This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
As Food Stamp Recipients Hit New Record, 400 Americans Account For 10% Of Capital Gains
Today SNAP released the most recent food stamp numbers. Not surprisingly, we just saw another all time high 44.2 million poverty-level Americans relying on government funding for day to day sustenance. Granted the number appears to be plateauing, so all those who bought the change if not the ho[y]pe, can rejoice as it may start declining next month: a development that is sure to be herald for Obama a 4th Putin-esque term. That said, another number that has to be kept in perspective and for which we have to thank none other than Pauly-K is that offsetting these 44.2 million of impoverished Americans who can get a tax refund for writing off the American dream, are 400 Americans who accounted for 10%, or $91 billion of total, in capital gains taxes, or said otherwise, 400 US taxpayers account for 10% of all capital gains in 2007! We are currently going through old issues of Pravda to see if the Communist empire ever achieved this kind of social disparity between the nomenklatura and the proletariat (it didn't). If we find confirmation we will post it, and lose a sizable bet which will certainly deny us any possibility of every being among the abovementioned 400.
First, the latest SNAP:
And second, at a factor of 110,500 to 1, here are the 400 people who not only account for 10% of all US capital gains taxes (Taleb was right), but end up paying a whopping (sarcasm inluded) 17% in taxes on it.
One of the more interesting documents published by the IRS is its report on the income and taxes of the top 400 taxpayers (pdf). A lot of attention gets focused, rightly, on the remarkably low average tax rate these people pay — less than 17 percent in 2007, the lowest on record. But I was struck by something else: in several years during the last decade the top 400 accounted for more than 10 percent of all capital gains income in America. Just 400 people!
Visually, this is presented below: of the $907 billion in capital gains paid in 2007, only 400 taxpayers accounted for $91 billion:
That's right ladies and gents, 400 US citizens are the primary beneficiaries of the Weimar rally so insiduously orchestrated by Chairsatan Benzebub. Or, in other words, 44.2 million to 400. And now you know that "democracy" can withstand even odds worse than 100k to 1.
h/t JLohman and MM
»
- 24225 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If we got rid of foodstamps there would be more people willing to mow lawns and become street venders like in the third world.
Even parasites can become productive when necessary.
The current American economic system will and must fail. We're like the old Soviets. Any outsider could see that Russia was headed for economic collapse. No different in Amerika 2011.
I remain an optimist about our parasitic classes.
Bankers, rentiers, and every parasite receiving transfer payments can contribute something to GDP with real production.
Isn't that a bit extreme? I mean, they did have FICA deducted from their paychecks for years before receiving those "transfer payments".
nice... (not!) I remember being in South America, seeing a guy with a machette cleaning grass from between paver stones in a car lot... all day on his haunches, wacking at the roots of sprouting grass seedlings, while in America, a landscape crew would use weed-eater & herbicide and be done in 10 minutes. Or how about the stories of plantation owners giving their workers a radio, an aluminum handled cup, and a raincoat... and telling them to stand in the banana tree fields as crop-dusters flew over spraying their deadly pesticides, when the cup was full of the right level of liquid floating down from the sky, the worker radios the plane to move to the next area.
You're forgetting, TCT, that in the 1950s, the era of best US economic growth (especially considering the normal post-wars economic slumps of previous post-war periods) saw HIGH UNION WAGES, not just for the 1/3rd of all workers who were unionized, but for non-union workers & salaried white-collar folks as well. We managed to get the lawns cut, and country clubs trimmed, back in that era.
btw, no need to worry about "becoming like a third world" economy, the Neo-Con lust to OUTSOURCE US JOBS to China, and IMPORT south-of-border workers for all work in America, is accomplishing that goal of yours as we speak.
The era of best economic growth ocurred on the ruins of world war two.
We had no competition from europe, and asia was either ruining themselves with communism or still in the feudalistic stone age.
We were a powerhouse in spite of, not because of those things you mention
"We were a powerhouse in spite of, not because of those things you mention"
oh, B.S! UNION WAGES, STRICT oversight of finance during WWII (not about to let New York bankers swindle the lion's share of war contracts as "private profits" when men were dying in combat in desperate need of more tanks, guns, aircraft & supplies, etc - that's why Roosevelt selected Truman to be his VP in '44, Truman ran the Senate TRUMAN COMMISSION to expose price-gougers & war profiteers), the SAVED war-bonds purchased on UNION SCALE wages, and Union BENEFITS __allowed__ for the expansion of the post-war civilian "FREE ENTERPRISE" economy.
TCT, you also want to PURGE from history the positive influence the GI BILL had on MILLIONS of American lives, whether the direct beneficiaries veterans and their families, or the down-stream beneficiaries like workers hired to build new university buildings & housing?
(="pure socialism" if you want to call it that.)
And those unions contributed to helping or hurting the present state of our economy? [in other words, the period of growth you're describing was a result of factors outside union labor... it's simply correlation, not causation].
The rise of the, "Amusement Culture", is what has ruined this country and it is working its way across the globe. The distractions provided by the Television set, the rise of hundreds of individual taste channels, and the 8 hours a day many people spend simply watching a bigger and better screen has turned those who do it into a nation of a hundred million addicts.
Wonder if 2/3 of that time were spent in 'seriouosness' about anything, their careers, jobs, constructive efforts of any type, any thing really that requires being up on their feet "Doing" instead of "Watching", howmuch different and further ahead we would all be.
The best thing that could happen would be a self-imposed restriction to cut TV down to 2 hours a day, and employing the hours freed up in doing something creative, contributory, and original.
I would call that an effect rather than a cause... if being productive is not rewarded, then why attempt to be productive?
Productive in what sense?
ALL production is rewarded.
You may have a completely different view of 'reward' than I do. If it's money you are seeking as your reward, or someone else's approval, or something outside yourself, then you have been brainwashed. The self-satisfaction of striving for anything is its own reward.
If you 'produce' a cord of chopped wood from a whole tree because of your effort expended, you have been rewarded. Your physical health has been improved, your skill and muscles have been strengthened, and your heat if you use a fireplace or stove has been assured. Maybe that's not a reward to you, but that's because your expectations are out of line. You likely could sell the chopped wood for money if you chose to. The point is no matter what you DO there is an intrinsic reward in doing it. You take some stone and build a stone wall. Whatever basic talent you possess, if employed and practiced will yield rewards, it's a natural, physical law.
There is even some reward in watching SOME TV IF it produces a curiosity about something you saw to dig a whole lot deeper to become genuinely informed about a subject. My reward for watching several programs like, "The Civil War", spurred me on to DO something about it. To learn as many things as I could about the causes and effects of it that to this day still yield even more information and from that to knowledge. But I fail to see what watching a professional football game can teach me after the first dozen or so completed 90 yard passes, sneaks, and the rest. That so many hundreds of millions of man-hours are time-sucked from August to March is a puzzle to me. When those hundreds of millions of woman-hours with the so-called reality shows are totalled I wonder how much has been lost to our culture, never to be regained.
Would it not be much better if voters used that time to learn about the candidates they automatically pull a lever, or punch a chad for? Would their time be better spent getting some scoundrel out of office? Would their weight go down if they stopped watching and started doing if not for others, at least for themselves?
It's no mystery that hard exercise 4-5 times a week, for several hours is far more beneficial to one, than those same hours spent in front of Oprah's face. Or Maher's. Or Beck's. Or O'reilly's.
I would rather have spent two hours screwing up the construction of a window frame, learning some guitar legend's riff, or walking for 3 hours on a hilly golf course, carrying my bag and blowing nearly every shot than one second watching anything.
Doing or watching. That's the simplest choice there is for being rewarded.
I have a sneaking suspicion that what you consider creative or beneficial may not coincide with what individuals feel. I think the best course of action is to let people do what the hell they want with their free time and to not pretend you know what to do for them... this contemptuous view of humanity is ultimately how the nanny state is born... and, interestingly enough, also the reason for its certain demise.
Further, the relative health of another is immaterial if you hadn't already tethered yourself to his or her poor lifestyle via health care entitlements...
The entire problem is in your first sentence: what people "feel". You completely ignore what people THINK.
Which says a whole lot about your expectations, which I expect will be gravely disappointed.
You're attempting to distract the issue. The point is that the "amusement culture" was not the downfall of our society, rather it was/is a symptom of a society in freefall... In other words, you don't break out the bread and circuses until after the shit has hit the fan or you're fearful of the same. In this case, it meant the ability to be productive in a capacity aligned with the common understanding of the american dream ceased to exist... and people were left with no alternative but the amusement culture. The extrinsic fruits of their own labor became more and more and more difficult to obtain as the nanny state grew... and our opportunity costs for attempting to do so became too great with mommy always wishing we were back home... and we capitulated and moved back into mom's basement and began sucking her tits again (or, more literally, watching the boob tube).
There have always been distractions and entertainment...
During WWII, USA destroyed the factories of competitor nations (Germany, Japan).
The USA was the last industial base standing.
Exactly.
Any moronic government could keep it going for thirty years with that kind of head start.
may be true, but UNION SCALE WAGES for all govt. contracts (by 1950s fully 1/3rd of US jobs were union jobs) and BIG GOVT SPENDING,
(whether for building the civilian interestate hwy system, or building the vast 10,000 nukes US Cold War military in 10 years flat) powered the ECONOMIC GROWTH;
those GOOD PAYING JOBS POWERED that great American post-war economy.
For almost 30 years after WWII the debt as a percentage of GDP decreased each year. I don't where you get the notion that the government spending increased. It wasn't until Reagan that it began to increase again. Inflation was held in check by the pseudo-gold standard and union wages could be paid by employers and the workers could live off of them. However, once the last linked to gold was destroyed, those wages couldn't be paid considering other costs. And once the non-union, statistical quality control driven, Japanese cars were imported here, it was game over and downhill ever since for unions.
Uhh not true...the Soviet Union and Britian had huge industrial areas untouches?
Also, Japan had very little industry to support its imperialism. Almost none.
SNAP all time highs....UFB. We need a Reset in America in the worst way.
"That's right ladies and gents, 400 US citizens are the primary beneficiaries of the Weimar rally so insiduously orchestrated by Chairsatan Benzebub. Or, in other words, 44.2 million to 400. And now you know that 'democracy' can withstand even odds worse than 100k to 1."
Awesome report. "They" REALLY ARE DESPICABLE - not just the "cheap money from Fed" empowered LBO hostile-takeover Big Finance predators & royalists, but the TREACHEROUS Sulzberger NY Slimes, and Meyer/Graham cowardly Washington Post, who COULD report on this stuff, but are IN LEAGUE with the anti-American, kleptocratic, con-gress bribing, jobs-outsourcing (to Communist China!), regulation trashing, social safety-net slashing, econmy gutting, failed, bankrupt, insolvent but-for-bailouts Big Finance parasites!
Bugger off! They work hard for this money...
this is a result of privatize the gains and socialize the losses ...
"PRIVATIZE" is the word the English & Scots lords & nobles (and their Anglicized Welsh & Irish complicit lords) used to describe the "ENCLOSURES" of the vast estates that HAD BEEN COMMUNAL PROPERTY FOR CENTURIES, being consolidated as the "private property" of whatever lord ruled that area.
Prior to the "Enclosures" era, these great estates were communally owned by the CLAN (extended family or tribe), who supported their leader, because without the support of his clan, a leader would see his grain harvests raided and robbed by neighboring clans. Once the British had consolidated their control (by early 1700s) the local lords & estate owners could dispense with the need to keep armies of clansmen about to defend their harvest - and the "Enclosures" era saw the now surplus humanity brutally pushed off their ancestral lands, leading to the emmigration of MILLIONS of Scots, English, & Irish to the America's, often on "death ships," (many arrived as indentured servants near slavery).
In Ireland, the "enclosures" + "privatization" (really ethnic cleansing of Catholic Irish by the Protestant British and their hired/extorted Scots mercenary families) led to the death of a million men, women, and children in the "Great Famine" of 1845-1852 (which was only one of many famines the Irish endured under ruthless Brit occupation!) - as British lords, absentee landlords, farmers, merchants, and bankers wallowed in the wealth extorted out of the starving Irish.
Today's FED ECONOMICS is merely a replay of the brutal British "enclosures," ruthless industrialization (children forced to work hazardous mines & factories), and famine policies of the mid 1800s, "PRIVATIZATION" and bayonet & hangman enforced "Free market capitalism" that was really little different from STALIN'S PURGES and forced industrialization in Russia a few decades later in the early 20th century...
Absolutely.
Free markets and capitalism havent failed.
They were corrupted by bailouts and crony capitalism.
The great reset which was to wash away the accumulated corruption of free markets was short circuited by bailouts.
Now we are left with a grotesque monster, but it is not free market capitalism by any means.
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Stop looking at capitalism as some great ideology that's possible: it isn't.
Just like how communism can never be fully realized: people are flawed creatures. No system is meant to last for long when we're part of the equation.
Look at what happened to America—all of its checks and balances have been legislated away, and what we have today is the product of those years of the human part of the equation doing what it does best: fucking shit up.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, capitalism presumes normalization of profits in a highly (perfectly) competitive market... what proponents of capitalism fail to own up to is the degree to which rational actors will avoid normalization of profits... hence, the implementation of governmental barriers to entry/competition, among others. We just bounce between the poles of capitalism and communism... often taking the worst parts of each (presently).
MM, that's the simplest and best analysis I've ever seen.
+
I would actually be curoius to see the names... LOL
Assuming all of the gain is taxed at the 15% preferential rate would imply an average pre-tax capital gain of over $1.5 billion for each of the lucky 400. Why bother with W-2 income taxed at 35%. Lot more more cost effective to buy and sell shit at the cap gains rate.
I think you might've forgot to carry or something.
is this a tin foil hat test to see if you can't see the 2001-2003 numbers that were higher % in a much smaller pie?
alright, looks like you all passed
Are there any more recent data than 2007? That's before all the bailouts and stuff, so not getting all the connections here.
Let's draft those 400 people, put them in uniform and send them to the front lines of our foreign adventures that protect and subsidize their enormous wealth at the expense of us all and our future generations.
You might even see some rationalization of this empire.
I would like to see the squad composed of Buffet, Munger, et al hanging in the Korengal are driving to the Baghdad airport when the bullets are flying. BTW send the Bush and Obama (when they hit 18) daughters to taken on 70 year old terrorists.
Blankfein and Paulson fuck you, too.