Top 20% own 83.4% of everything in US, but pay less in tax - Fair?

[papau]

blowing away the idea rich pay too much in tax - - If richest 40% own 95.3% of everything, and do not pay 95.3% of the cost of government, then the tax system is biased against the poor - Proving once again that our media does use Google:
Search terms were: 1 distribution of wealth in us, 2.wealth and distribution. 3. us distribution of wealth, 4.us and 1998 and stat or statistic or statistics gini coefficient

Here is a summary of the statistics for the distribution of wealth in the US as of 1998, the most recent information available that has been fully analyzed:

% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%


You can find this illustrated in a graph at United for a Fair Economy (UFE):
http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

You can also find additional graphs and charts on US income trends at the UFE site:
http://www.ufenet.org/research/income_charts.html

These figures are based on research by New York University Economics Professor Edward N. Wolff. In his April 2000 working paper titled "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998", Wolff used statistics from the Surveys of Consumer Finances to address several issues surrounding the concentration of wealth in America.

Working Paper No. 300
http://www.levy.org/docs/wrkpap/papers/300.html

According to Wolff's figures, about 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in
the hands of 10 percent of population. He also notes that the disparity
between the distribution of wealth rose from 1989 to 1998, although the pace of the inequity was slower in the 1990s.

In addition to the Surveys of Consumer Finances, there are two other major
sources of data on American wealth:

The U.S. Bureau of the Census Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP): http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/pubsmain.htm

The Institute for Social Research's Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID):
http://stat0.isr.umich.edu/psid/data-center/dcmain.html

The data and methodology for each of these sources varies. As a result, the
distribution statistics produced by each of these sources may also vary.

For the purposes of his analysis, Wolff defined wealth as "marketable wealth" or "net worth," meaning the current value of all marketable assets (real estate, cash, savings, bonds, stocks, pension plans, trust funds, etc.) minus the current value of debts. He excluded durable goods like automobiles and house wares and social security benefits from his definition of marketable assets.

While researching your question I found other graphs that detail the
disparities in income. It's important to remember that although wealth and
income are strongly correlated, they are different. More factors are taken into consideration when calculating wealth and as a result, it is probably a more accurate indicator of how money is distributed in the US.

Here are some additional resources on wealth and income:

US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/dusd/MAB/wp233.pdf
1999 report on the wealth of US families

US Census Bureau -- Census 2000
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?
_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP4&_geo_id=01000US
Detailed table on income and poverty statistics

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/sf2.html
Additional statistics on households and families arranged by state

Understanding the US Distribution of Wealth
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2122.pdf
Comprehensive report based on 1997 data

Century Foundation
http://www.policyideas.org/Issues/Social_Economic/Household_Wealth.pdf
Graphs and analysis based on 1998 US Census data

Review of Income and Wealth
http://www.iariw.org/articlelinks.htm

Survey of Consumer Finances
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ABSTRACTS/03155.xml?format=ICPSR
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2001/scf2001.information.html
Comprehensive survey on consumer income, assets, debt, and major transactions

Unequal Income Distribution in the United States
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/income.htm
This is based on 1995 and 1996 data. Scroll down to the bottom for information on distribution by country

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/2-26-01tax.htm
IRS data on after-tax income trends

The L-Curve By David Chandler
http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/
Based on 1997 data income. Includes easy-to-understand graphs on income
distribution

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences
http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict?term=LORENZ%20CURVE
A definition of the L-Curve

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences
http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict?term=GINI%
20COEFFICIENT
A definition of the Gini Coefficient

If you are looking for a geographical breakdown of the distribution of wealth in the US, here are some additional links:

US Census Bureau
http://landview.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p60-189.pdf
An analysis of income, poverty and benefits based on results from the 1990
census

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.epinet.org/studies/pullingapart/1-18-00sfp.pdf
A January 2000 state-by-state analysis of income trends. Based on data from
1978 to 1988

Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/22/2001maps.html
Search for the world's richest people and click on the map for more information

[Lefty48197]

1. We should push for major tax reform on DEMOCRATIC terms

i.e. we should work to change our tax system from one that taxes income and consumption to one that taxes wealth and property.
We should eliminate all income taxes, sales taxes, and social security & medicaid taxes, and replace the revenue 100.0% with taxes on property, both personal and Real Estate.

[IrishDemocrat]

4. Too extreme

I hate to say this, your plan is as bad as Sen. Jim DeMint's consumption tax. I'm FAR from a Club for Growther, but I believe in income taxes along with Social Security and local taxes. How would you tax property any higher than it is now?

[Mr. Grieves]

2. Tax the rich hard

Even though I don't believe in taxes (socialism is definitely the best solution to all of these economic hassles...), under the system of taxes the top money-makers should definitely be taxes harder than the poor. Not only is this my belief as the rich exploit the poor naturally, but a good 70 percent of cuts should not be going to the top 20 percent of America's wealthy. If only the defense companies like Lockheed could be taxed in compensation for the money from the atrocity of the War in Iraq.

[oscar111]

3. Truman's top rate was 91%. Now it is 35%

Mostly the lowering was justified by reaganomics. So they told us.

Reaganomics is a flop.

wages now are lower than when it began. Adjusted for inflation.

Toss reaganomics.

reaganomics is why there are cuts cuts cuts neverending to dem programs. It is why we have mass homelessness and mass hunger.

No way to resume dem programs till we convince Joe voter that reaganomics is a flop. Rush still has Joe believing in reaganomics.

[dcfirefighter]

5. I'm a fan of Henry George

Marx said he was capitalism's last stand

He advocated a single tax on land values, land including all natural resources.

Land being the only form of wealth that isn't reproduceable.

Land being required for all production.

Lands' prices being determined solely by market forces, and not cost of production, a tax on land value merely diverts income from the landowner to the public purse.

L-curve is even steeper for land wealth than for incomes.

Land taxes do not discourage investment or production.

Land taxes mean less sprawl, tall cities rather than wide cities, lower transport costs, less dependence on oil.

Studies show more than $4T worth of annual land value in US. Enough to fund government fully and give each US citizen $3500.

He nearly won election to mayor of NYC in late 1800's, beat T.Roosevelt, lost to Tammany Hall.

[highlonesome]

6. fallacy

"Land taxes do not discourage investment or production."

Land taxes absolutely discourage investment and produciton.

Think of it this way: You're a guy or gal with an idea for a great new product or service and you need some capital to get your idea off the ground. For most people the most basic and valuable investment you may have is in real property -- like a home or some land.

Now the economic power you have to liquify some capital to get your company off the ground comes from the equity you have in the property you own -- that is, how much the property is worth vs how much you owe on it and pay on it every month.

So say you own property that's worth $200,000 but you owe $100,000 on it that means you have another $100,000 that you can liquify into capital to start your company.

BUT -- if you have to pay say 10% property tax on the property, that's $20,000 per year. If you have to pay 50% property tax on it that's $100,000 per year. The higher the tax you have to pay, the longer it takes to gain meaningful equity in the property therby inhibiting your ability to invest and produce.

That's why developing countries can't get off the ground economically. They lack integrated and harmonized property rights systems like we have that enable the people to liquify what they own. They are in fact some of the hardest working and innovative entrepeneurs on the planet -- they just can't tap what they produce.

[dcfirefighter]

7. Not a Fallacy

#1 it's a tax on land, not homes. Your home, if kept nicely, should be worth $100-$300 per square foot. That's equity to borrow against. Under a significant land tax, there'd be very little equity in the land. But even if there were, you wouldn't be tapping what you produced, you'd be tapping what society around you produced.

#2 you pay the land tax anyway. Right now you pay it to the guy you bought the land from, or if you lease land, you pay it to the guy you lease the land from. A land tax simply shifts the payment from that guy to the tax collector. Except, right now, the guy collects more, because there's a speculative value to the land. A significant land tax reduces that. Also, more than likely, you will have to pay interest on the loan you took out to pay the guy, not so under a land tax.

#3 A tax on land could and should mean less taxes on income, wages, & investment. That means that you keep more of what you make. It also means that there'd be alot of investment money out there chasing a relatively few investments. Which means that, if your idea is good, you'd probably be able to get a loan, or at least investors.

#4 Homes and Places of Business are easier to come by under a land tax, as sites are not held out of use by speculators (think abandoned buildings and vacant lots on an otherwise good block, or surface parking lots next to highrises)

#5 Buildings, Labor, Machines, even Money can be replicated, Land cannot.

#6 Empirical evidence (Hong Kong, Sydney, Melbourne, Denmark, even Harrisburg, PA to a degree) shows otherwise.

And who said anything about developing countries?

[undergroundpanther]

8. Why not

Stop giving your labor,your creativity,tolerance,loyalty,trust,time, to the rich.Fuck them. Fort they have fucked up humanity since civilization began.
May them pony up for what they steal/stole from everyone.Remind them they are in fact dependent upon the charity of others..by stopping being charitable to the rich.
And you know thieves are and what they are doing, is stealing our country,stealing our lives our happiness..once they get their grubby snouts into devouring our hope..then they can destroy us..and justify it in their little insulated psychopath minds.. The rich are addicts to power and money and the"game" they will not stop until we refuse to support these addicted parasites and their 'lifestyles'and admit that addicted parasites with no conscience is what the ultra rich are for the most part character wise,you don't get rich in this system by caring about others...

Time to starve the opulent little cancerous tapeworms..who arrogantly mistreat their hosts(the workers,women,poor,children,people of color ect.)....The rich abusers of human goodwill will always hide among the pieces of shit they put in political office and media..They are making the world sick so the world will not be able to recognize who is making money off their misery...The rich stoke peoples bigotries and differences to induce them to fight each other rather then having the people turn on their true opressors..The authoritarian 'entitlement' minded rich parasites sucking the world dry..and sharing nothing.