|
How is the private wealth of this nation distributed? Here is a chart that shows how much
of the wealth is held by the richest one percent of of the population, and then by the second richest one percent,
and then the third richest, and so on, until the holdings of the richest ten percent, and the small slice left
to the remaining 90% of the population, are shown. (If your net worth is less than $8 million, then you belong
in that 90%.)
This chart is based on the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances for 1998. Below is a table showing the actual
numbers I used to make the chart. As you will see, the richest one percent of the population holds 41% of the wealth.
The second richest one percent holds 15%, which means that together, the richest two percent of the population
owns 56% of the wealth. And so forth and so on.
Notice not only how much the very richest own, but how quickly the percentages drop. Just a very few percent of
the people at the very top of the list have managed to accumulate most of the private money and resources in this
nation.
This is very alarming to progressives. This is why progressives tend to favor higher taxes on the wealthy, and
more spending of the tax money on important programs that benefit the whole of society. It's not just that we'd
like to even out the wealth a little more; we also want to have a big fund of public money to balance
out the huge inequality in private money. If there's a lot of public money being generated through
taxes and used for the common good, then the extreme differences in private wealth might not hurt the people at
the bottom end of this table as much. The more money that is taken out of the public realm (through tax cuts, for
example) the less money there will be for essential services like education and health care, and the more the people
in the lower percentiles will have to take care of themselves using their already very thin slices of the pie.
|
percentile
|
owns |
percentile
|
owns |
percentile
|
owns |
percentile
|
owns |
|
99
|
41% |
74
|
0.17% |
49
|
0.027% |
24
|
0.0033% |
|
98
|
15% |
73
|
0.15% |
48
|
0.025% |
23
|
0.0028% |
|
97
|
9.4% |
72
|
0.14% |
47
|
0.023% |
22
|
0.0024% |
|
96
|
6.4% |
71
|
0.12% |
46
|
0.022% |
21
|
0.0020% |
|
95
|
4.8% |
70
|
0.11% |
45
|
0.021% |
20
|
0.0018% |
|
94
|
3.7% |
69
|
0.10% |
44
|
0.020% |
19
|
0.0015% |
|
93
|
2.9% |
68
|
0.094% |
43
|
0.018% |
18
|
0.0012% |
|
92
|
2.4% |
67
|
0.086% |
42
|
0.017% |
17
|
0.0010% |
|
91
|
2.0% |
66
|
0.080% |
41
|
0.017% |
16
|
0.00089% |
|
90
|
1.6% |
65
|
0.074% |
40
|
0.016% |
15
|
0.00071% |
|
89
|
1.3% |
64
|
0.070% |
39
|
0.015% |
14
|
0.00057% |
|
88
|
1.1% |
63
|
0.065% |
38
|
0.014% |
13
|
0.00042% |
|
87
|
0.94% |
62
|
0.061% |
37
|
0.013% |
12
|
0.00031% |
|
86
|
0.80% |
61
|
0.058% |
36
|
0.012% |
11
|
0.00019% |
|
85
|
0.70% |
60
|
0.054% |
35
|
0.011% |
10
|
0.00011% |
|
84
|
0.60% |
59
|
0.051% |
34
|
0.0097% |
9
|
0.000040% |
|
83
|
0.51% |
58
|
0.048% |
33
|
0.0089% |
8
|
0.0000036% |
|
82
|
0.43% |
57
|
0.045% |
32
|
0.0081% |
7
|
0 |
|
81
|
0.38% |
56
|
0.041% |
31
|
0.0073% |
6
|
0 |
|
80
|
0.35% |
55
|
0.039% |
30
|
0.0066% |
5
|
0 |
|
79
|
0.30% |
54
|
0.037% |
29
|
0.0059% |
4
|
0 |
|
78
|
0.26% |
53
|
0.035% |
28
|
0.0053% |
3
|
0 |
|
77
|
0.24% |
52
|
0.033% |
27
|
0.0048% |
2
|
0 |
|
76
|
0.21% |
51
|
0.030% |
26
|
0.0043% |
1
|
0 |
|
75
|
0.19% |
50
|
0.029% |
25
|
0.0038% |
0
|
0 |
Notes on the above table:
1. The lowest seven percent in this table are shown to be holding zero percent of the wealth. Actually, the people
in these percentiles have negative net worths. That is, they owe more money than they have. So in a sense, their
percentages ought to be negative numbers. I decided to keep things simpler by just leaving them entirely out of
the calculations. (If I were to include them, though, they would only tilt the imbalance in wealth even further.)
|