Wealth in the United States is commonly measured in terms of net worth, which is the sum of all assets, including home equity, minus all liabilities. More on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&tag=tra0c7-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=ff2efe1946d5c4d43e435783f57e86dc&camp=1789&creative=9325&index=books&keywords=wealth%20america
For example, a household in possession of an $800,000 house, $5,000 in mutual funds, $30,000 in cars, $20,000 worth of stock in their own company, and a $45,000 IRA would have assets totaling $900,000. Assuming that this household would have a $250,000 mortgage, $40,000 in car loans, and $10,000 in credit card debt, its debts would total $300,000. Subtracting the debts from the worth of this household's assets (900,000 - $300,000 = $600,000), this household would have a net worth of $600,000. Net worth can vary with fluctuations in value of the underlying assets.
The wealth—more specifically, the median net worth—of households in the United States is varied with relation to race, education, geographic location and gender. As one would expect, households with greater income feature the highest net worths, though high income cannot be taken as an always accurate indicator of net worth. Overall the number of wealthier households is on the rise, with baby boomers hitting the highs of their careers. In addition, wealth is unevenly distributed, with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87% of the wealth in the United States, which was $54.2 trillion in 2009.
When observing the changes in the wealth among American households, one can note an increase in wealthier individuals and a decrease in the number of poor households, while net worth increased most substantially in semi-wealthy and wealthy households. Overall the percentage of households with a negative net worth (more debt than assets) declined from 9.5% in 1989 to 4.1% in 2001.
The percentage of net worths ranging from $500,000 to one million doubled while the percentage of millionaires tripled. From 1995 to 2004, there was tremendous growth among household wealth, as it nearly doubled from $21.9 trillion to $43.6 trillion, but the wealthiest quartile of the economic distribution made up 89% of this growth. During this time frame, wealth became increasingly unequal, and the wealthiest 25% became even wealthier.
According to US Census Bureau statistics this "Upward shift" is most likely the result of a booming housing market which caused homeowners to experience tremendous increases in home equity. Life-cycles have also attributed to the rising wealth among Americans. With more and more baby-boomers reaching the climax of their careers and the middle aged population making up a larger segment of the population now than ever before, more and more households have achieved comfortable levels of wealth. Zhu Xiao Di (2004) notes that household wealth usually peaks around families headed by people in their 50s, and as a result, the baby boomer generation reached this age range at the time of the analysis.
This society has from the very beginning been dominated by a privileged elite who secured and protected their privilege by putting into government individuals of low integrity. The early landed interests that dominated U.S. politics and wealth distribution are still with us. Our system of property and tax law ensures that landed wealth is taxed very lightly, while those who actually produce wealth and provide real services are taxed heavily.
There is a member organization I am associated with called the International Union for Land Value Taxation. One of the IU's corporate members is Prosper Australia. If you are not familiar with their efforts to educate the public on the harmlful nature of Australia's tax structure and the speculation in land it rewards, check out their work. Karl Fitzgerald in Melbourne is the director.
+Edward Dodson So have I, as have I. I agree, things have improved out of sight over the decades, but even now the rules still need to be fairer. Nevertheless there is a culture of complaint grabbing hold in the West (I'm from Australia) that we need to be aware of. I wasn't criticising you, Edward, just bringing another perspective to the discussion. - Wayne
I have had the great pleasure of knowing many people who have devoted their lives to bringing about a more just world. The instinct for justice is also part of our human nature. Conditions have improved significantly over the centuries for many people. There are, of course, powerful vested interests who defend their entrenched privileges using a variety of strategies (including violence). To cooperative is in the best interest of humankind. Competition is also important, but competition based on fair rules.
+Edward Dodson That's capitalism for you! It's not perfect but it's better than the rest ... and this is coming from an old leftie. Elite athletes, musicians, artists and scientists are fine but oh no, not elite businessmen or politicians. It's human nature to want to be better than the rest. It is human nature to compete. It is human nature to covet and protect what we have - you would do the same if you were wealthy. Complaints from the masses? it's called jealousy. Have you noticed the exhaustive plethora of anti-government conspiracy theories doing the rounds this century? You know, 9/11 was an inside job, the NWO, global Zionism, the Illuminati, fake moon landing nonsense, they're all supported and perpetuated by those at the bottom of the food chain who mostly have little in the way of education or smarts. I guarantee you not one of them would care less about the 'evil elites' if they won lotto. NOT ONE of them.
+Tara Cotta MY conspiracy theories? You are truly delusional. Thank you for proving my point though, by barely stringing together big words as a thinly veiled attempt at intellectualism without actually knowing what they mean. You've thrown together a bunch of redundant words like "social" "collective" as an obvious and transparent attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the question. Not to mention irrelevant words like "nominal" and "non-commercial" with no context whatsoever. You question is incredibly redundant and means very little out of context. Could you be any more obvious? To respond to the only substance of your "gotcha" question, Bernie does indeed support the distribution of collective wealth. Such is the purpose of the government to begin with (something that seems to be lost on you Libertarians). Of course, no matter how I respond, you will try to act like you "stumped" me because I didn't respond to the illogical parts of your question. Since you will respond as such, I'll ask you exactly what did you mean so we can have a substantial discussion, and to show me where exactly Bernie has stated his opinion on the matter.
+Tara Cotta LOL now I see, you're one of his naive supporters. Lose the conspiracy angle and people might take you seriously. Also stop making assumptions based on literally nothing. I don't watch mainstream news either, but I actually learned to vet my sources to determine what's true and what's a nonsense conspiracy floating around facebook. You Libertairians eat that shit up. You also still support deregulation so you cannot be taken seriously.
+Tara Cotta LOL, what? Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's reasonable on a few issues and a total nut on most others. Hillary is a typical conformist neocon like the rest of the Democratic party. If you can't see how Sanders and Stein are different, you don't know anything about them.
We already have a system that achieves all that: "There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 6.
As someone with a degree in History I have to disagree. There is evidence of social chiefs, trade networks, and division of labor going back as far as BCE 11,000. Social division and concentration of wealth are not at all unusual or new in human civilization.
As an anthropology student, I must inform you that your history is absolutely nonsensical. Hunter-gatherers didn't have a concept of "property" or "trade" until there wasn't enough food to go around. The vast majority of our evolutionary history was spent as egalitarian hunter-gatherers WITHOUT class or meaningful social statuses.
Everyone can point fingers. I point them back at you. In life we have one thing determines our result. Goals. If you have no goal you have nothing to plan. Without a plan you have nothing to act on. Without taking action there is no results. I own the company called Goal Setting Clothing. I help others set goals. What is your goal?
I think they are extremely hard working-but it doesn't seem to be at their jobs.And it doesn't seem to be 500 times harder than other hard working people/What they are, are sociopaths morbidly obese with profit.If you replace the money hoarding with food-you would see them as nothing other than disgusting.
I guess conservatives feel that it is good for the US that the Walton family controls 40% of the wealth in this country yet pays their employees about $8.20 per hour on average? That amount does not give their employees enough purchasing power to help the economy. Jack up their pay to about $12 an hour not only gives them a wage that helps them and their families survive but it would also give them more purchasing power which would help the economy.
Hardworking and dedicated doesn't mean anything in this country I see illegal immigrants working the cabbage fields in my county. They are dedicated and hardworking, and also vastly underpaid. While CEO's in this country make 340% more than the average worker in their companies, the middle class continues to disappear.
Wrong wrong wrong. There are many 1% who inherit their money and contribute nothing to society. There are also many hard workers in this country that will never make it to the middle class. With that being said, since the 80's the middle class has been slowly disappearing. As a country we are more productive than ever before yet all of the wealth is trickling to the top. Unions only make up about 11% of the workforce and you want to blame them. I suggest you educate yourself.
How do people become rich? Well they have to be hardworking and dedicated. You are simple giving a contradiction; your statement is communist fallacy. I see you support president Chavez, compare and contrast both U.S and Venezuela, you will find out the U.S (run by those rich people) is far better socially and economically than Venezuela, even the poor have better life than the poor under Chavez.Ahmed jones is right, in the end it does not matter who runs the country but how he does it
You can't compare India to the US is wealth disparity. India is a developing country, i.e. Kuznets curve. You can argue correctly that the rich are becoming more rich and faster; BUT as the video states, "When observing the changes in the wealth among American households, one can note an increase in wealthier individuals and a decrease in the number of poor households". The rich are getting richer, but so are the poor.
The amazing thing is is that the situation has gotten much worse. Is it possible? Yes. As long as individuals are intellectually blind, then nothing could/can be done. The best thing is that people's eyes can be opened. Awareness is crucial.
Some things discussed here did not happen until post-WWII, but with roots back to the 1830s, the creation of then-anti-american entities, institutions that preceded the Civil War. Lincoln used Statist from Europe, like "48-ers" so half"union" soldiers were foreigners. They were not american in the army. Often "immigration" is just to bring a foreign army for "civil wars." The Statist centralization of Lincoln and his martial law was just an extension of his law career for "robber barons."
Задайте и вы свой вопрос, это бесплатно!
Адвокат по телефону получит предварительную информацию от вас, после чего может в спокойной обстановке восполнить возможные пробелы и проанализировать
правовые нормы. Он оценит все факты и сможет подготовить развернутую консультацию для вас. По этой причине адвокат является вашим сторонником в
разрешении возникших проблем. Вы сбережете свои средства, обратившись за телефонной консультацией.
Таким образом, обращаясь по телефону к услугам адвоката, вы получаете возможность решить возникшие проблемы с минимальными финансовыми и временными
затратами. В некоторых случаях в дальнейших очных консультациях не возникает необходимости. По этой причине помощь адвоката, оказываемая по телефону,
Несомненно, сложность разрешения семейных неурядиц обусловлено тем, что между супругами, как правило, нет соглашения, брачного контракта и они предъявляют друг другу различные требования, как материального так и морального характера. Как показывает наша практика, прийти в такой ситуации к обоюдному решении семейного спора очень сложно и, порой, без вмешательства адвоката по семейным делам,— невозможно.
Доверяя решение своего семейного дела (спора) конкретному специалисту, нужно понимать, что не каждый юрист в Украине может предоставить профессиональную помощь в сфере семейного права. Нужно, как минимум, проверить отзывы о нём именно по семейный делам, а как максимум - убедиться в получении юридического образования и адвокатского свидетельства.
Обращаясь к нам, Вы можете быть уверены, что будете работать с компетентными специалистами именно в области семейного права. При первому требованию, мы предоставим красные дипломы о высшем юридическом образовании ведущих высших учебных заведений, адвокатское свидетельство и ссылки на Клиентов, их рекомендации, а также сможете пообщаться с ними в телефонном режиме или при личной встречи. Мы гарантирует качество своих услуг!
и других законов,
сделает анализ практики судов по спорным ситуациям. Наши консультации по телефону и без регистрации пояснят нормы закона и порядок действий
для решения спора.
Заблуждением является мнение, что семейный адвокат оказывает помощь только при возникновении проблемы. Надежный специалист ориентирован на долгосрочное сотрудничество и заинтересован в благополучии клиента. Поэтому он превращается в эффективного советника, способного оказать квалифицированную юридическую помощь по самым разным вопросам и предостеречь от необдуманных действий.