Top U.S. Incomes Grew From $91 Million/yr to 519 Million/yr

[MTAtech]

During the depths of the recession in 2009, as millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes and life savings, the highest-paid earners in the United States saw their average incomes increase more than five-fold from 2008, according to new data from the federal government.

The 74 people who earned more than $50 million last year -- the highest income category measured by the Social Security Administration -- saw their average incomes skyrocket from $91.8 million in 2008 to a mind-boggling $518.8 million in 2009.

See full article from DailyFinance: Top Incomes Grew Five-Fold in 2009 to an Average of $519 Million - DailyFinance

[HMMurdock]

Pitchforks, torches, and shotgun time....

[tony_j15]

"This orgy of money exhibitionism has created a society in which commas - it takes three to be a billionaire - count more than character," Johnston continued. "We have gone so far down this path that we bailed out bankers, allowing them to keep the untaxed wealth in their deferral accounts and, with a few exceptions, retaining shareholder value, while wiping out investors in General Motors and Chrysler as a condition of their bailouts. And while autoworkers had to take severe pay cuts, bonus time on Wall Street is at new record levels."

[The Real Bingo]

Wow, seventy-four people!

[brandon184]

74 x 512 million = $37,888,000,000 (Take note we're assuming nobody made less than 512 million, which is obviously wrong, this is fantasy land).

That's about enough to run just Federal Government for...

3.6 trillion / 8760 (hours in a year) = $410,958,904 per hour...

$37,888,000,000 / 410,958,904 = 92.1941334 hours

92.1941334 / 24 = 3.8 days.

What's the relevance of this inane observation? Are you trying to imply that the rich aren't paying their fair share? Or that the federal government should be able to operate on an income of 37 billion dollars a year? I see again when you say, "assuming nobody made less than 512 million" that you still haven't taught yourself what an average is. Don't you understand that the no-education argument against you is entirely credible if you don't understand simple concepts like that?

I don't find the increase in income particularly shocking; when you provide Wall Street with the ability to concoct financial instruments that essentially allow them to print money for themselves, it's to be expected.

What is shocking, however, is that despite this meteoric increase in wealth, such an increased focus is being placed, by the poorest Americans, on protecting that wealth from being taxed.

[Chuckiechan]

Go get 'em, MTA!

[osprey4]

$32 billion mistake. Hey, we've all made one or two of those.

[tony_j15]

Wow, seventy-four people!

actually, the number is higher in reality

the top 74 earners also does not include most hedge fund managers because much of their "investment" income is not counted as wages.

I'm not sure what MTA's point was, other than to highlight the disparity in income between the high-rollers and the Joe's.

[MTAtech]

I'm not sure what MTA's point was, other than to highlight the disparity in income between the high-rollers and the Joe's.

My points were several. One being how there is a debate about taxing the upper crust and how the top upper crust can clearly afford higher taxes since their incomes increased 5X in one year.

The other point relates to the focus on how the public is treating public employees as if they're making a fortune while ignoring those that are really making a fortune. In other words, misdirected populism.

[The Real Bingo]

The other point relates to the focus on how the public is treating public employees as if they're making a fortune while ignoring those that are really making a fortune. In other words, misdirected populism.

I'd be pissed if my taxes went to pay these 74 people. But they don't. The taxes pay for public workers, who earn less but are in far larger numbers, and do get a sweet deal. So your point is really...pointless.

[tony_j15]

One being how there is a debate about taxing the upper crust and how the top upper crust can clearly afford higher taxes since their incomes increased 5X in one year.

Did it really?

Your point is still valid.

[MTAtech]

Did it really?

Your point is still valid.

Ok, they only made $84M each. We should pass the hat around instead of taxing them more.

[tony_j15]

I'm willing to bet you would have never posted the correction story either.

+1?

[MTAtech]

I'm willing to bet you would have never posted the correction story either.

I'm disheartened that you would question my honesty. Everyone knows that I strive for accuracy and would if I knew about it.

[Theophylact]

Ummm... this was based on their W-2 forms? That's only wages and salary. Most of the gazillionaires' income is unearned: rents, royalties, capital gains, stock options. Bill Gates's salary was $616,667 (plus a $350,000 bonus) in 2006, which wouldn't have put him in the top 1000, but he was the world's richest person that year.

[MTAtech]

Ummm... this was based on their W-2 forms? That's only wages and salary. Most of the gazillionaires' income is unearned: rents, royalties, capital gains, stock options.

The article said it didn't include hedgefund mgrs.

[Theophylact]

So we're talking about rounding errors.

[brandon184]

I'm willing to bet you would have never posted the correction story either.

Oh yes, because you're always the first to post information that might make a conservative look uninformed or paint them in a bad light!

[tony_j15]

Everyone knows that I strive for accuracy and would if I knew about it.

No doubt, yet you overlooked Voogru's post and then more or less laughed off mine. I'm not saying you wouldn't eventually do it, but it does look rather bad, honestly.

So we're talking about rounding errors.

I love your dry humor.