4 Apr 2011 1:58 am
$1.5 trillion: Total amount of wealth owned by billionaires in the U.S. $4.5 trillion: Total amount of wealth owned by billionaires in the entire world.The combined wealth of all U.S. millionaires and billionaires in 2009 is $10.7 trillion. That's not income, that's total assets. Your claim of $3.9 trillion in tax cuts is out right wrong. $3.9 trillion is 36.4% of the total value of all millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. If all the millionaires and billionaires combined earned $10.7 trillion in one year then the Bush tax cuts would have to be 36.4% change in tax rate of with the Bush tax cuts vs. without. But these millionaires and billionaires didn't earn $10.7 trillion in one year, That's their total assets combined, not annual income.In reality the doing away with the Bush tax cuts on the rich had a much smaller affect on collected taxes. Without the Bush tax cut, the federal income tax rate on millionaires is 36%. Only a 3% change. With the Bush tax cuts it's 33% On billionaires without the Bush tax cuts it's 39.6%. With the Bush tax cuts it's 35%. Only a 4.6% change. Regardless of wealth, investment taxes would have increased from 15% to 20% if the cuts expired.Lets assume most of the wealth a millionaire/billionaire earns comes from investments, since the change in investment taxes are the largest. Further, lets assume the $10.7 trillion total combined wealth of U.S. millionaires and billionaires was income for one year instead of it being a combined wealth of total assets. We will assume this so that we can tax their entire wealth not just what they earned in 1 year.5% increase in taxes on $10.7 trillion is only $535 billion. Over 5 times less then the $3.9 trillion claim you made. In reality, it's no where near $535 billion, because $10.7 trillion wasn't millionaire and billionaire income for a tax year. It is their combined asset wealth.I find it very interesting, Chris, that you had NO IDEA who spayandneuterlibs was, and then when confronted with the identical IP, he suddenly turned out to be your "cousin." Just couldn't stay away, huh? And after all that self-righteousness about the "tone" of this forum, which your screen name had NOTHING to do with, right? Well, whatever name you decide to use, I am happy to see that you are TRYING to bring something more than what your erstwhile screen name promised. It WOULD be nice if you could come in flying anything other than a false flag - but that is ever so much to ask of cons. It is quite common for cons to come in pretending to be libs, or otherwise flying false flags. Even teacher comes in here preaching neocon pabulum right down the line while insisting he is a "hunch-backed libertarian," or some such nonsense. It is so rare to see any of you folks just come in clean and represent yourselves honestly. And here we are with you, on the one hand claiming not to know old spayandneuter, and in the next instant he's your uncle's kid...Make up your mind, son. Anyhow, Chris, welcome back.