ADVERTISEMENT

Top 1% Wealth Up by $50 Trillion Since QE Started

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Sep 28, 2003
3,063
1,699
113
E8CGqdYVIAM9kR2


Quantitative Easing (QE) has helped top 1% increase wealth by $50 trillion. Ben Bernanke, the then Head of the Federal Reserve wanted to create the "wealth effect". Trickle down economics on steroids.
 
This is why I think raising the taxes on the rich is a good idea. They ain’t gonna ever be poor
That's not really the point. The point is, would it be good for the economy as a whole?
 
The issue is the 1% are far outpacing everyone else in wealth creation. For a single year tax return I am hitting 1% status this year, and likely a few years away may be a decade away from being a top 1% on wealth, but at this rate they may runaway from us. As an accountant this is tricky, most of the wealth is in investments and stocks. Taxing Paper gains personally sounds like a mess. Then you jump to the wealth tax. Elizabeth Warren wants to compare her wealth tax to Real Estate taxes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two, but also the fact that stocks can fluctuate so much, I am still waiting for a major correction once interest rates begin to rise. At this point the Wealth tax appears to be dead on arrival, however having such a high concentration of wealth in so few hands is not optimal. How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma. My stance would be to have thresholds of compensation to key personnel based of company income ect. Similar to a schedule F if you have a make a threshold but lose money the following 2 years you are still ok, but the next year your income levels are going to have to pop back up. There will still be some gaming of the system but would likely be better. My proposal would also be dead on arrival. Im just looking forward to retiring in 7-10 years ( late 40's) and not worrying about it hopefully.
 
That's not really the point. The point is, would it be good for the economy as a whole?

Actually, it is great for the economy when the uber rich pay no taxes and then buy up every asset in sight. Businesses are consolidated for maximum efficiency and far lower labor costs. Having the nations housing stock mostly owned by the 1% will keep rents high as they can afford to have vacancies during economic downturns. Profit!!!!!!

Let the 99% eat cake.
 
The issue is the 1% are far outpacing everyone else in wealth creation. For a single year tax return I am hitting 1% status this year, and likely a few years away may be a decade away from being a top 1% on wealth, but at this rate they may runaway from us. As an accountant this is tricky, most of the wealth is in investments and stocks. Taxing Paper gains personally sounds like a mess. Then you jump to the wealth tax. Elizabeth Warren wants to compare her wealth tax to Real Estate taxes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two, but also the fact that stocks can fluctuate so much, I am still waiting for a major correction once interest rates begin to rise. At this point the Wealth tax appears to be dead on arrival, however having such a high concentration of wealth in so few hands is not optimal. How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma. My stance would be to have thresholds of compensation to key personnel based of company income ect. Similar to a schedule F if you have a make a threshold but lose money the following 2 years you are still ok, but the next year your income levels are going to have to pop back up. There will still be some gaming of the system but would likely be better. My proposal would also be dead on arrival. Im just looking forward to retiring in 7-10 years ( late 40's) and not worrying about it hopefully.
Fed policies have directly caused this explosion in wealth for the top 1%.

It's crony capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: West Dundee Hawkeye
This is why I think raising the taxes on the rich is a good idea. They ain’t gonna ever be poor
Change the marketing and we'll get buy in. Don't say "tax the rich", say "tax the elite 1%" and those making 6 figures plus won't even perk up. ...or even the .01%.

In order to be considered in the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S., you'd need to have wages of $758,434, according to information from the progressive Economic Policy Institute. I gross $164k, so it wouldn't effect me.
 
**** the $15 per hour MW. There is NO way possible as a country to make it work. We would collapse as a country if the system is changed to level the playing field. MAYBE if the top 1%. can accumulate 500 trillion or so more then we might be able to think about fixing things for ALL AMERICANS. Until then quit your bitching and get back to mopping floors junior.
 
How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma.
The 'fix' is to quit feeding it.

After his status-quo-shattering appearance on CNBC this week, during which he warned that "Fed policy is endangering the dollar's reserve status," billionaire fund manager Stan Druckenmiller spoke to The USC Marshall Center for Investment Studies' Student Investment Fund Annual Meeting via Zoom, and shocked the on-lookers with his frank assessment of our current perceptions and realities.

After The Bank of Canada sheepishly admitted this week that "some of the monetary policy tools it is using to address the COVID-19 pandemic, such as quantitative easing (QE), could widen wealth inequality," Druckenmiller drops the proverbial hammer on all the hedged-speak ("could"), and blasts that

“I don’t think there has been a greater engine of inequality than the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States... so hearing the Chairman [Powell] talking about visiting homeless shelters is very rich indeed..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: West Dundee Hawkeye
**** the $15 per hour MW. There is NO way possible as a country to make it work. We would collapse as a country if the system is changed to level the playing field.
Wage floors don't 'level the playing field', they just mandate unemployment for those unskilled enough to generate a return for an employer at that wage.

If the problem could be 'fixed' with wage floors, why be a piker and ask for $15/hr. Why not ask for $100/hr. What would happen? Can you think of consequences?
 
BUt TheYll StOp inVEsTiNg in JoBs!

Yep, which opens up market space for other, new investors. If there’s money to be made, and someone doesn’t go make that money because it isn’t enough, then someone else will go make it This isn’t hard.
How the idea that rich people just sit around creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs because they have a tax cut and money to spend became a dominant economic theory among people who don't benefit from the tax cuts has got to be one of the greatest con jobs ever conducted.
 
Change the marketing and we'll get buy in. Don't say "tax the rich", say "tax the elite 1%" and those making 6 figures plus won't even perk up. ...or even the .01%.

In order to be considered in the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S., you'd need to have wages of $758,434, according to information from the progressive Economic Policy Institute. I gross $164k, so it wouldn't effect me.
Top 1% in Iowa is $402,000. - I look at 1% status more on a geographical trend, due to differences in taxation and cost of living. Not equal standing, but this is what I utilize.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: alaskanseminole
Top 1% in Iowa is $402,000. - I look at 1% status more on a geographical trend, due to differences in taxation and cost of living. Not equal standing, but this is what I utilize.
All of you bitchez is 1%ers:

So by global standards, America’s middle class is also really, really rich. To make it into the richest 1 percent globally, all you need is an income of around $34,000, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic.
 
The stock market is not "the economy". Pumping trillions into the market to keep it afloat during the pandemic, then saying the inflation is transitory, to then saying it's higher than expected...

No shit. Then all these clowns at the fed sell their stocks at the absolute peak.

LOL at anyone that thinks the stock market is an indication of how the economy is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows
The others must all be losing money, because I am up WAY more than that.
 
The issue is the 1% are far outpacing everyone else in wealth creation. For a single year tax return I am hitting 1% status this year, and likely a few years away may be a decade away from being a top 1% on wealth, but at this rate they may runaway from us. As an accountant this is tricky, most of the wealth is in investments and stocks. Taxing Paper gains personally sounds like a mess. Then you jump to the wealth tax. Elizabeth Warren wants to compare her wealth tax to Real Estate taxes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two, but also the fact that stocks can fluctuate so much, I am still waiting for a major correction once interest rates begin to rise. At this point the Wealth tax appears to be dead on arrival, however having such a high concentration of wealth in so few hands is not optimal. How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma. My stance would be to have thresholds of compensation to key personnel based of company income ect. Similar to a schedule F if you have a make a threshold but lose money the following 2 years you are still ok, but the next year your income levels are going to have to pop back up. There will still be some gaming of the system but would likely be better. My proposal would also be dead on arrival. Im just looking forward to retiring in 7-10 years ( late 40's) and not worrying about it hopefully.
Real question.... How would taxing a wealthy person's holdings, an asset, be different than real estate taxes, an asset. Why would this not be damn near exactly the same with the rate tied to the FMV?
 
ADVERTISEMENT