What is the average family net worth in the USA?

[Raider5678]

15 minutes ago, Area54 said:

We are so far from the OP that I suppose a further diversion does not matter. Excessive wealth may get us to Mars via Elon Musk and Space-X, much sooner than via conventional government approaches. For me, that scores points for excessive wealth.

Separately, I trust those questioning excessive wealth are distinguishing between those who create wealth and those who merely manipulate it, the latter including some of the world's largest wankers bankers.

The OP was answered with a simple google.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm exempt from taxes since I'm 15.

That doesn't make you exempt from taxes. What makes you exempt is not earning enough money to have to file, which is the situation most minors find themselves in.

And you should have paid payroll taxes (unless exempt as a student) and sales taxes when you bought stuff, if applicable.

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Great.

So the mention of a guy who's successful in business starts you on the path to complain.

 

No, if you check it was more a matter of someone citing stats to try to show that Capitalism isn't rampant (who could that have been?)  started me on the path to show that ... perhaps it is.

[Raider5678]

32 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No, if you check it was more a matter of someone citing stats to try to show that Capitalism isn't rampant (who could that have been?)  started me on the path to show that ... perhaps it is.

Maybe it was me who started it. Let me check.

Page 1:

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

Perhaps. But his original company generated employment for many people and provided massive cost savings for clients using his products. I knew many of the people who worked there and it was clearly an exciting and rewarding work environment. His approach, as far as I can discern it, is no different from an athete seeking to set a new personal best. If his case is sad then I think everyone who strives towards a goal is arguably equally sad.

 

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Did he actually create wealth, or did he take it from others?
Often "massive cost savings" means reduced employment somewhere along the line.

 

 

Nope. Sorry. Still you.

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

That doesn't make you exempt from taxes. What makes you exempt is not earning enough money to have to file, which is the situation most minors find themselves in.

And you should have paid payroll taxes (unless exempt as a student) and sales taxes when you bought stuff, if applicable.

Correct, my bad.

Since I'm 15 the amount of money I can make before being taxed is higher additionally so since I am a student.

I do pay sales tax when applicable.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

There is not a direct correlation between how much wealth an individual has and the number of jobs they create or number of people they employ. Some wealthy people employ tens of thousands of people while other just a small pool of staff. Also some large companies which employ many people are arguable harmful for the overall economy of an area. We are all familiar with the debate surrounding walmart and the number of smaller businesses with better paying jobs they replace. Simply because a wealthy person employees someone it doesn't automatically make them good. One of the most important and most nuanced responsibility local govts have is zoning business districts and figuring out which companies to allow, what their standards must be, and where they should be located. It impacts public safety, traffic, housing costs, quality of life, and etc. Every job isn't automatically a good job just like all wealthy people aren't inherently good. There are many variables. 

That's essentially my point. 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes.

This is why the poverty rate was 15.1% in 2010.

And 14.5% in 2014

And 13.5% in 2015

And 12.7% in 2016.

And 11.8% in 2017.

 

For reference, according to the Census Bureau(same place as all of these statistics actually), the record low was 11.1% in 1973.

Who determines poverty in America? 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

That's quite a leap from an unnamed successful company to unregulated capitalism and refusing to pay taxes.

 

That's why I asked you to read back.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I agree, there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting more, it can give life a purpose, it depends on how one goes about it. Unfortunately far too many people with that aim/purpose tend to go about it through deceit (hiding the profit to avoid paying their fair share) and selfish greed (ignoring the suffering of others to improve a number).

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 Since I'm 15 the amount of money I can make before being taxed is higher additionally so since I am a student.

It might even be less; I'm not sure. If you are claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return, you can't claim a personal exemption. So anything above the standard deduction would be taxed.

And AFAICT students are exempt from payroll taxes only when employed by the school (e.g. work-study, or teaching/research stipend)

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Uh hu. 

Apparently, the UK is running rampant in unregulated capitalism than at 16.7%, and the EU, in general, is terrible at 17.3%.

The interesting thing is this, according to OECD data (it is important to use harmonized data for comparison) 2015 the USA has the largest income inequality among developed countries (after Israel) with 16.8% . It is slightly higher than in e.g. Greece, Spain and Canada (14.2-15.3). For Greece and Spain it is fairly clear that the main driver is the overall dismal economic situation. On the other hand, other European countries do far better, With e.g. the Netherlands and France being around 7.9-8.1. The UK is doing worse with 11%, but still better than the US. It is important to note that of course in all countries we have regulated capitalism (to various degrees) but also different social systems.

Looking at income equality and the poverty gap the US is also pretty much on top, which indicates that despite robust economy, inequality is a huge issue. That is not to say that it is not in Europe, but it shows that different implementations, regulations and social programs significantly influence the outcomes. That is probably also the case for state-funded programs within the US.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

It might even be less; I'm not sure. If you are claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return, you can't claim a personal exemption.

IIRC, a dependent must not have an income above a certain limit (i.e. far below the taxable income threshold). So once the income passes that level the taxes would be like for any other person. I am not sure if there are special deductibles for students in high school (in colleges there are certain deductibles for tuition) but if not, it would be essentially the same as for an adult. Also, I believe that only stipends and scholarships are exempt and only when used as qualified expenses (e.g. tuition). Scholarships used for e.g. living expenses would count as taxable.

Same regarding employment by the University, if it comes above the threshold, it has to be taxed. Had actually my fair share of paperwork for my students in this regard as it is somewhat confusing, especially when student payments come from different sources.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

It might even be less; I'm not sure. If you are claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return, you can't claim a personal exemption. So anything above the standard deduction would be taxed.

Iirc, anything over $6350 will be taxed, but it would have to be a lot over to make it worth it for the dependent to claim their own exemption. Raider's folks get thousands in credit for him, but he'd probably only get hundreds back on a part-time salary refund.

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The interesting thing is this, according to OECD data (it is important to use harmonized data for comparison) 2015 the USA has the largest income inequality among developed countries (after Israel) with 16.8% . It is slightly higher than in e.g. Greece, Spain and Canada (14.2-15.3). For Greece and Spain it is fairly clear that the main driver is the overall dismal economic situation. On the other hand, other European countries do far better, With e.g. the Netherlands and France being around 7.9-8.1. The UK is doing worse with 11%, but still better than the US. It is important to note that of course in all countries we have regulated capitalism (to various degrees) but also different social systems.

2

So......

It's better if there are far more poor people, as long as there isn't such a large difference between the poor people and the rich people?

I mean, I understand that inequality is bad, but seriously. It's hard to make the argument that more poor people are better than fewer poor people but richer people.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Inequality/Gini-coefficient/Level#

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

...

Nope. Sorry. Still you.

 

Oh, I see now.

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between asking a question or making a statement , and complaining?

Well, I guess you are young enough to learn.

 

[CharonY]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

It's better if there are far more poor people, as long as there isn't such a large difference between the poor people and the rich people?

I mean, I understand that inequality is bad, but seriously. It's hard to make the argument that more poor people are better than fewer poor people but richer people.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Countries with the lowest inequality also usually have the lowest poverty rates. It is not an either or. The US stands out with having a strong economy saddled with high poverty rate AND inequality.

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's better if there are far more poor people, as long as there isn't such a large difference between the poor people and the rich people?

I mean, I understand that inequality is bad, but seriously. It's hard to make the argument that more poor people are better than fewer poor people but richer people.

 

It seems you also don't understand what a false dichotomy is.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Oh, I see now.

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between asking a question or making a statement , and complaining?

Well, I guess you are young enough to learn.

1

Your question was predecided, as per usual with your posts.

Your question was asking for information, it was a statement that you had already made your mind up on.

This is a common characteristic of your posts.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Countries with the lowest inequality also usually have the lowest poverty rates. It is not an either or. The US stands out with having a strong economy saddled with high poverty rate AND inequality.

Except in most of the EU the inequality rate is lower, and the poverty rate is higher.

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your question was predecided, as per usual with your posts.

Your question was asking for information, it was a statement that you had already made your mind up on.

This is a common characteristic of your posts.

Thanks for letting me know what I think.

If you keep on doing it, one day you might get it right.

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's why I asked you to read back.

Still unclear how that supports your assertion that we have "unregulated capitalism". 

"... unregulated capitalism means he took it from others and refused to give some of it back..."

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Except in most of the EU the inequality rate is lower, and the poverty rate is higher.

If you read my post you would realize that there are large variances within OECD countries. If you pick out those with low poverty, they typically also have low inequality. Those with high poverty issues include Eastern European countries that have relatively recent joined the union, as well as some countries with massive economic deficits (Greece, Spain). The UK is also one of the countries with relatively high inequality and poverty. Counterpoints include e.g. the Netherlands, Finland etc. But note that you have not even shown harmonized data that actually indicate that poverty levels are higher in Europe as a whole compared to the US. 

 

And to answer your implied question, yes, income equality has an enormous impact on US society. One major aspect is that of public health. Child mortality, death during pregnancy and other health indicators in the US are among the worst in all developed countries. Maternal mortality is ~4 times that of Canada and 7 times that of Sweden or Italy, for example. And that is despite a higher per capita health expenditure. What does it have to do with inequality? Well, looking at finer grained data it is apparent that the abysmal values are driven by poverty. The likelihood of dying during childbirth, for example increases by over 300% for mothers of low income. So income inequality, coupled with privatized health system result in serious public health challenges. If folks are dying because they cannot afford care that would be covered in other countries (or where folks have sufficient income to cover those basics), I would call it a huge friggin problem.

Edited March 19, 2018 by CharonY

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Still unclear how that supports your assertion that we have "unregulated capitalism". 

"... unregulated capitalism means he took it from others and refused to give some of it back..."

Why is Google in Ireland?

Quote

Google has several reasons to choose Ireland for setting up headquarters there. This company is not only famous for finding information, but also for its brilliant business strategies. The main reason behind choosing Ireland as headquarter is the low tax rate.

 

 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why is Google in Ireland?

Because of regulations.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because of regulations.

Because of taxes, regulations would demand the taxes be paid to the country that enabled the company to prosper.

[Strange]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Because of taxes, regulations would demand the taxes be paid to the country that enabled the company to prosper.

Because of tax regulations, Different tax regulations would demand the taxes be paid to the country that enabled the company to prosper.

FIFY

[Raider5678]

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because of tax regulations, Different tax regulations would demand the taxes be paid to the country that enabled the company to prosper.

FIFY

Disagree, in this case, the lower taxes allow the company to continue to prosper, whilst the country who's infrastructure enabled the companies growth loses out because of a lack of regulation.

Edited March 19, 2018 by dimreepr

[Strange]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Disagree, in this case, the lower taxes allow the company to continue to prosper

The lower taxes exist because of REGULATIONS. Do you think they make up their own tax rules? No. They are bound by the same tax regulations as everybody else.

They use the tax regulations to find the best place to base their company. The problem is not the lack of regulations but that the regulations are "wrong" (from some points of view).

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Do you think they make up their own tax rules?

 

Yes

They're big enough to hold a small country to their rules.

 

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Iirc, anything over $6350 will be taxed, but it would have to be a lot over to make it worth it for the dependent to claim their own exemption. Raider's folks get thousands in credit for him, but he'd probably only get hundreds back on a part-time salary refund.

Right. $6350 is the standard deduction. Take less than that and you owe no income tax, regardless of age. Whoever's in the higher tax bracket would probably want to use the personal exemption or claim as a dependent.