Key Points
- The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
- All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
- Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”
The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.
The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.
While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.
Considering the price of certain goods, this is extremely low.
I would love to hear which “certain goods” are so expensive that one hundred million dollars is insufficient for a lifetime.
You gotta protect your fortune from inflation…
Let’s say cars such as McLaren F1 and Ferrari 250 GTO.
You mean cars built specifically for rich people that absolutely no one needs to own? Because you probably can’t own an indoors swimming pool coated in 24 carat gold and the entire pool filled with water with gold flakes suspended in it for under $100 million either. Who gives a fuck?
Rich people can drive Toyotas and Chevys like everyone else. They could even afford a Porsche.
You’re not making a very good argument.
So are you going to limit how plush or high tech cars can be OR limit the MSRP ?
Yes.
Also, if you are worth $100 million, you can literally afford the most expensive cars ever made and still be a multimillionaire.
Now, please explain why anyone in this world needs a $30 million car and why it would be a hardship for someone who would still have $70 million after buying it.
Because those cars bring new technology to the world.
They are vehicles for innovation.
They inspire people involved in making that car to be better at their jobs, to push the envelope.
Wealth does not trickle down, but technology does.
And if you want to put a legal limit on innovation and invention, thats an issue.
What innovation did that $30 million car bring to the world? Please explain specifically what technology trickled down.
And you still haven’t explained why it would be a hardship for someone with $100 million to spend $30 million of it on a car. Please explain that too.
One off the top of my head, the passing material science down from race cars into production quantities (albeit low but then into bmw and benz, then into sport models etc.) benefits to average drivers. More specifically, brake pads. Thier effectiveness and durability are so much better than 30 years ago. save lives all the time, and everyone is driving much faster and braking later.
I never spoke up on individual wealth and/or income. Pro UBI in fact. But you still need to incentivize learning, innovation, and development somehow. And right now we use money for that mostly. Or stock options, crypto, etc. Drugs, sex, power, indulgences have also been used historically.
My thrust is that limiting intellectual advancement is stupid.
That would be a very much communist way of doing things. Do I need to explain why communism didn’t work, doesn’t work and won’t work?
That isn’t even remotely the same as communism. That is capitalism with an upper income limit.
You don’t have some people earning $100 million a year and others making $25,000 a year under communism. That’s only possible in a capitalist economic structure.
Your understanding of communism is on par with that of Joseph McCarthy.
Removed by mod
No it isn’t.
Removed by mod
It creates literally same structure as socialism in my country (which btw attempted to reach communism). Paychecks were essentially set, so no one has an income higher than X, everyone had either žiguli, skoda, trabant or tatra car.
So whilst I agree that ultra rich people should be taxed more (or contribute to the solution of world problems more), setting a high limit may just affect the persons’ possible achievements.
You actually think if people worth $100 million getting taxed at 100% above that $100 million equals socialism or communism? Really?
Either people have unlimited income or its communism?
You are right the scale is different, but essentially it is the same idea.
Apart from many other issues this proposal has, limiting possible individuals’ achievements (just like socialistic regimes in the last century) is one of them
Please stop commenting on politics if this is your level of education on the matter. Communism is absolutely not relevant here, because communism is
You haven’t even begun to understand if you think communism is related to this discussion.
I have mentioned what communism is in my other post. It is in accordance to your definition.
However, to get to communism, you firstly need socialism and this idea is very close to socialist practices that were present across the europe in the last century.
Even accepting the absurdity of suggesting those as “good reasons” to need more than $100 million dollars in a lifetime, fine. You buy both of those and “only” have 30 million dollars to live on for the rest of your life. That’s still very comfortable and more than most people’s lifetime earnings by an order of magnitude.
If your name is Rowan Atkinson you are going to need several of those McLarens…
But why should the person be limited? If they are capable of achieving that amount of wealth, why should we limit them to 100 million and give the rest to the government. I am not necessarily convinced the government would spend the money wiser…
Edit: Better approach would be to sanction certain useless activities they practice such as using a plane for 100 kilometers, etc.
I doubt the billionaire will spend that $100 Mil on altruistic endeavors.
Tax shelters, itemizable donations, kickbacks into campaign funds, etc i believe.
Actual large scale altruism? Nope.
Still better than many governments. Imagine this law was applied in Russia. All those millions would be used to fund the war against Ukraine.
Edit: Hence why I believe that rather than setting a limit, we should create a set of sanctions on certain actions these people make.