SS is crazy. Or my uncle who was a veterinarian and sold his practice when he retired for that matter.

I honestly think that SS should be a reward for years of doing years of work. That it should guarantee an, albeit modest, standard of living after they retire.

Let’s face it, the ones who need it the most can contribute the least. But that is if you only look through the lens of monetary worth. The work that the overwhelming majority of the people in this lowest income brackets are doing manual labor; horribly taxing jobs with little personal satisfaction. But our society would crumble without their labor.

 

[JimEverett]

The work that the overwhelming majority of the people in this lowest income brackets are doing manual labor; horribly taxing jobs with little personal satisfaction. But our society would crumble without their labor.

Where so you get that from?

According to the U.S. Census (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-05.html) - for 2018 over 68% of the households in the lowest income quintile had no one working at all. Less than 19% worked a full time job

For the second fifth - almost 42% did not work. Thus, for the bottom 40% of income earning households: over 55% did not have anyone working and only 1/3 had a full time job.

That does not strike me as indicating an "overwhelming majority are doing manual labor"

 

[CoolBrees]

So to question a pro-manual laborer comment you quote unemployment statistics?

I am pretty sure I said those working in manual labor work.

Unemployment is a whole different topic.

 

[JimEverett]

So to question a pro-manual laborer comment you quote unemployment statistics?

I am pretty sure I said those working in manual labor work.

Unemployment is a whole different topic.

Yes.

The idea you seemed to be conveying to me was that the overwhelming majority of bottom income earners were doing manual labor. I fact, that is not true - as a majority of them aren;t doing any labor at all.

Maybe I misread or misunderstood your point - which would be that of those who actually work, the overwhelming majority are doing manual labor. I that case, I don't think that is much of a point to be made. I mean what if I were to say - the overwhelming majority of those people in the bottom quintile who do manual labor reach the 4th quintile in two years?

 

[CoolBrees]

So someone who is not working is in the bottom of income earners? Wouldn’t that make them non-earners? As in not in the labor force?

I am using manual labor, perhaps too loosely. I mean unskilled labor. That whole massive portion of the workforce that will work until they die. That group of people.

 

[JimEverett]

So someone who is not working is in the bottom of income earners? Wouldn’t that make them non-earners? As in not in the labor force?

Its all households, not all income earners.

 

[dtc]

There are ways to work it out for people who are near or who are at retirement age. Perhaps they stay in the current system, or a two-tiered system that would "guarantee" them a payment equivalent to the current system. A sort of government guarantee like we give bank deposits and payments on many student loans.

As far as people not knowing what to do with their money - as I said earlier, the investments would be done in qualified plans. People could not be taking their money and investing it all in Tesla. Further, perhaps you tack on more regulations as to what constitutes qualified plans - but right now I don't think we have a problem of rampant corruption in qualified plans.

You have the opportunity to create tremendous wealth for people in the "bottom half" - but let us not do it due to "risk." And while being worried about the dangers of investing just keep griping about rich people getting richer by taking that "risk." LOL.

So, again, how much generational wealth are we going to create by allowing minimum wage earners to invest for themselves in qualified plans?
Who is going to want to manage a plan that gets $20 per week invested? Or, for that matter, $5 per week? How much will they charge?

Is it going to be enough to guarantee a safe minimum level of subsistence when you're 90 like what we have now?

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think SS is a great deal for anyone except those who really need it, but I also know there's no better alternative I've ever heard.

 

[SFIDC3]

I can make this argument easily.

Tax policy has deprived the United States of necessary funding for infrastructure, education and social programs which would lead to increase income for those at the bottom.

Instead of investing in opportunity for those who are at the bottom of our economic strata, we have cut taxes for the wealthiest among us and watched as the poor stay poor and the rich become demigods.

Well done...it's shocking how many folks either don't care or realize this reality.....

 

[FWtex]

I'm always astounded that anybody who isn't part of that 1% on the right, doesn't demand that the Republican leadership of their party address this disproportionate and ridiculous wealth/income disparity. It's like it's not even an issue on the right, but why?

I guess they're more concerned with conservative judges, abortions and guns.

How can people on left be so blind to who the 1% really are. You have to get all the way down to 13th richest and you still have to have a debate as to whether they are republican.

• Jeff Bezos, Amazon – $114 billion.
• Bill Gates, Microsoft – $106 billion.
• Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway – $80.8 billion.
• Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook – $69.6 billion.
• Larry Ellison, software – $65 billion.
• Larry Page, Google – $55.5 billion.
• Sergey Brin, Google – $53.5 billion.

What are these top democrats offering to end income inequality? If you say a higher minimum wage then you are kidding yourselves even more. The democrats have been the party of the rich for about the last 15 years if not longer but if all you do is follow what the MSM tells you then you would never know that.

 

[samiam5211]

How can people on left be so blind to who the 1% really are. You have to get all the way down to 13th richest and you still have to have a debate as to whether they are republican.

• Jeff Bezos, Amazon – $114 billion.
• Bill Gates, Microsoft – $106 billion.
• Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway – $80.8 billion.
• Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook – $69.6 billion.
• Larry Ellison, software – $65 billion.
• Larry Page, Google – $55.5 billion.
• Sergey Brin, Google – $53.5 billion.

What are these top democrats offering to end income inequality? If you say a higher minimum wage then you are kidding yourselves even more. The democrats have been the party of the rich for about the last 15 years if not longer but if all you do is follow what the MSM tells you then you would never know that.

None of us have ever cast a vote for anyone on your list.

I don’t think anyone on that list should be able to leave behind more than 10 million total to heirs after they die.

 

[MT15]

I don’t think those people are Democrats. And whoever made that list, I think there are some folks missing.

 

[coldseat]

How can people on left be so blind to who the 1% really are. You have to get all the way down to 13th richest and you still have to have a debate as to whether they are republican.

• Jeff Bezos, Amazon – $114 billion.
• Bill Gates, Microsoft – $106 billion.
• Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway – $80.8 billion.
• Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook – $69.6 billion.
• Larry Ellison, software – $65 billion.
• Larry Page, Google – $55.5 billion.
• Sergey Brin, Google – $53.5 billion.

What are these top democrats offering to end income inequality? If you say a higher minimum wage then you are kidding yourselves even more. The democrats have been the party of the rich for about the last 15 years if not longer but if all you do is follow what the MSM tells you then you would never know that.

It's not about who the billionaires are (even if those people are democrats), it's about the policies that the people you are voting for push, support and vote for. When you use the correct lens to look at the issue and don't get hoodwink with right wing media, it's very easy to understand.

Why isn't that one of the primary issues (along with health care) on the right? Why don't people who vote for Republicans demand their representatives address and solve this issue, if they're the ones who represent the "common folk"? That was the point of my post anyway. This is very clearly and issue on the left.

 

[BobE]

I don’t think anyone on that list should be able to leave behind more than 10 million total to heirs after they die.

What should happen to the rest of the money?