News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMinecabal-eliterich-payoffs — Viewing Item


Super rich { December 27 2002 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm

http://commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm

Published on Friday, December 27, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
The Super Rich Are Out of Sight
by Michael Parenti

The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion's share of the nation's wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. Even those who purport to study the question regularly overlook the very wealthiest among us. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, released a report in December 1997 showing that in the last two decades "incomes of the richest fifth increased by 30 percent or nearly $27,000 after adjusting for inflation." The average income of the top 20 percent was $117,500, or almost 13 times larger than the $9,250 average income of the poorest 20 percent.

But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super rich one. All such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than $300,000. Or if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to $1 million. This still excludes the very richest who own the lion's share of the wealth, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multimillionaires who make many times more than $1 million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the picture.

When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureau's computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample.

But by designating the (decapitated) top 20 percent of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top 4 percent. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan, or Murdock. The difference between Michael Eisner, Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to 1--the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles--but over 61,000 to 1.

Speaking of CEOs, much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that these same corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible fraction of 1 percent of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholder's interests.

Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted respectively by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution and widely reported in the major media, found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe. In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions.

More importantly, both the Rand and Brookings studies fail to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrate on upper-middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range--which indicates that the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are.

When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they're an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. That Smith finds the super rich difficult to survey should not cause us to overlook the fact that their existence refutes his findings about self-earned wealth. He seems to admit as much when he says, "This [study] shouldn't be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn't give to their kids and the Kennedys didn't give to their kids." (New York Times, July 7, 1995) Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited--and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible.

The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20 percent grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5 percent have grown richer compared with the next 15 percent. The top one percent have become richer compared with the next 4 percent. And the top 0.25 percent have grown richer than the next 0.75 percent. That top 0.25 owns more wealth than the other 99¾ percent combined. It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented $1000 each, over 98 percent of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground, while the top one percent would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower.

Marx's prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land--and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth's population. A rising tide sinks many boats.

To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"--the upper-middle class--as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau's cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world.

Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org.




Affluent avoid scrutiny taxes
American middle class are in danger { September 25 2007 }
Billioniare says he pays less taxes than his secretary { June 28 2007 }
Buffett bush tax plan unfair { May 5 2003 }
Bush tax cut gives half million year to wealthy { April 5 2006 }
Bush tax cuts benefited millionaires most
Bush tax cuts raised taxes for middle class { April 9 2007 }
Bush tax cuts shifted more burden to middle class
Business favors gop 02 { November 27 2002 }
Caribbean largest individual tax evasion in US history { April 18 2005 }
Ceos getting millions dividends tax cut
CEOs who outsource are paid better
Clinton brags about qualifying for republican tax cuts
Contracts awards post war iraq
Cuts favor wealhty
Death tax not big problem for farmers { July 10 2005 }
Documentary shows growing wealth gap { February 21 2008 }
Documented top 20 richest for 2005
Economy benefiting upper class { July 10 2006 }
Election money { November 1 2002 }
Exxonmobile ceo gets big bonus as profits soar
Fannie mae manipulated earnings for ceo bonuses { October 15 2004 }
Goldman sachs pays ceo record 40m
Gop taxcuts favoring wealthy { May 3 2003 }
Hard working americans stuck tax bill
Huey long filibisters bills favoring rich
Huffington paid little income tax { August 14 2003 }
Income gap between rich and very rich increasing { November 27 2006 }
Income gap steadily increased past 20 years { August 17 2004 }
Instructive book forgives super elites { May 8 2008 }
IRS audits may not catch wealthy cheats { September 2 2006 }
Irs has become subsidy system for super wealthy americans { April 11 2004 }
IRS jobs auditing wealthy americans cut { July 23 2006 }
Irs toughens on wealthy tax cheats
Lucky CEOs mistakenly competent get big payoff { June 12 2008 }
Mega mansions built despite housing crisis { June 12 2008 }
Reagan and bush pushed amt to middle class { March 4 2007 }
Rep sanders taxes
Richest 1perc earns 20 perc of all income { September 2007 }
Richest are leaving even the rich far behind { June 5 2005 }
Spending of the rich increases and poor decreases
Super elites hideout remodels forest { May 18 2008 }
Super rich { December 27 2002 }
Tax breaks top one percent
Tax burden shifts to the middle { August 13 2004 }
Tax cheating continues says panel { October 20 2003 }
Tax cut for rich { January 7 2003 }
Tax cut helps cheney
Tax cuts for the rich healthcare shaft for poor { May 24 2003 }
Tax cuts for the wealthy dont stimulate jobs { July 7 2005 }
Tax cuts to rich dont help economy { January 22 2008 }
Tax law omits child credit { May 29 2003 }
Thousands who earn over 200k avoid income tax
Top earners pay no taxes { June 26 2003 }
Top executives earnings increase 2005 { July 10 2006 }
Tuition costs rise
Wealthiest 20 percent get big breaks { August 17 2004 }
Wealthy class is winning says buffett { March 7 2004 }
World elites getting richer { August 26 2005 }
Worlds poorest 50 percent own 1 percent wealth { December 5 2006 }

Files Listed: 60



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple