Income inequality obsession: Who are the (names given) most famous 1%ers?

Who (by name) are some of the most famous 1%ers?
First we need to define what 1% is.

money.cnn.com... :
In fact, it took a little less than $370,000 in adjusted gross income in 2010 to make it into this elite group, according to newly released data from the Internal Revenue Service. That's up slightly from the $352,000 the year before.
But on average, the top 1% earned $1.12 million, up from $980,000 the year before.

www.economist.com... (2012)
Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007.

So we will go with a generous definition of a 1%er. Since the top 1% of income earners in the US make more than $370,000 a year, or have more than $1.2 million, or have total assets over $7 Million, I’ll be generous and stick to the highest category.


Information from: www.celebritynetworth.com:
Oprah Winfrey $2.9 Billion
Sen. John Kerry $193.07Million
George Clooney $180 Million
Robert Redford $170 Million
Sean Penn $150 Million
Jennifer Anniston $150 Million
Samuel L Jackson $150 Million
Rosie ODonnell $100 Million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller $81.63Million
Matt Damon $65 Million
Alec Baldwin $65 Million
Michael Moore $50 Million
Susan Sarandon $50 Million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein $45.39 Million
Rep. Nancy Pelosi $35.20 Million
Sen. Claire McCaskill $17.00 Million
Pres. Barack Obama $12 Million
Rep. Carolyn Maloney $10.1Million
Rev. Jesse Jackson $10 Million
Rep. Al Franken $8 Million

reply to post by grandmakdw


Why does that look like a list of rich democrats?
Oh yeah, it is..

The biggest drive to 'income inequality' is the people who cry about the 1%.

It is the ideology about being obsessed with how much someone else has, that dogma has been translated in LAW.

More, and more dogma, more, and more laws. to what we see today.

More regulation that kills jobs, creates outsourcing, more regulation saying 'raise the minimum wage' that gets translated to higher out of pocket business expenses to pay for employees social security contributions, and medicare contributions, and employers are paying for unemployment insurance, and there is the holiday pay, double time, triple time, and the list goes on.

To the current state of the union more people out of work, under employed working part time that EVER before in this nations history.

Enter politics, and we get more of the same, and manufactured boogieman straight out of the communist manifesto.

People ain't got no job, and people ain't go no money, but they will never admit that.

Their answer to that is MORE OF THE SAME asinine regulation, and taxation that put them where they are.

No job has ever been created equal some jobs pay better than others. They always will, but that is the difference between skilled and unskilled labor.

Someone pushing a broom doesn't deserve the same salary as a congressman..

Someone bagging groceries doesn't deserve the same salary as a pilot.

Someone flipping burgers doesn't deserve the same salary as the president of the USA.

Common sense people.

Want to fix this country?

Start using common sense.

reply to post by grandmakdw


Give us the names of the 85 people who hold the wealth equal to half the worlds population.

And it ain't non of them named above.

Interesting thread OP, but there is several things I don't really agree with.

For one, the idea that $370,000 a year makes someone part of the one percent, ie the richest people, when deflation of the dollar and inflation of prices has whittled down the value of the dollar to nothing, is laughable.

I mean a house that would cost you around 45,000 in the seventies now costs around 400,000, a car that would cost around 7,000 now costs around 30,000, but yet people still believe six figures puts one in the one percent bracket. I am sorry but I see those people as still being stuck firmly in the upper middle class and nowhere near rich.

I can understand why the statistics may show that though and why the truly rich have a vested interest in them showing that.

After all, the true one percent;the shadow one percent, usually are not even ever counted on the top lists of the richest people, or if they do their assets are grossly undervalued,because no one knows how much they are really worth. They have most of their money spread out through corporations, shell corporations and charities. And I am sure more then a couple of them are breaking a trillion by now, but they aren't going to let people know that.

On top of that I would say the majority of the money is being sat upon by banks and corporations and they aren't spending as much of it as they should be, especially the banks. After all the banks were the recipients of that massive bailout that was suppose to help the economy as well as save the banks, at least that was how it was sold to the people, but what did the banks do with that money? Did they lend it out and help start new businesses and create more jobs? No they saved their own rears and sat on it.

Those are the real one percenters, not some small businessman (upper middle class) or some entertainer (barely breaking in to the lower rich class). Though, I would say the true one percenters sure want them to look like part of the one percent, to the masses. After all it keeps the middle class and the poor class permanently pitted against each other, while the truly rich stay safe and just amass more and more of the pie. It's like a dog getting two other dogs to fight over a bone and while they are fighting, they just take the bone.

Also I would say your list is missing more then a few names like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and many others. Though I guess if you added them it would kind of kill the democrat slant I think you were aiming for.

Just my opinion though

reply to post by grandmakdw


The 1% is a front for individuals controlling a pyramid scheme commonly referred to as debt. These names are attached to banking institutions. I've posted a list many times now.

ChesterJohn
reply to post by grandmakdw

 

Give us the names of the 85 people who hold the wealth equal to half the worlds population.

And it ain't non of them named above.

edit on 2-2-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

Something I wouldn't mind seeing as well.

The ones doing the most damage on earth, though all the Bildenburg group would be, all on the Trilateral Commission would be, but the most damaging known players are: House of Winsor/Queenie, Rothchild/Rockefeller (and they are related and Egyptian bloodlines), are richest people on earth. Everyone else is a secondary player, however they also have propped up in Africa/Sumar, some of the living annanuki, such as Marduk, apparently rumor is he's in Africa. Is he rich? Or being supported by other wealthy folk, who knows. But they are peas in a pod together, dark hats.

I'm not sure if this is the cite that censors veteran's affairs, which would be outrageous, but considering this is a really weird article to even have out: Secret Space War XII: Marduk Is Crowned in Africa, can search for it.

ChesterJohn
reply to post by grandmakdw

 

Give us the names of the 85 people who hold the wealth equal to half the worlds population.

And it ain't non of them named above.

edit on 2-2-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

Love to see them. I'd support you posting it! Great idea, do it please.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools


I just went with what objective economists define as the 1%ers. The people who are in the top 1% of wealth holders. I can't help it that 7 million in assets is the numerical value of the top 1% of wealth holders. To deny that a person who has over 7 Million in assets is not in the top 1% of wealth holders is to deny objective reality.

Yes, I made a list of the very people who joined the "income inequality" bandwagon. It is the hypocrisy I was going for.

reply to post by grandmakdw


No I would say it is arguing against subjective reality and the illusion of carefully crafted perception. After all you are using the voodoo science of statistics.

All one has to do look at the massive networks of inteconnected corparations, to see that objective reality appears for different then the subjective one.

Corporate consolidation

10 corparations control most of the products we buy

6 corparations control 90 percent of the media

4 financial institutions control most of our financial assets

Their board members and owners, they are the one percent, not some yokel with 7 million.

And that is not subjective reality, but objective reality.

just my opinion though

Pfft...

I believe there are people who are not on ANY list, anywhere, who could pay
any person on YOUR list to wash their socks.

And the person washing the socks would be happy to get the work...

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools


You are not talking about the top 1% you are talking about the top .01%

I don't disagree that the "people" you mentioned are in the top 1%, but 99% of the people in the US have less than $7 Million in total assets.

To truly bring about income equality, those with over $1.12 million in financial assets should be taxed at 100% of their financial assets above $1.12 million, which should then be "redistributed" "fairly", whatever that means. Why, because according to those who advocate income inequality being corrected, anyone defined as in the top 1% needs to give up all income above that level. (I personally do not agree). I just want the people who are pushing this to realize they are the very ones who will be giving up most of their financial assets. They (actors etc.) don't realize it means them, like the guy who was for Obamacare until he got the bill and realized he had to pay for it. I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of those who do not willingly and publically give to the government all their financial assets that put them in the top 1% and only keep what is defined as the bottom 99%. That includes all the politicians advocating correcting income inequality by putting their money where their mouth is, that is the only way they can be believed that they truly believe in income inequality being "fixed" rather than using it as a tool to further divide our country and to try and foment revolution.

reply to post by grandmakdw


I do not care who makes the most income on their tax sheet. The real ones who are destroying everything for everyone else and the value of what others have saved do not have any great amount of personal assets. Your thread is a miss direction from the true greed of the feudal masters of the economic enslavement system. Who cares who you choose when they own the propaganda machine everyone is listening to so that all your choices will be their people. The people who are in true power are good at covering their tracks so it does not come back to them. The US citizens gave collectively (thru their insanity to not question their politicians) the printing press to people who where greedy and they printed all the money they needed while the ones who saves get inflation. Debt based bank controlled ponzi scheme.

Why 500 TRILLION $ Rich Rothschilds are NOT on Forbes Richest

Funny who almost everyone who responds to this thread can see right thru this thread and say the same thing in their own words.

And what would be the point of this little exercise? Finding poster children for your witch hunt? What would knowing who they are do? Are you going to take their money from them like a looter? The ignorance of this country just amazes me...

reply to post by IWant2Believe323


The point is for people who advocate communist solutions, like redistribution of wealth, to realize it will end up affecting them. Oh, probably not the .01% who hold most of the world's wealth, but it will affect many if not most of the very people who champion it, and not in a positive way.

Another point is to try and awaken them to the fact that if they keep up trying to make people hate the rich, that will put them in the same position as others who have had "occupy" try and storm their homes with no support from the police or government. Because much as they want to say they are not part of the 1%, they are! They (ie Micheal Moore) say they may be numerically in the top 1%, but their heart is with the bottom 99%. Then let them prove it by giving the government all their financial assets to make them a 99%er, but they won't, because they are ignorant that it will affect them, and that they are being used and will not affect the top .01%.

Oh, I know none of "them" will read this little thread, but I guess my point was to try and wake "them" up that they are being used and to the hypocrisy of supporting it without actually doing it (giving away $ to the government they worship, to put themselves in the bottom 99%)

reply to post by grandmakdw


Okay I see your point statistically. The top one percent may statistically include the upper middle class.

But, it doesn't really mean anything. Statistics are easy to warp and twist.

After all when the middle class completely vanishes, which it is rapidly happening, the experts and the media can "statistically" take the top percentile of the poor class and rename them middle class, but in the objective reality; the real world, where the rubber meets the road and the cash meets the palm, they will still be living in hovels and scrounging ceaselessly to barely scrape by.

And that is thing. if you had three trillionares who made up the 0.1 percent and 99.9 percent of the people had under fifty grand....You could technically and statistically say you only need fifty grand to be in the one percent, but they wouldn't really be in the same class.

Six figures will buy you a middle class lifestyle today. That is all and it is far from rich and light years from what I would call the real one percent.

And the main reason I was trying to make that point, was to show who the true enemy is and who is actually fomenting that revolution you speak of. The truly rich, the owners of the world, they have the poor fooled into thinking that the middle class is rich and have them gunning for them. At the same time they got the middle class absolutely terrified that the poor will take what they have, through wealth redistribution and have them kicking them further back down the ladder.

Meanwhile the truly rich use so many tax loopholes and corporate welfare schemes to never really pay a dime, they let the .9 percent of the 1 percent pay that. Hell look the billion dollar companies that actually got millions and billions of dollars in tax returns on top of millions and billions in profit.

voices.suntimes.com...

And that is what they really want. They want the middle class abolished and then their will only be the rich; the real one percent, and the poor; the real ninety nine percent,.

The really sad thing is the middle class will be crushed, because they think they are part of the one percent and statistically they are, but really they are not. They don't even have a piece in the game, they are the pawns.

Also I did want to add that I don't believe in wealth redistribution either, I do believe in real and fair corporate taxation, they reap the benefits of the economy and market place let them pay their fair share to maintain it and make it healthy.

Anyway wealth redistribution isn't really the battle and the poor are not really the enemy for the middle class, but the rich want them to think so.

Just my opinion though.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools


I agree.

I want to wake up the people who support this idea of trying to forcibly fix income inequality to what they are doing to themselves. Perhaps useless, because they are in a religious stupor of worship of those who claim it to be a good idea.

reply to post by grandmakdw


Bill Gates $72,000,000,000
Warren Buffet $58,500,000,000
Larry Ellison $41,000,000,000
Charles Koch $36,000,000,000
David Koch $36,000,000,000
Christy Walton $35,400,000,000
Jim Walton $33,800,000,000
Alice Walton $33,500,000,000
S.Robson Walton $33,300,000,000
Michael Bloomberg $31,000,000,000
The Forbes 400

Over 65% of American adults have a net worth under $100,000.

NASDAQ.com


Speaks for itself.

reply to post by BritofTexas


Thank you for taking the time to make the list of the richest people in America.

But wait, isn't this a list of rich Democrats? Oh, yes it is.

Guess Bloomberg is a Rep, oops, wasn't he a Dem and switched to Rep, oops, didn't he switch to Independent, he was, is?, well, not a Republican.

Anyway, you made my point for me, thanks.