Charles Koch: 34K a Year makes You a Top 1 Percenter
-
FootwedgeLOL. BTW..his net worth is estimated at 43 bllion.
http://money.msn.com/now/post--charles-koch-dollar34000-puts-you-in-the-top-1percent -
LJ
Um, he isn't wrong -
queencitybuckeyeHe is correct, albeit with what is more a factoid than an actual statistic. Much of the rest of it is tripe like the idea that we need to get rid of the minimum wage. No, we need an economy where that wage level is irrelevant.
-
gutI got a good laugh.
Problem is he's comparing apples and oranges because of COL. Rent/mortgage might run $500 a month, vs. basically nothing in some migrant village in Cambodia.
But the poverty level is what each country chooses to define it as. That's not wrong, but Koch isn't wrong in implying what we call poverty isn't poverty, even perhaps by developed country standards. -
Footwedge
Sorry...but he's definitely wrong. There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet...Americans making 34 K a year do not represent people that are wealthier than all but 70,000 million people. Your math is horrible.LJ;1472970 wrote:Um, he isn't wrong
If you only included Americans...sans the rest of the planet, there are wayyyyy more than 70 million Americans that are worth more than those knocling .
It's such a ridiculous claim it defies description. But whatever makes his boat float is fine I guess. Plenty of chatterers will believe that horse shit. -
Footwedge
If Koch wants to say the poverty level here is not that bad then fine. But his staement is net even remotelt close to being true. The top 99 percentile across the globe? He's a fucking idiot.gut;1472997 wrote:I got a good laugh.
Problem is he's comparing apples and oranges because of COL. Rent/mortgage might run $500 a month, vs. basically nothing in some migrant village in Cambodia.
But the poverty level is what each country chooses to define it as. That's not wrong, but Koch isn't wrong in implying what we call poverty isn't poverty, even perhaps by developed country standards. -
LJ
My math isn't wrong. His salary # is just a little off, the top %1 worldwide is around $47,500, and the top 10% is $25,000. $11,344 is top 13%. All according to the link below.Footwedge;1473128 wrote:Sorry...but he's definitely wrong. There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet...Americans making 34 K a year do not represent people that are wealthier than all but 70,000 million people. Your math is horrible.
If you only included Americans...sans the rest of the planet, there are wayyyyy more than 70 million Americans that are worth more than those knocling .
It's such a ridiculous claim it defies description. But whatever makes his boat float is fine I guess. Plenty of chatterers will believe that horse shit.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/
This link says that $34k is the top .79%!
http://www.globalrichlist.com/ -
Manhattan BuckeyeFrom the link:
"[LEFT]Granted, the same report ranks Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland and Chile ahead of the U.S., despite the fact that they all have the government-run health care systems that Koch also loathes. When you're baiting your opponents into a lather, however, do those little details matter as much as the results?"
And all of these jurisdictions have significant foreign national populations that aren't subject to government-run healthcare. It is much easier to have a government run system when the wealthiest 40% or so of the population doesn't use the services. The author of the article is an idiot, and certainly isn't attentive to the actual detail. Singapore works because a crap-ton of rich people (Chinese and Western countries) see it as a tax haven and a regulatory environment friendly to business. Government healthcare isn't even a consideration for foreigners. [/LEFT] -
Footwedge
You can link all you wanr....but 1% of 7 billion is 70 million people. You and Mr. Koch are somehow saying that 34K a year puts one wealthier than all but 70 million people across the planet. That is simply false. There are way more than that in our country alone..LJ;1473152 wrote:My math isn't wrong. His salary # is just a little off, the top %1 worldwide is around $47,500, and the top 10% is $25,000. $11,344 is top 13%. All according to the link below.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/
This link says that $34k is the top .79%!
http://www.globalrichlist.com/ -
LJ
I backed it up with sources, you have not. What says it's false? Your opinion?Footwedge;1473771 wrote:You can link all you wanr....but 1% of 7 billion is 70 million people. You and Mr. Koch are somehow saying that 34K a year puts one wealthier than all but 70 million people across the planet. That is simply false. There are way more than that in our country alone.. -
O-Trap
About 316 million citizens in the US (see here).
That would indicate, assuming the number of 7.1 billion to be true (see here) that the US accounts for approximately 4.5% of the world's population.
Thus, 22% of the US population equals 1% of the world (1% of 7.1 billion is 71 million. 71 million is 22% of 316 million).
Assuming that the US's top 22% make more than anyone else in any other country (which is unlikely), they'd have to be the only ones in the US making more than $34,000.
Per the calculator on the WSJ's blog (see here), 41% of the US population make $34,000 or less, meaning 59% make more.
As such, 2.7% of the worlds population fits both these criteria: (a) makes $34,000 per year, and (b) lives in the United States (59% of 4.5% is 2.7%).
Per that same WSJ calculator, you'd have to gross about $94,000 per year to be within the world's 1% of earners ... assuming, again, that the US has the entire 1%, which is, again, unlikely.
There. Sources and basic math. -
LJ
Your math isn't good. Not all $316 million are earners, and not all 7.1 billion are earners. I believe the US workforce is 156 million.O-Trap;1473885 wrote:About 316 million citizens in the US (see here).
That would indicate, assuming the number of 7.1 billion to be true (see here) that the US accounts for approximately 4.5% of the world's population.
Thus, 22% of the US population equals 1% of the world (1% of 7.1 billion is 71 million. 71 million is 22% of 316 million).
Assuming that the US's top 22% make more than anyone else in any other country (which is unlikely), they'd have to be the only ones in the US making more than $34,000.
Per the calculator on the WSJ's blog (see here), 41% of the US population make $34,000 or less, meaning 59% make more.
As such, 2.7% of the worlds population fits both these criteria: (a) makes $34,000 per year, and (b) lives in the United States (59% of 4.5% is 2.7%).
Per that same WSJ calculator, you'd have to gross about $94,000 per year to be within the world's 1% of earners ... assuming, again, that the US has the entire 1%, which is, again, unlikely.
There. Sources and basic math. -
queencitybuckeye
I would argue that minors shouldn't "count", but non-earning adults shouldLJ;1473894 wrote:Your math isn't good. Not all $316 million are earners, and not all 7.1 billion are earners. I believe the US workforce is 156 million. -
LJ
-
LJ
Argue with the BLS, just using their definition of workforce.queencitybuckeye;1473900 wrote:I would argue that minors shouldn't "count", but non-earning adults should -
queencitybuckeyeThanks for the link, which indicates the $34,000 is after taxes, which translates to a gross of $50K or a bit more. That's a number I'd fully believe to be a 1 percenter worldwide.
-
LJ
I think the Daily Caller had it at a gross of $47,500queencitybuckeye;1473911 wrote:Thanks for the link, which indicates the $34,000 is after taxes, which translates to a gross of $50K or a bit more. That's a number I'd fully believe to be a 1 percenter worldwide. -
O-Trap
Technically, that makes my math fine, but my parameters incorrect.LJ;1473894 wrote:Your math isn't good. Not all $316 million are earners, and not all 7.1 billion are earners. I believe the US workforce is 156 million.
Either way, thanks for the clarification. -
gut
Are you sure about that?queencitybuckeye;1473911 wrote:Thanks for the link, which indicates the $34,000 is after taxes, which translates to a gross of $50K or a bit more.
Although with FICA alone you are talking @ $40k (incl. the employer contribution). -
fish82
IMO the takeaway is that no one in the US has a flipping clue what real poverty looks like. -
BGFalcons82
This is the truth!fish82;1474564 wrote:IMO the takeaway is that no one in the US has a flipping clue what real poverty looks like. -
queencitybuckeye
It is, but from arguably the wrong messenger.BGFalcons82;1474630 wrote:This is the truth! -
O-Trap
Eh, that's possible. I'm curious how the cost of living affects it here.fish82;1474564 wrote:IMO the takeaway is that no one in the US has a flipping clue what real poverty looks like.
If the average person in Haiti makes $276 a year, but the cost of living is such that it costs the average person $212 a year, and if the average person in the United States makes $34,000 a year, but the cost of living is such that it costs the average person $41,XXX a year, one might say that poverty in the US is still knowable. -
Footwedge
SMH. I've shown the math. Believe what you want. You factor in the high cost of living here, the 34K would be lucky to be in the top 10%. Get a clue.LJ;1473780 wrote:I backed it up with sources, you have not. What says it's false? Your opinion? -
Footwedge
Give it up. There is no reasononing with these people on this.O-Trap;1474893 wrote:Eh, that's possible. I'm curious how the cost of living affects it here.
If the average person in Haiti makes $276 a year, but the cost of living is such that it costs the average person $212 a year, and if the average person in the United States makes $34,000 a year, but the cost of living is such that it costs the average person $41,XXX a year, one might say that poverty in the US is still knowable.