Search This Blog

Sunday, February 9, 2020




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*

THE_BLOG
Is Affluenza Real?

If "affluenza" is indeed what caused Ethan Couch to get behind the wheel with a blood alcohol count three times the legal limit for adults, resulting in the deaths of four people, he deserves to face consequences. But he also deserves to get some help.
By Dr. Peggy Drexler, Contributor
Author, research psychologist and gender scholar
01/22/2016 07:16am EST | Updated January 22, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment