MONEY AND WEALTH
FOR THE NON-ECONOMICALLY MINDED
COMPILATION AND
COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
FEBRUARY 9,
2020
4% (BERNIE SANDERS' PROPOSED TAX RATE)OF
$1,000,000 IS ONLY $40,000. 4% OF $1,000,000,000 IS $40,000,000. 4% OF
$3,000,000,000 (DONALD TRUMP'S ESTIMATED WEALTH, ACCORDING TO ONE SOURCE) IS $120,000,000. IF THERE ARE 607 BILLIONAIRES IN THE USA, MANY
OF WHOM HAVE MORE THAN A MEASLY $1 BILLION TO THEIR NAME, AND THEY EACH
BRING IN $40 MILLION DOLLARS OR MUCH MORE ANNUALLY IN TAXES, YES, WE COULD FINANCE SOCIAL
PROGRAMS ON AN ONGOING BASIS, AND THAT’S IN THE FIRST YEAR. AS SANDERS HAS SAID, THE ACTUAL BASE FOR TAXATION WOULD BE LESS THAN THE WHOLE BILLION, SO THE MONEY DUE WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE THE WHOLE $40 MILLION. THEN THERE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE WRITE OFFS AND LOOPHOLES, ETC., ESPECIALLY AS TIME PASSES AND CONGRESS SNIPS OFF SOME HERE AND THERE TO GIVE BACK TO THOSE SAME VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE.
AS BERNIE
SANDERS HAS FREQUENTLY TALKED IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES OF COMPARATIVE WEALTH, I
HAVE OFTEN WONDERED HOW MANY MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES THERE
ACTUALLY ARE IN RAW NUMBERS. AS IS SO FREQUENTLY TRUE, IT’S WIKIPEDIA TO THE
RESCUE.
FIRST OFF, THERE ARE MANY
MORE MILLIONAIRES THAN I IMAGINED POSSIBLE, 18.6 MILLION, A SHOCKING
NUMBER ACTUALLY; SO I CAN SEE EVEN WHEN NOT BRINGING IN THE BILLIONAIRES
– THERE ARE 607 OF THOSE PER US NEWS 2019 -- THAT A GREAT DEAL OF
GOVERNMENT REVENUE COULD BE FOUND, AND QUICKLY, FOR BERNIE SANDERS’ PROJECTS ON A SIMPLE 4%
WEALTH TAX OR TAX ON STOCK TRADING, OR PERHAPS RAISING THE TAX ON INHERITED
WEALTH RATHER THAN LOWERING IT, AS REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS AGITATING FOR. NOW
BERNIE WOULD NOT TAX EVERY DOLLAR, BUT RATHER THE AMOUNT OVER A CERTAIN LEVEL
OF WEALTH, WHICH IS STATED SPECIFICALLY IN EACH CASE. HOWEVER, EVEN IF A BILLIONAIRE HAS TO PAY $40,000,000
IN TAXES, HE STILL HAS A SIZEABLE CUSHION TO FALL BACK ON IN HIS TIME OF NEED –
SPECIFICALLY, $960,000,000. I COULD EASILY LIVE ON THAT.
I’LL START WITH
A LITTLE BACKGROUND FOR THIS INFORMATION. WHAT IS THE TOTAL (ESTIMATED) COMBINED
WEALTH (NOT INCOME) OF ALL CITIZENS OF THE USA? THIS, BY THE WAY, IS TALLIED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY ACCORDING TO WHO IS DOING IT AND WHY, SO HOW MUCH DOUGH THESE PEOPLE HAVE REMAINS LARGELY A MYSTERY.
“Household net
worth—the value of all assets such as stocks and real estate minus liabilities
like mortgage and credit-card debt—rose by 1% from the previous quarter, or
more than a trillion dollars, to a record $100.768 trillion,
according to a report released by the Federal Reserve on Thursday. Jun 7, 2018”
www.wsj.com › u-s-net-worth-surpasses-100-trillion-1528387386
WHAT IS THE COMBINED
INCOME OF ALL US CITIZENS?
“Nation's total
personal income approaches $13 trillion. The national total
personal income grew by 9.3 percent between 2009 and 2011. Adjusted for
inflation, the increase was 4.2 percent. Americans collectively earned $12.95
trillion in 2011, according to new figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis.Dec 4, 2012”
www.bizjournals.com
› on-numbers › scott-thomas › 2012/12 › nations...
HOW MANY
AMERICAN MILLIONAIRES ARE THERE?
18.6 million
millionaires
According to
the report, the US has 18.6 million millionaires, highest in the world.
en.wikipedia.org
› wiki › Millionaire
HOW MANY
BILLIONAIRES ARE IN THE US?
In the U.S.,
there are 607 billionaires, up from 586 last year and 404 in
2010, and 14 of the world's 20 richest are from the U.S. More than 40
percent of U.S. billionaires live in two states – California and New York – and
more than three-quarters of the nation's billionaires have their primary
residences in one of 10 ...Mar 8, 2019
www.usnews.com
HOW MANY
TRILLIONAIRES ARE THERE IN AMERICA?
“No there are
currently no trillionaires alive today. The current known limit
of personal wealth is about $80 billion and there may be
secret billionaires in that range too but nobody could have assets of
$1,000 billion without public attention.
www.quora.com ›
Are-there-any-trillionaires
I QUESTION THIS
FIGURE FROM QUORA, $80 BILLION, GIVEN FOR THE TOP KNOWN AMOUNT OF PERSONAL WEALTH (ALSO, IS IT NET WORTH, OR ANOTHER MEASURE?). PERHAPS IT IS CORRECT, BUT BUSINESS INSIDER HAS A MUCH LARGER FIGURE,
CITING THE PERSONAL NET WORTH OF BILL GATES, WHO IS AT THE MOMENT THE WEALTHIEST MAN IN AMERICA. HE RECENTLY TOOK THAT POSITION FROM JEFF BEZOS. AT LEAST BILL GATES IS KNOWN FOR CHARITABLE GIVING. ON GATES:
“Here's how he
spends his $110 billion fortune, from a luxury-car collection to incredible
real estate. On Friday, Bill Gates regained the title of the richest person in
the world from Jeff Bezos, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
Gates' net worth is $110 billion.Nov 19, 2019”
www.businessinsider.com
› billionaire-bill-gates-net-worth-spending-20...
SO, DOWN TO
BASICS, IF YOU’RE A RELATIVELY POVERTY-STRICKEN MILLIONAIRE, HERE IS A LITTLE
INFORMATION ON THAT STATUS. PERSONALLY, I COULD DEAL WITH IT.
Millionaire
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
A millionaire
is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million
units of currency. It can also be a person who owns one million units of
currency in a bank account or savings account. Depending on the currency, a
certain level of prestige is associated with being a millionaire, which makes
that amount of wealth a goal for some and almost unattainable for others.[1] In
countries that use the short scale number naming system, a billionaire
is someone who has at least a thousand times a million dollars, euros or
the currency of the given country.
Many national
currencies have, or have had at various times, a low unit value, in many cases
due to past inflation. It is obviously much easier and less significant to be a
millionaire in those currencies, thus a millionaire (in the local
currency) in Hong Kong or Taiwan, for example, may be merely averagely wealthy,
or perhaps less wealthy than average. A millionaire in Zimbabwe in 2007
could have been extremely poor.[2] Because of this, the United States Dollar
(USD) is the most widely used currency standard to compare the wealth of
people all over the world. Hence a person must have a net worth of at least
one million USD to be recognised as a millionaire anywhere in the world.
At the end of
2018, there were estimated to be just over 14 million millionaires or high-net-worth
individual (HNWIs) in the world. The United States had the highest number
of HNWIs (4,900,000) of any country, while New York City had the most HNWIs
(377,000) among cities.[3][4][5]
[FOR MORE
SPECIFICS ON HNWI, GO TO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual.]
Terminology
The word [MILLIONAIRE]
was apparently coined in French in 1719 to describe speculators in the
Mississippi Bubble who earned millions of livres in weeks before the bubble
burst.[6][7][8] (The standard French spelling is now millionnaire,[9]
though the earlist reference uses a single n.[8]) The earliest attestation in
the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a letter of Lord Byron of 1816, which
mentions it as a French term needed because of the "Lilliputian"
value of francs.[7] Earlier English writers also mention the French word,
including Sir William Mildmay in 1764.[10] The OED's first print citation is
Benjamin Disraeli's 1826 novel Vivian Grey,[7] The anglicisation millionary
was used in 1786 by Thomas Jefferson while serving as Minister to France; he
wrote: "The poorest labourer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest
Millionary".[11]
While statistics
regarding financial assets and net worth are presented by household, the term
is also often used to describe only the individual who has amassed the assets
as millionaire. That is, even though the term statistically refers only to
households, common usage is often in reference only to an individual.
Net worth vs.
financial assets
This section
possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims
made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original
research should be removed. (February 2013) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)
There are
multiple approaches to determining a person's status as a millionaire. One of
the two most commonly used measurements is net worth, which counts the total
value of all property owned by a household minus the household's debts. According to
this definition, a household owning an $800k home, $50k of furnishings, two
cars worth $60k, a $60k retirement savings account, $45k in mutual funds, and a
$325k vacation home with a $250k mortgage, $40k in car loans, and $25k in
credit card debt would be worth about $1,025,000; and every individual in
this household would thus be a millionaire. However, according to the net
financial assets measurement used for some specific applications (such as
evaluating an investor's expected tolerance for risk for stockbroker
ethics), equity in one's principal residence is excluded, as are lifestyle
assets, such as the car and furniture. Therefore, the above example
household would only have net financial assets of $115,000. Another term
used is "net investable assets" or working capital. These
practitioners may use the term "millionaire" to mean somebody who is
free to invest a million units of currency through them as broker. For similar
reasons, those who market goods, services and investments to HNWIs are careful
to specify a net worth "not counting principal residence".
. . . .
Influence
While
millionaires constitute only a small percentage of the population, they hold
substantial control over economic resources, with the most powerful and
prominent individuals usually ranking among them. The total amount of money
held by millionaires can equal the amount of money held by a far higher number
of poor people. The Gini coefficient, and other measures in economics, estimated
for each country, are useful for determining how many of the poorest people
have the equivalent total wealth of the few richest in the country. Forbes
and Fortune magazines maintain lists of people based on their net worth and
are generally considered authorities on the subject. Forbes listed 1,645
dollar billionaires in 2014, with an aggregate net worth of $6.4
trillion, an increase from $5.4 trillion the previous year.[15] (see US-dollar
billionaires in the world).
Sixteen percent of
millionaires inherited their fortunes. Forty-seven percent of
millionaires are business owners. Twenty-three percent of the world's
millionaires got that way through paid work, consisting mostly of skilled
professionals or managers.[16] Millionaires are, on average, 61 years old with
$3.05 million in assets.[17]
Historical
worth
Depending on
how it is calculated, a million US dollars in 1900 is equivalent to $30.7
million (in 2019).[18]
. . . .
TERMS AND
SAYINGS
The rich get
richer and the poor get poorer Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the
poor Too big to fail
Das
Kapital Plutus Greek god of
wealth Superclass List The Theory of the Leisure Class Wealth
The Wealth of Nations
SEE ALSO:
Diseases of
affluence: Affluenza* “Argumentum ad crumenam”* Prosperity theology*
PHILANTHROPY
Gospel of
Wealth The Giving Pledge Philanthrocapitalism, Venture
philanthropy*
PROSPERITY
THEOLOGY*
THIS IS THE
KIND OF THING THAT MAKES ME SADEST OF ALL ABOUT WHAT AMERICA HAS BECOME. THIS
TYPE OF RELIGIOUS THINKING MAKES INDIVIDUALS INTO HUMAN PUTTY FOR CYNICAL
POWER-HUNGRY POLITICALLY INTERESTED “LEADERS,” TO BE MOLDED INTO WHAT SEEMS MOST
USEFUL. RIGHT NOW, IT’S “ELECTING” A HIGHLY MONEY BASED GOVERNMENT TO SUPERCEDE
WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH ISN’T PERFECT, BUT IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE EARLY
NINETEEN HUNDREDS WHEN MY PARENTS WERE GROWING UP. AFTER THAT TRANSFORMATION OF THE PEOPLE IS COMPLETE, WHO KNOWS WHAT KINDS OF HORRORS MAY BE BORN? A THEOCRACY,
PERHAPS? A CHANGE FROM A PLUTOCRACY TO AN OLIGARCHY?
Prosperity
theology
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Not to be
confused with The Gospel of Wealth.
Prosperity
theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth
gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith)[A] is a controversial religious
belief among some Protestant Christians, who hold that financial blessing and
physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith,
positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material
wealth.[1] Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and
humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and
prosperity.[2]
The doctrine
emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's
will for his people to be blessed. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is
interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are
viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through
donations of money, visualization, and positive confession.
It was during
the Healing Revivals of the 1950s that prosperity theology first came to
prominence in the United States, although commentators have linked the origins
of its theology to the New Thought movement which began in the 19th century.
The prosperity teaching later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement
and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential
leaders in the Pentecostal Movement and Charismatic Movement in the United
States and has spread throughout the world. Prominent leaders in the
development of prosperity theology include E. W. Kenyon,[3] Oral Roberts,[4] A.
A. Allen,[5] Robert Tilton,[6] T. L. Osborn,[7] Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar,[8]
Kenneth Copeland,[9] Reverend Ike,[10] and Kenneth Hagin.[11]
. . . .
ON “PHILANTHROCAPITALISM*,”
I HAVE SOME COMMENTS. THE VERY WORDING OF THAT TITLE MAKES ME CRINGE. THAT
ECONOMIC CONCEPT OF MINGLING CHARITY AND BUSINESS IS, IT SEEMS TO ME, A
SOMEWHAT INCESTUOUS PAIRING BETWEEN TAX SHELTERS AND PHILANTHROPIC GIVING;
THOUGH TRUE PHILANTHROPY, IF IT REACHES INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE OR UPGRADES THE
COMMUNITIES WHERE POOR TO WORKING CLASS PEOPLE LIVE, IS CATEGORICALLY GOOD,
IN MY EYES.
WHEN I WAS
YOUNG, PHILANTHROPY WAS CONSIDERED BASIC TO ONE’S “RIGHT” UNDER THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT OF THE TIMES, TO BE FABULOUSLY WEALTHY. THE WELL-TO-DO WERE EXPECTED
TO GIVE SOME BACK. NOW IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED THAT THE ONLY DUTY IS TO “MAXIMIZE
PROFITS.” THAT IS ONE OF OUR MAIN PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY TODAY. THE RELIGION
THAT SO MANY CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN TODAY HAS BEEN JUICED DRY OF IT’S MORAL AND
ETHICAL CONTENT, BESIDES, OF COURSE, THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SEX,
LGBTQ ISSUES ESPECIALLY.
THE FIRST THING
THAT COMES TO MY MIND ON THE SUBJECT OF HOW MUCH WEALTH IS FAIR AND RIGHT TO
HOLD AND INCREASE, IS THAT WE NEED MORE LEGALLY BINDING AND STRICTER LAWS,
WHICH MANDATE THAT THERE BE ABSOLUTELY NO PARTISAN POLITICAL BENEFIT OF
ANY KIND TO ACCRUE TO ANYONE IN THESE BUSINESS / CHARITIES, OR TRUSTS, OR
WHATEVER FORMS THEY TAKE.
IF A RELIGION
IS BEHIND THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, NONE OF THE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO
POLITICS. THE SITUATION TODAY IN WHICH CERTAIN EVANGELICAL CHRISITIAN GROUPS
ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN PARTISAN ISSUES AND ELECTING CANDIDATES, NOMINATING
JUDGES, ETC., SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. IT IS LEADING TO THE PHILOSOPHY CALLED “DOMINIONISM,”
WHICH FRIGHTENS ME. LIVING UNDER A CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT IS NO BETTER
THAN AN ISLAMIC OR ANY OTHER GROUP. THE LAW NEEDS TO BE SECULAR IN ORDER TO BE
FAIR TO ALL, AND NOBODY SHOULD EVER TELL ME THAT I MUST SHOW UP TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY.
FINALLY, NO
“THINK TANKS” SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SET UP A CHARITY, AS SO MANY OF THEM ARE
LITTLE MORE THAN POLITICALLY ACTIVE GROUPS THAT ARE INDIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY
INVOLVED WITH THINGS LIKE “RESEARCH” AGAINST OPPOSING POLITICAL POSITIONS. THEN
THERE ARE THE CAMPAIGN RESEARCH GROUPS WHO DO SOME ETHICALLY VALID SERVICES FOR
POLITICIANS, BUT THEY ALSO DIG UP MATERIAL TO USE IN NEGATIVE ADS. IT’S A DIRTY
BUSINESS, AND VERY HARMFUL TO THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.
ALSO, NO GROUP
SHOULD BE ABLE TO ORGANIZE AS A CHARITY IF IT DOES NOT GIVE AT LEAST 75%
OF ITS’ DONOR PROCEEDS TO THE VERY DISADVANTAGED GROUPS THAT IT CLAIMS TO HELP;
AND THE BENEFITS SHOULD BE SPECIFIC, TANGIBLE AND DISTRIBUTED, PROBABLY THROUGH
THIRD PARTIES, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. IN OTHER WORDS, “REAL PEOPLE” SHOULD
BENEFIT DIRECTLY. MOTHER THERESA’S DAILY FEEDING OF THE POOR IN INDIA WAS
IDEAL. SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THAT EFFORT COULD STILL BE CONSIDERED GOOD, HOWEVER. FOR
A LIST OF CHARITIES, GO TO https://www.consumerreports.org/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations/.
IF THERE ARE
TAX WRITE-OFFS TO DONOR BUSINESSES / GROUPS, THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL’S ANNUAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, WHICH SHOULD BE PUBLISHED
IN SOME APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR EVERYONE TO READ – ON THE INTERNET AND IN THE
PUBLIC LIBRARIES AROUND THE COUNTRY, FOR INSTANCE. THOSE STRICTURES SHOULD BE
REQUIRED BY LAW IN ORDER FOR THE GROUP TO CONTINUE TO EXIST AND DO BUSINESS,
BECAUSE IT IS A BUSINESS.
ALL OF THAT
COMES RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, AS USUAL THERE WILL BE FLAWS, BUT IT
DOESN’T REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF ANYONE ELSE (EXCEPT POSSIBLY BERNIE SANDERS), NOR
INVOLVE REALLY DEEP RESEARCH IN WHAT LAW ALREADY EXISTS. SOME LAWS TO THIS
EFFECT PROBABLY DO COVER THE MATTERS, AT LEAST IN PART. ONE REASON THAT I, PERSONALLY,
MAY NOT GIVE MONEY TO VARIOUS CHARITIES IS THAT A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE COME INTO
THE NEWS FOR CHEATING ON THE PUBLIC BY GIVING HIGH FEES TO BOARD MEMBERS AND
CEOS, OR OTHERWISE FRITTERING AWAY THE DONATIONS OF SO MANY. UNITED WAY IS ONE
OF THOSE WHO, SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT BECAME A
SCANDAL WHEN IT EMERGED TO THE LIGHT OF DAY. I’M IN FAVOR OF CHARITABLE GIVING,
EVEN IN THIS IMPERSONAL FORM, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINIZED AND WATCHED OVER ON
AN ONGOING BASIS.
Philanthrocapitalism
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Philanthrocapitalism
is a way of doing philanthropy, which mirrors the way that business is done in
the for-profit world. It may involve venture philanthropy that actively invests
in social programs to pursue specific philanthropic goal that would yield
return on investment over the long term, or in a more passive form whereby
"social investors" benefit from investing in socially-responsible
programs.[1]
History
The term was
coined by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green in their book Philanthrocapitalism:
How the Rich Can Save The World. The book was endorsed by Bill Clinton, who
wrote in its foreword that this concept drives the Clinton Foundation.[2] The
shift in implementing business models in charity is not a new concept – John
Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie sought to apply their business strategies in
their philanthropy in the twentieth century.[3] Since then, a significant
increase in charity spending by other organizations such as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, both described as
examples of philanthrocapitalism, has been noted.[4][5][6]
These more
modern organizations differ from other groups or organizations since their
funds come more from the private capital of an individual rather than donors or
profit from physical products.[5] The integration of business models in charity
foundations has focused on a symbiotic relationship between social
responsibility and the local, national, and international markets.[5]
Philanthrocapitalism has been compared and contrasted with altruism due to the
similar stated goals of the movements’ advocates.[6]
. . . .
“ARGUMENTUM
AD CRUMENAM”*
THIS LATIN
PHRASE, “ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM,” TAKEN FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON
MILLIONAIRES, STANDS FOR A CONCEPT DESCRIBED BY WIKTIONARY.ORG BELOW,
SHOWS A CURIOUS HUMAN ATTITUDE -- THE ASSIGNMENT OF HERO STATUS THAT WE THE
PUBLIC TEND TO MAKE IN FAVOR OF THE WEALTHY. “THEY MUST BE SMARTER THAN THE
POOR, OR THEY WOULDN’T BE SO WEALTHY,” ETC. A FRIEND OF MINE SOME THIRTY YEARS
AGO HAD A USED CAR THAT SHE WANTED TO SELL. SHE ADVERTISED IT TWICE AT A
CERTAIN PRICE, AND IT DIDN’T SELL. THE NEXT WEEK SHE ADDED $1,000 TO THE PRICE
OF THE CAR AND IT SOLD IN LESS THAN A WEEK’S TIME. THAT IS A TRUE STORY. IT’S A
SHORTHAND FORM OF THOUGHT, VERY QUICK AND DIRTY, AND IT’S THE REASON FOR THE
WORSHIP OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
Etymology
Latin
Noun
argumentum ad
crumenam (plural argumenta ad crumenam)
(rhetoric) The logical
fallacy of concluding that a proposition is correct because the person
advancing it is rich.
Synonyms
argument to the
purse
Affluenza*
No comments:
Post a Comment