# The ranks of millionaire households jumped 14 percent



## Curandera (May 17, 2003)

Article on rise of millionaires. I found it interesting to compare it to the other articles where I got this link: Geo Topics


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

What I find interesting is that this article reports that millionaires on the rise as if it's a good thing and as if all Americans can aspire to being millionaires.

At the same time, the article reports poverty is on the rise.

What does this mean? it means money is concentrating in the hands of a few families while most families are becomming poorer and poorer.

Millionaires make terrible neighbors. They try to buy their way out of the civic/democratic process. They put up fences to shut the riff-raff out of their neighborhoods. They trample over the little guy (that is to say, you) on their way to what they want. They might hire you to be a nanny or gardiner, but the new millionaires seem to have little sense of civic responsibility and don't donate much to libraries, parks, concert halls or other public works.

So what this article says between the lines is not that your chances of becomming a millionaire are increasing or that Americans are getting richer. What it says is that because of concentration of wealth there is less for you and more for someone else.

--AmyB


----------



## Marg of Arabia (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

What does this mean? it means money is concentrating in the hands of a few families while most families are becomming poorer and poorer.








Iam afraid so.........


----------



## Curandera (May 17, 2003)

I also think it is no surprise that this record rise of millionaries and of the poverty level - occured with a republican in office.


----------



## artemesia (Nov 27, 2001)

Well, I sure am glad to hear that as my family has dipped below the poverty level, all that money has gone to a good cause







:


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Curandera_
*I also think it is no surprise that this record rise of millionaries and of the poverty level - occured with a republican in office.*
Just for the record....the Republican this started under was Ronald Reagan. Not the Shrub.

And it didn't abate under Clinton. It just keeps increasing.


----------



## Curandera (May 17, 2003)

Maybe I don't understand the article, but I got the impression that a 14% rise since 2002 was extreme - and considering the rise in poverty also during that time, I get the impression that this isn't just "same ol' same ol'". I think the extremes widening so rapidly does have to do with a republican being in office. Weren't there statistics somewhere where during the previous administration the gape was drawing closer? I've no problem with the number of millionares getting higher - but when it appears to do so at the cost of the middle class - who slips into poverty - then I grow concerned.


----------



## luckylady (Jul 9, 2003)

Quote:

Millionaires make terrible neighbors. They try to buy their way out of the civic/democratic process. They put up fences to shut the riff-raff out of their neighborhoods. They trample over the little guy (that is to say, you) on their way to what they want. They might hire you to be a nanny or gardiner, but the new millionaires seem to have little sense of civic responsibility and don't donate much to libraries, parks, concert halls or other public works.
This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Who do you think pays the majority of taxes in this country? Do you know any millionaires? I do, and they are not Hollywood millionaires. They are people who work very HARD for their money, they are not flashy, and they are not crooked. They save, and they know how to invest and make their money work for them. They also are very giving philanthropists. Who do you think supports the arts through donations, parks and anything else paid by taxes??? I can tell you that in this country making more money almost doesn't make sense because the more you make, the more uncle sam takes - nearly 50% in some states. How would you like to pay $.50 in taxes on every dollar you made?

We live in a country where it is possible for ANYONE to become a millionaire, provided they are willing to get an education and work their butts off. And no, this does not mean trampling over the little guy. Most millionaires get that way by support, not by trampling. While there are those for whom money turns them into wackos, the majority of wealthy people are not spending it as fast as they get it, and you may not even know you have a millionaire next door! In fact, there is an excellent book called The Millionaire Next Door - here is an excerpt:

"How can you join the ranks of America's wealthy (defined as people whose net worth is over one million dollars)? It's easy, say doctors Stanley and Danko, who have spent the last 20 years interviewing members of this elite club: you just have to follow seven simple rules. The first rule is, always live well below your means. The last rule is, choose your occupation wisely."

Not all millionaires are CEO's, Movie Stars and politicians (politicians don't make very much money anyway). My grandparents are millionaires and my grandfather was a paper salesman, and my grandmother was a nurse - they never made a ton of money. They live in a small house, drive an older car, and have saved all their lives. They certainly live below their means. I have dear friends who are millionaires. He owns a small business and makes around $80,000 a year. He drives a 1987 Toyota pickup truck. They live in a modest home and have an old TV and stereo equipment - with a turntable! They save and live below their means.

Broad generalizations are not only ignorant, they are dangerous.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

Who do you think pays the majority of taxes in this country?

The middle class.


----------



## Wendydagny (Sep 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Els' 3 Ones_
*The middle class.*
I suppose that depends on what your definition of middle class is.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Looks like the top 5% of federal filers paid 53.3% of the taxes in 2001.

Oh, and the book The Millionaire Next Door is a fascinating read.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Also depends on definition of "taxes". I'm speaking of all our taxes, not just fed. And on all our income, not just wages.

According to :Rush Limabaugh's site (*gasp* I've had this pissing contest B4 - someone used this to root for the tax cut!)

Quote:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
From that I can extrapolate that

The top 10% earn 43% (close to 50%, eh?) of ALL the income and pay 65% of income tax-----I'd love to see what they pay in total tax percentage wise.

Also, the bottom 50% earn just _under_ 14% of ALL the income and pay just _under_ 4% of income tax-----ya know, if I were one of the 50% that had to divvy up 14% of the income (think about it, how much are they making?) I wouldn't want to pay 4% in income taxes! I know that this group's total tax percentage is higher that that top 10%.

Call me a flaming liberal (please) but, damn, it just does not seem unfair to me!! What am I missing here?

El


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

..


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

I tried to delete the multiple posts but for some reason I can't

MNS


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

...


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

What you need to look at is not the "personal" taxes of the "extremely" wealthy, but the taxes the businesses they own whole or part of get out of paying completely. The corporate welfare system allows these people to , for the most part to be rich and get richer.

General statements are a good thing. If the "generalization" does not apply to you personally, don't take it personal. If you have that point of view it is just as "wrong" to make the generalization that all millionaires got their money from being frugal and old fashioned hard work.

My grandpa said, "A millionaire is a person that screwed 10,000 good people out of $100 and never looked back."

It is impossible to make an exact statement when referring to a group of people. No matter what you say, it will apply to some and not to others. Discernment is the key to wisdom and understanding. Try it.

MNS


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

My grandpa said, "A millionaire is a person that screwed 10,000 good people out of $100 and never looked back."
LOL

nak

lets not forget that most people pay more in payrole taxes than in income taxes. and how bout ptoperty taxes which are completely passed on to the working poor in many cases?

kay


----------



## Wendydagny (Sep 19, 2002)

El-- I never said it was "fair" that people earned more money than others. (That's a whole other issue.) I just was pointing out that the middle class does not shoulder the majority of the tax burden. I understand your point, and won't call you a flaming liberal, as long as you don't call me a heartless conservative.









Tiredx2-- I am confused by your point. Are you saying that the rich pay less $ wise in payroll taxes than the working poor? (Yes I know they pay less percentage-wise, because it's capped.) Also, how can the working poor pay moreproperty taxes than the rich if they don't own any property?

And since conservative links have been posted first by a liberal on this thread:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2060


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

WG, I said please *do* call me a flaming liberal. I am proud of it.

I was addressing the post which defended the millionaires (which, ftr, I don't think means the 1 million mark in asessts anymore. It is 2x that or more these days dontcha think?) ......... That post said millionaires pay most of the taxes. I said no. I stand by that. Most of ALL TAXES are paid in the middle class. Percentage wise they are screwed.

Here is what Warren Buffet thought abt the tax cut, note what he currently pays vs his receptionist:

Dividend Voodoo

Quote:

The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer,
Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about
30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is
not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of
capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters
(I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for
my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our
receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in
payroll taxes than I do.


El


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

My apologies but I am not up on all the abbreviations so I'm gonna ask.

NAK??

MNS


----------



## mom2mmmh (May 29, 2003)

NAK - Something you can't do, LOL! Nursing at keyboard


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

NAK= nursing at keyboard. I put that to explain my lack of punctuation/capitalization









Quote:

Tiredx2-- I am confused by your point. Are you saying that the rich pay less $ wise in payroll taxes than the working poor? (Yes I know they pay less percentage-wise, because it's capped.) Also, how can the working poor pay moreproperty taxes than the rich if they don't own any property?
Yes, the rich of course pay less money in payroll taxes, both as an absolute number (because there are so many more "poor") and as a percentage of their income (because it is a percentage only until the cutoff of around $85K, meaning that a person making 15% is paying 8.6/17.2% social security while a person making 850K is effectively only paying .86/1.72% social security. the same for other payroll taxes). The working poor pay more property taxes than the rich because they pay them through rent (included with rent, the landlords include that as an expense meaning the rentors are actually paying the property tax) and because property taxes are regressive (the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on housing costs than the rich, meaning that they are spending a larger percentage of their income on the property taxes that go with it.). It is logical why there is--- A person making 500K a year can generally "get by" with a 500K house (therefore paying appx 5K of tax deductable property tax, only 1% of their income) but a person making 10K probably can not "get by" with a 10K house (or the equivalent rent payment, $60, lol) and that tax payment will probably not be tax deductable for them (if they are renting because the landlord takes it as a business expense, if they own because it would not be enough to make it over the personal exemption level.

I do not actually know the % of total taxes paid by each social group (rich, middle class, poor, etc...) but I would be very interested to know. Given how many taxes that are regressive (property tax, sales tax, payroll taxes, etc...) and how few or progressive or stagnant (even the income tax, supposedly progressive often doesn't work that way because of available deducations). Because the rich are so very rich, I would not be surprised if they still paid a majority of the taxes, but as El's said, it would be interesting to *know.*

Now, this has gone fairly off basis and I think many definitions of "millionaire" are quite odd (though I did notice they didn't count retirement savings which means these people do have quite a chunk of change lying around), but the fact remains: the devide between the have and the have nots is a veritable chasm at this point. I don't know how to do it, but this country needs to make some serious decisions about what people "deserve" simply for being born in such a wealth country and what divide is acceptable and what divide is not). I, personally think that we need to INCREASE inheiratance tax (well, actually *decrease* the levels at which it kicks in and make it graduated), increase the level of mandatory social programs (health care, housing, and the like), mandate a floor for payroll taxes, increase the tax current top tax rates & add additional tiers (for example, if you make over $500K 40%, over $1mil 50% etc...).

Theres my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Kay


----------

