It's the

t Innequallity, Sttupid

Illustrations by Jason Schneiider

Eight cha
arts that expllain everythiing that's wr
rong with Am
merica.

149 Com
mments | Po
ost Comme
ent
March/Ap
pril 2011 Issue
e
HOW RICH
R ARE THE SUP
PERRICH?

A huge sh
hare of the na
ation's econo
omic growth over the pas
st 30 years has gone to th
he top one-

hundredtth of one perc

cent, who no
ow make an average
a of $2
27 million pe
er household.. The average

income fo
or the bottom
m 90 percent of us? $31,24
44.
Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In

2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in
contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth

held by the superrich.

WINNERS TAKE ALL

The superrich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.

OUT OF BALANCE

A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans

how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced

than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even

more equitable.
CAPITOL GAIN

Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.

MEMBER MAX. EST. NET WORTH

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $451.1 million

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $435.4 million

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $366.2 million

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $294.9 million

MEMBER MAX. EST. NET WORTH

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $285.1 million

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $283.1 million

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) $231.2 million

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $201.5 million

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $136.2 million

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $108.1 million

COMBINED NET WORTH: $2.8 BILLION

Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive
Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.

WHO'S WINNING?

For a healthy few, it's getting better all the time.

Read also: Kevin Drum on the decline of Big Labor, the rise of Big Business, and

why the Obama era fizzled so soon.

149 Comments | Post Comment

IF YOU LIKED THIS, YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...

Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About

How screwing unions screws the entire middle class.

Michael Dell: The Making of an American Oligarch

How a homegrown geek outsourced, downsized, and tax-breaked his way to the top.

How the Oligarchs Took America

Creating a country of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Quotes of the Day: Pitchforks and Plutocrats

A Simple Look At Income Inequality

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a
week.

Showing 80 of 154 comments

wake up Today 02:19 AM

unbelievable...every single voter in america needs to read this and explain why they aren't
outraged and marching with torches.

48 people liked this.

Bruce M Campbell Today 10:59 AM in reply to wake up

Because they don't want to be accused of being Socialists, or Communists, or Anarchists,

or any of the other –ists that get parroted by the rank and file.

It's the age of neo-feudalism, and if you're lucky, the lord of your manor will believe that his
serfs will work better and be more loyal if they have full stomachs and are well rested.

25 people liked this.

tchdab1 7 minutes ago in reply to Bruce M Campbell

Labels are scary.

Fred D. Today 11:09 AM in reply to wake up

Distribution of wealth... ? Distribution.. ? Wealth is earned - rarely "distributed". There

will always be poor people, and rich people. Get over it! I be on the medium poor side by the
way.

6 people liked this.

 Guest Today 11:18 AM in reply to Fred D.

That's right! Sturdy peasants like Fred D will always be with us, because they don't work
hard enough to earn wealth.

If Fred D worked harder, he would be wealthy. As is, he's just too lazy and stupid. Ain't that
right, Fred D?

21 people liked this.

lifeboatb Today 11:29 AM in reply to Fred D.

Explain to me what any CEO does that justifies his (or her, but mostly his) pay being
185x more than their workers' pay, PLUS stock options and benefits. Most of them are handed
this kind of wealth even if they make decisions that destroy their
companies.http://tinyurl.com/5vk9zqn

19 people liked this.

tchdab1 1 minute ago in reply to lifeboatb

CEOs manage companies that make millions or billions of dollars in profits. They are
responsible to their boards of directors and their shareholders and their employees and to the
SEC, and they also sit on the boards of other companies (they lie to their shareholders and the
SEC and they own their employees). *They get to make the rules for how their companies are
run* including how they distribute their profits. Their is no other oversight.

That is how they justify their huge salary differential - they control the decisions that disperse
profits. That's functional justification and there's nothing we can do unless corporations are once
again regulated as they were before 1870.

Bschley1 Today 11:51 AM in reply to Fred D.

Hey Fred. I'm a vet, retired state employee, and have worked hard for 47 years. I never
collected govt. subsidies. Never been unemployed for more than a week. When I see my taxes
supporting what I would term 'lazy', unwilling to take jobs offered; illegal aliens, I believe my
paying taxes, not being a burden on the government, etc, do qualify as redistribution of wealth.

2 people liked this.

Fed Up Today 12:26 PM in reply to Fred D.

and with that attitude you're goin to stay there.

These stats are criminal.

The French knew how to take care of this...off with their heads!

7 people liked this.

Megs 43 minutes ago in reply to Fed Up

Let them eat cake Fed? :)

lifepanels 28 minutes ago in reply to Fed Up

Funny, I've been thinking about the French Revolution lately because of all the income
disparity. And yes, I was thinking about the way the poor finally took care of things. Chop chop.

2 people liked this.

Megs Today 12:37 PM in reply to Fred D.

Wealth is stolen when gained through fraudulent transactions Fred. How many of those
CEO's on Wall Street honestly earned their money dude?

Get real.

5 people liked this.

Michael B 39 minutes ago in reply to Fred D.

Your point is fine and well so long as the system hasn't been ginned up to overtly favor
the haves while while screwing the have nots. These graphs clearly point to a severely ginned up
system. It's going to keep getting worse, btw.

4 people liked this.

Another Guest 28 minutes ago in reply to Fred D.

Dude. "Distribution of wealth" refers to who is holding money. If anyone has money, it is
distributed, whether it's earned, stolen, whatever. "Distribution of wealth" is not a policy. It's not
an idea for what to do. It's a quantitative description of the current situation.

I'm going to go beat my head against a wall and wish we had better schools. Thanks, Fred.

Richard A. Dunlap 17 minutes ago in reply to Fred D.

Wealth is clearly transferred from the non-rich to the rich, there are many ways this is
happening. The most recent/egregious of which is the Wall Street bailouts followed up by free
money from the Fed which is loaned back to the American people.
More subtly is how the wealthy exploit the workforce. For example; If, say Walmart pays a non-
living wage with no benefits in order to make a little more profit, then the taxpayers are forced to
pick up the slack in various ways such as funding medical care through emergency rooms. And
so on. That is a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers and poor to the wealthy.

Also, environmental degradation is another form of wealth transfer. Poisoning the air and water
is what economists refer to as "externalities", they have real costs, but the costs are not paid by
the polluting business, they are paid by everyone else.

The list goes on and on. But all one needs to do is look at the charts above to see that wealth is
clearly being transferred up, not down.

4 people liked this.

Erlinggv Today 11:30 AM in reply to wake up

Well, there you are... It's only a matter of time before Americans will have to do like the
Egyptians; only it think it will take som considerable time, while gradually sinking into a mire of
"illusion-of-freedom"; poor people in America have been brainwashed into believing that staying
true to "The American Dream" means allowing meaninglessly rich people, who actually behave
like leeches, to "Do what they wilt" with America's resources; it's kind of beeing too well-
behaved to rock the boat and sound tth alarm as you are being robbed blind...

11 people liked this.

a different take 9 minutes ago in reply to wake up

if you look at why the top 1% of americans are wealthy, you will see its because they
provided america with services that we can't live without today. imagine a world without
computers, cell phones, or other modern miracles and you will have a world where income
distributions are more equal.

Mmajikas 60 minutes ago in reply to a different take

LMAO. So the top 1% are all inventors? Seems to me that the people most likely to have
been responsible for the research that led to the inventions you mention were middle class
engineers, not the super wealthy who are busy buying toys for themselves.

beachmom Today 04:58 AM

I think it is a bit misleading to say that being rich is why those 10 members of Congress
voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. The truth is that was a deal made by the Obama
Administration in order to get middle class tax cuts extended as well. John Kerry would have
preferred those tax cuts for the rich were NOT extended. After all, he campaigned on that idea in
2004. I mean, you picked a vote that received overwhelming bipartisan support because it was a
DEAL. It proves nothing. Pick a more revealing vote, and guess what? You'll see Republicans
and "moderate" Democrats voting for the plutocracy, not liberals like John Kerry, regardless of
his net worth.

23 people liked this.

rjgwood Today 07:49 AM in reply to beachmom

Are you kidding me? That was a crappy deal - they just gave themselves political cover.
John Kerry and others could have voted against this...they could have told the president that they
weren't going to vote for this piece of crap budget. But they didn't, and their net worth is being
handsomely rewarded.

6 people liked this.

beachmom Today 10:14 AM in reply to rjgwood

It may have been a crappy deal, but John Kerry's vote does not differ from many "poorer"
liberal members of Congress. His wealth was irrelevant to that vote. Which is why it was a
foolish graphic in this piece. Give me a record of wealthy members of Congress always voting
for policies for the rich. It may be true for Republicans and centrist Democrats, but not for a
liberal like John Kerry -- he has a liberal voting record in the Senate -- in fact, "I voted for it
before I voted against it" is directly related to taxing the rich at a higher rate -- he voted for Iraq
war funding when it paid for it by taxing the rich, while voting against the Iraq War funding that
simply added to the deficit. And just recently Sen. Kerry chastised the President for cutting
LIHEAP, a program to help the poor pay for heating. So no dice. That vote which was passed 81
- 19 is not illustrative of anything.

10 people liked this.

Phil Scarr Today 06:21 AM

Is there a set of charts that compare income inequality in other nations and the long term
trends there? Is this just an American phenomenon or is it global? I'll bet it's American, but it
would be nice to see the data.

10 people liked this.

Pamstitches Today 09:11 AM in reply to Phil Scarr

Read Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist.

6 people liked this.

Rylandogg Today 10:41 AM in reply to Phil Scarr

 I believe that what you're looking for is called the Gini coefficient, and it shows that
increasing disparity in income isn't unique to the U.S., but amongst 1st world nations the U.S.
does seem to lean towards greater income inequality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

2 people liked this.

Dave Gilson Today 11:59 AM in reply to Phil Scarr

Charles Blow of the New York Times just posted some income inequality (Gini
coefficient) stats from the US, Europe, and Asia here.

Glinda Today 07:22 AM

Absolutely sickening. Why Americans are not outraged by this is beyond my

comprehension!

17 people liked this.

CitizenDreamer Today 07:42 AM

I wish I could get a good copy of some of these. I have the "Out of Balance" slides, but
the first graph of the Saez data is one I would like to have. Anyone know where it is from?

Dave Gilson Today 10:34 AM in reply to CitizenDreamer

The Saez data is cited in his papers "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998"
and "Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States." Both papers and the
data can be downloaded here.

(Edited by author 1 hour ago)

CitizenDreamer Today 11:29 AM in reply to Dave Gilson

Thanks. I had seen the papers. I was most impressed by the posted graphic. I was hoping
to borrow this graphic image: I MUCH prefer when someone else does my work for me, and I
am not even super rich ;-).

2 people liked this.

Chaionlychai Today 07:49 AM

Of course, the people who work really hard to earn more than $120k per year definitely
should be penalized for their hard work. Yep, it's just crazy....

3 people liked this.

 WakeUp Today 08:15 AM in reply to Chaionlychai

Work hard? Are there roofers making 120K plus? I'm pretty sure anyone making that
kind of scratch do not get dirty at work, or risk life or limb.

21 people liked this.

Kelleyboles Today 09:41 AM in reply to WakeUp

Here are two good books for you to read.

The Millionaire Mind and The Millionaire Next Door. Both are by Thomas Stanley.

To say that people who earn incomes in excess of $120k don't "get dirty" at work is beyond
ignorant.

7 people liked this.

rp Today 10:45 AM in reply to WakeUp

I think the ppl that are making more than $120K just decided to "work hard" in school, so
they didn't have to break their back later in life. Seriously... how many MBAs or PhDs do you
know that didn't work hard to get where they are? I am pretty sick of the "I work hard for a
living" blue collar saying that implies that college graduates and academics are some how lazy.
We all make choices in our lives... some just make better ones than others.

5 people liked this.

Mmajikas Today 11:27 AM in reply to rp

>Seriously... how many MBAs or PhDs do you know that didn't work hard to get where
they are?

LMAO. Are you serious? Bush Jr., for starters...

rp Today 11:35 AM in reply to Mmajikas

(I am a Dem) - First of all, just because I completely agree with you and think that Bush
was and is an idiot, doesn't mean he didn't work hard in school, graduate, run for Gov of TX,
Win, Run for Pres. Win. I am pretty sure that is not an easy task... even with all of the money in
the world... it is still a very hard task to accomplish, right?

Mmajikas Today 11:39 AM in reply to rp

I'd reply but my hands are shaking from laughing so hard.

3 people liked this.

 rp Today 11:55 AM in reply to Mmajikas

That is Sarah Palin political non-answer response. But just so we are on the same page...
was it hard for Obama to win the Presidency? You are an idiot if you think being the president is
easy. You don't have to agree with his politics (which I don't) to know that a person must work
hard, and I would say 10x harder than the average person to become President.

Arren Today 12:19 PM in reply to rp

Mmajikas was reduced to quaking laughter because your question ("...Bush was and is an
idiot, doesn't mean he didn't work hard in school, graduate, run for Gov of TX, Win, Run for
Pres. Win.") is so ignorant with regard to its subject as to deserve no other response.

"10x harder than the average person"? Do you even stop to think before you type? Rhetorical
question.....

2 people liked this.

rp 13 minutes ago in reply to Arren

Ask a rhetorical question, get a rhetorical answer.

Really now...? 21 minutes ago in reply to rp

Its all easy when your daddy was the president, and you just pay or manipulate your way
through school, college, and elections. It was all a plan from in the 60's. Bush senior worked his
way in office, they lost the next election when Clinton got elected - twice, but they had to get
him out of office, so Bush junior could get elected. Then they had the whole government in their
power for 8 years straight. Bush jr had it easy. I agree its not easy to be president but, i was
prettyamn easy for him, I mean its not a challenge to mess everything up.

DocM Today 11:34 AM in reply to rp

Think, or know? If the superrich work that hard, they must have 500 parallel universes
where they get up and work 500 times harder than roofers. Get real. It's access to capital from an
early age, combined with not pissing it away that allows the super rich to increase their wealth.

5 people liked this.

rp Today 12:04 PM in reply to DocM

Im sorry... I am confused... does earning more than $120K mean you were born rich?
What parallel universe are you from? You are confusing worth with work. A roofer might work
10x harder than the average $120K wage earner, but since their job is a commodity, anyone can
do it. Which means the value goes way down... all the way to Mexico, down. You see immigrant
workers doing these professions, because they don't have any market value, or better yet any
skillset that allows them to get hired legally and become an H1B worker.

The super rich have market value because of their knowledge capitol, or who and what they
know. They have power to get things done. Whether they earn it or not is irrelevant, because it is
about market value.

2 people liked this.

Phoenix Woman Today 12:34 PM in reply to rp

First off, you're confusing (deliberately?) @120k/yr with "superrich".

Second off, are you honestly going to tell me that Darrell the Car Thief Issa honestly earned his
$400 million-plus?

2 people liked this.

rp 45 seconds ago in reply to Phoenix Woman

Not confusing anything... ppl who make $12oK per year are worth that amount... ppl who
make 50 Million same thing... is it there market value.

And I don't know who that is... but if a corporation found it necessary to keep him as an
employee by paying him $400 M then that is his market value. Worth has nothing to do with
how hard you work, if you deserve it, or if you earned it... It is about the perception of value.

j.cruel 35 minutes ago in reply to rp

I'm sorry. When did I sign the paperwork saying that "market value" is the be all, end all
of social, economic, political, and moral value. Oh, yes, I didn't sign that contract. The market
shows us ONE way of value. That's it. We can actually choose to not follow market value. I do
this when I don't sell my daughter into slavery because she costs an awful lot to raise. I ignore
the "market" whenever I believe that worth cannot be measured by cash. I encourage you to do
the same. The Market is not God and you recuse yourself of responsibility for the world and
suffering of others when you PRETEND as though it were.

rp 4 minutes ago in reply to j.cruel

well... when you signed your Social Security Card you did... We live in a capitalistic
society and a free market... so everything has a market value... yes, even your daughter. You as a
consumer control the market. Don't like the value of something... better get a lot of friends on
your side and change the value.
 Really now...? 7 minutes ago in reply to rp

Then your are dumb to get sucked into their backwards, un-realistic, and made-up way of
thinking. This whole country was made off of murder, manipulation, greed, cruelty, and
inequality. Who has the right to say your market value is greater than a roofer's market value?
Who has the right to say your worth anything in the market? Who has the right to say that you
are more qualified to work than I am, just because you had the priveledge or choice of more
schooling than i did, where as I can learn really fast, go out of my way to make sure everything is
done to the absolute best of my ablity, and almost never request a break. Why should a
supervisor get paid more than an entry level employee, when the entry level does more work?

Its all backwards and stupid. Its the greedy rich that just want more and dont care what they have
to say or do to get more, where as the poor who work hard to make the little that they do get, so
they can get spit on and criticized only to never get a chance at success. Im ready to find an
island of my own...

dr2chase Today 12:03 PM in reply to rp

You are ignoring the luck of the draw. I'm pretty sure there is a "math gene" (or gene
combo) -- my great-great-great-grandfather was a math professor, my grandfather was extremely
good at math, my uncle is a math professor emeritus, one cousin is a CS professor, I've always
been very good at math, and my oldest son is extremely good at math ("extremely good" = top
ten in state in HS competitions, that sort of thing, same for me). I have a couple of nephews who
are threatening to be good at math. You can see the first hints of this even before starting
kindergarten. And because you're good at it, it's fun, and so you do more of it, and you get even
better at it. The same is true of smashing beer cans on your forehead, but you can generally make
a lot more money with good math skills.

Also, speaking as someone who knows people who got MBAs and PhDs -- getting an MBA is a
walk in the park, comparatively speaking. Making a mess of money has a lot to do with having
the right combo of people skills, negotiating skills, intelligence, and willingness to take risks. If
you've got that combo nailed, it's not necessarily hard work; it could even be fun.

rp Today 12:11 PM in reply to dr2chase

Well good then... you know of some academics that are gifted enough to find it very easy
to do. For the gross majority of ppl though it is a very hard task... much harder than roofing, I
would say, and obviously much more valuable to the market.

Obviously hitting a tiny white ball 450 yards into a small hole in the ground might be a piece of
cake for a few ppl out there... but how many millionaires or billionaires can say they do that for a
living? Not many. If you are gifted in something... art, music, math, sales... then it comes easy to
you. but for most... its very hard work.
 Richard Gillette Today 12:13 PM in reply to rp

That is not entirely true. some of us have to make the choice like go to school or eat! I am
trying again to go to school, I have very good grades but I am not sure I will be able to continue
because I can not afford even on line school.

sas 58 minutes ago in reply to rp

Many phd's , including scientists, (myself included) will not likely be making 120K until
very close to retirement. Probably not the best correlation (hard work vs pay).

Striker 42 minutes ago in reply to rp

Some are not quite as fortunate to have the financial resources and support required to
attend college or university. Many are forced out of school to work, to provide for their ailing
parents etc.

James123 Today 11:30 AM in reply to WakeUp

Me and my wife work hard, get our hands dirty on daily basis. To generalize and say that
everyone making a decent living doesn't work hard is ignorant. What about the roofer's who
venture out on their own and end up making a living that pushes 120k. Now that he/she is doing
well he no longer works hard.

Mmajikas Today 11:41 AM in reply to James123

I don't think you are reading the question right. The assumption was that somehow people
who make more money do so because they all work harder.

Chaionlychai Today 12:14 PM in reply to Mmajikas

I don't think anyone said "all" -- but then again, this board is full of out of context
commentary and twisting of words to fit their point.

Ktdsn 9 seconds ago in reply to WakeUp

I have a friend who owns a roofing business (and gets up on roofs) and physically works
his ass off. Yes he makes more than $120,000 a year. He also pays his crew very well.

beachmom Today 10:19 AM in reply to Chaionlychai

They're not being penalized. They pay the same tax rate for the amount they earn up until
the upper income tax bracket for which they would have paid a SLIGHTLY higher percentage. I
mean, a graduated progressive tax income is a good policy that has been around for decades. It
didn't stop many entrepeneurs from getting fabulously rich. As to The Millionaire Next Door,
that is more about not living beyond your means even when your income goes up. It is more
about comparing people in similar income levels and why some get rich (by not keeping up with
the Joneses), and some stay poor due to high expenditures. The Millionaire Next Door would
plan for a graduated progressive tax rate and still be a millionaire.

Mmajikas Today 10:24 AM in reply to Chaionlychai

Yeah, no one who is wealthy is overpaid, right? Teachers, yes. Rich white guys who sit in
the corner office and have secretaries do their work, no.

Philip Pennington Today 10:37 AM in reply to Mmajikas

So, if I offered you that job, you would refuse it?

Mmajikas Today 10:47 AM in reply to Philip Pennington

Does that answer the question? Why are conservatives so obsessed with reducing the
salary of middle class workers?

Phoenix Woman Today 12:35 PM in reply to Philip Pennington

Watch as the conservative tries moving the goalposts!

rp Today 10:52 AM in reply to Mmajikas

You obviously have no clue what it takes to get to that corner office now do you? Yes,
some ppl are born with a silver spoon in their mouths... most others are not. Case in point... Steve
Jobs. You make your own way or you get left along the way.

Mmajikas Today 11:01 AM in reply to rp

How do you know I'm not a rich white man sitting in the corner office right now, telling
my secretary what to post? Quite an assumption on your part. Still doesn't answer the question
whether or not high-income people are ever overpaid.

James123 Today 11:36 AM in reply to Mmajikas

Yes some are overpaid but just like every industry there are overpaid people. I have had
people "barely" working as office cleaners that were overpaid for the work they did. Just because
it's a smaller income it's ok to not earn your wage?

Mmajikas Today 11:46 AM in reply to James123

Huh? I think you are missing the point. The original point made here, and carried on in
conservative logic, is that high-income people work harder for their money, thus they are entitled
to keep more of it. The rich=hard worker meme is deeply rooted in conservative logic.

Chaionlychai Today 12:22 PM in reply to Mmajikas

 No, we don't want to keep more of it. Read the words as they are written. We want to
keep what we earn in the same proportion aka taxes should be the same for the super rich, the
'rich,' the middle class, and the 'poor.' Making more per paycheck doesn't entitle anyone to take a
higher percentage. Here is a simple example: there's a person working as a receptionist making
$9 an hour and a person working as a doctor making $50 an hour (after office overhead, so
there's no assumptions). They should both pay the same taxes. His ability to earn more doesn't
mean she should have to pay less. She uses the same roads, the same police, the same ambulance
and has access to the same "gifts" the doctor does. Is that more clear, if you really want to try to
understand?

gadfly 34 minutes ago in reply to Chaionlychai

I'll go along with you as long as the wage is a living wage to begin with (after taxes)...one
that will allow one food, shelter, some modest transportation to and from work, clothing, and
medical care. Additionally, the 'subsidies' that are 'given' to the wealthy are retracted--i.e. wars
protecting and furthering business interests. That a person should be able to do an honest days
labor for enough money to keep themselves alive should be a goal of civilization.

But your example is grossly understating the article...it's not $9 to $50 more like $5.25 to
$12,820 an hour (a $40M/year modestly paid CEO).

gadfly 32 minutes ago in reply to Chaionlychai

Also for the low wage earner...a modest amount for things like retirement at say 70, life
insurance, health insurance.

J. Frank Parnell 30 minutes ago in reply to Chaionlychai

I think you live on different planet then I do. Doctors’ average income is more like $200
an hour, more for a specialist. Surprise, most medical school graduates are from affluent
neighborhoods and benefited from better schools (not all, but most). Once they make it they tend
to drive more and larger cars on those public roads than their receptions do, and generally get
better service from the police, ambulance, etc. What don’t you understand about giving society a
bit back in return for the privileges and opportunities that led to your success? That is unless you
are just a greedy bastard, in which case one should not go into medicine.

Mmajikas 26 minutes ago in reply to Chaionlychai

Oh goody, let's do some math. Here is some more math for you. A person making
$30,000 pays 7.65% in Social Security taxes. A person making $100,000 a year pays 7.65% in
Social Security taxes on the first $75,000. The remaining $25,000 is not subject to SS tax, giving
you an effective tax rate of 5.7%. Is that "equal"??
A person making $30,000 and a person making $100,000 a year each pay $1000 a year in their
paycheck for health insurance. How is that "equal", when one person is paying 33% of their
income and the other is paying 10%?

You want equal percentages, fine. Do it across the board.

Mmajikas 23 minutes ago in reply to Mmajikas

Wish there was a way to edit existing posts--correcting the percentages to 3% and 1%.

rp Today 11:45 AM in reply to Mmajikas

Because I have worked with and known enough successful people, and they don't let their
secretaries run the company. I also have work with enough CEOs to know that they are not
sitting around on these boards arguing like the rest of us... they are running companies.

So your question is about market worth. Are executives worth their paycheck? Should Nike Pay
Tiger Woods $50 Million a year for endorsements? This is the same question as... is $500 the
right price for an iPad? The market determines the value. The only point of a corporation is to
make money for the shareholders. Everything they do must be in the best interest of the
shareholders(this is actually a law). So you would have to assume that a corporation believes the
value of their top executives to be such that they pay them enough, but not more than what is
required to keep them on board as an asset to the shareholders.

No, because I believe in economics... I don't believe that "high-income people are overpaid".
They are paid what the market will bare.

Mmajikas Today 11:56 AM in reply to rp

> I don't believe that "high-income people are overpaid". They are paid what the market
will bare.

Interesting. So no matter how well or poorly they do their job, it's all about a naked market?
LMAO.

rp Today 12:19 PM in reply to Mmajikas

Yes. Value is about perception. Your comments are perceived as erratic and without
thought, so they hold less value. A BMW is perceived by many to be a status symbol and worth
5x more than a Toyota. A corporation perceives the value of their senior management to be high,
and therefore they pay them very well, because those employees are worth more to the company
because you cannot replace them as easily.
Its about market value... not about who "works harder". I would much rather hire a financial
analyst who works 45 minutes a day that can turn $100K into $100M over someone who works
12 hour days and turns $100K into $200K.

Phoenix Woman Today 12:36 PM in reply to rp

Tell me how the Koch brothers earned their wealth. C'mon, tell me. (Hint: They weren't
born poor.

Mmajikas 31 minutes ago in reply to rp

Dude, you totally missed the point about your misspelling.

eightnine2718281828mu5 48 minutes ago in reply to rp

No, because I believe in economics... I don't believe that "high-income people are overpaid".
They are paid what the market will bare.

Exactly! Because the market guarantees that no one ever overpays for anything!

Equities, houses, railroads, CEO's salaries, union wages, tulip bulbs, etc; none of these have ever
been overpriced.

Megs 37 minutes ago in reply to rp

So you are cosigning the CEO pay of the executives on Wall Street who made a heaping
contribution to our F*** up economy? They walked away with billions for ruining our economy
and you think it is deserved because they have the letter C-E-O in their title.

No I do not think so. Some CEO do not work hard they work like criminals for their own gain at
the cost of life.

J. Frank Parnell 15 minutes ago in reply to rp

Get real. The head clowns on Wall Street got their companies in serious trouble and blew up the
country's economy. Yet they were getting filthy rich then and they are getting filthy rich now
(the stock holders? – not so much). They are making money because they have power which
allows them to make money, not because they are providing society anything useful. You free
market types can be so damn naive (have you ever actually worked in a company?) Yes
sometimes a person gets rich providing society a new useful product, but sometimes a person
gets rich because they figure out robbing people with a fountain pen (of more likely today, a
computer) is a safer and more profitable than using a gun. And more often than not, it’s a bit of
both (see Issa, Darryl).

Chaionlychai Today 12:18 PM in reply to Mmajikas

So because he makes more money than you, he should cut his salary and forego all the years of
work he did to get there? Man, talk about not being able to satisfy some people. Basically, people
who make more money are screwed if they work hard, screwed if someone gave it to them, and
screwed if they give it away, all the while being taxed at a higher proportion. There's that liberal
bent for you.