Slashdot Mirror
Tech Rich Get Richer
theodp writes "The economy is improving, at least for the super rich. After two years of declines, the aggregate net worth of the U.S.'s wealthiest 400 citizens leapt 10% in the past year to $995 billion, according to Forbes' annual ranking. The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East coast to the tech-centric West. Bill Gates capped off a decade in the top spot after his fortune increased by $3B to $46B. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held onto 3rd place, his net worth rising $1B to $22B. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who saw his fortune expand by more than $3B to $5.1B, was the top gainer on the list. And with a measly $1.4B, Jerry Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a 16-way tie for 162nd place."
This phrase is really starting to annoy me. If you define "the rich" as "everybody who pays taxes", then yes, the recent tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich". But that definition is obviously ridiculous, so the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" really doesn't apply to the Bush tax cuts. Please learn the definitions of the words you use before you speak again.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
Show me some real statistics
I'll show you mine... now you can show us all yours. Just gots to love Google for hunting this stuff down.
Who pays the piper?
Who pays income taxes?
Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000
What I still don't get is why folks are so hot on upping tax rate on the very folks that are capable of hiring employees? Isn't the whole point in getting a sagging economy turned around to get the unemployment numbers down? Last I checked, social programs don't hire people.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
My wife and I are having a baby. There is no doubt both she and the baby are actually going to survive the birthing process, and it's a pretty solid bet the kid is going to live to adulthood. That cannot be said of many places in the world, or even here before modern medicine. (And gripe what you will about the cost, but we HAVE it.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
So I'm guessing hes given around 0.1% of his wealth away.
Try about 60%. There was a Businessweek article in December 2002 that ranked the biggest philanthropists in the world (not sure if non-subscribers can read this article from the archives) -- he's ranked #1 in terms of amounts given. My eyeball estimate is that he's #6 in terms of percentage of wealth given (which is somewhat misleading, since Gordon Moore and James Stowers apparently committed more money than they were worth, and so would be ranked #1 and #2 in terms of percentage).
I'd be impressed if the man gave away a few billion dollars at a time and not in stupid ways. When he spends money on schools I'm impressed when he actually builds a school, but usually he does not build a school, usually he just donates Microsoft products (big deal) to schools.
Gates's main focus is eradicating diseases in developing countries. Yeah, that's really stupid. He has also given the largest single private grant in history -- for a global vaccine program. Again, very stupid. Whatever.
BTW, Larry Ellison (Oracle) is ranked #1 for biggest cheapskate -- he has given away 0.4% of his worth. Steve Ballmer is the 5th biggest cheapskate. And, to me, worst of all, given who he is and what he stands for for so many people, Warren Buffett is the 6th biggest cheapskate -- he's given away only $230 million of his $36 billion.