The Top 1% Super Rich Americans

This whole situation is ABSURD. In middle/high school history we all read about wealth disparities in Europe when the Wealthy owned 90% of the land and the peasants worked all day and could not get ahead. I don't know why no one is seeing that we are reverting back to hundreds of years ago. Also the disparity was the highest before the first depression, and then once again right before the recession, coincidence?

The super rich, if the top 1% is to many people for you, we can take the top .5% if you really want, this is higher than the debated $250,000 a year income. Why do people see taxes as punishment or a burden? Taxes are there to help the country ideally, (we haven't been doing a great job with spending, so I think figuring out asset allocation should probably be the first part of fixing this, but it's definitely not the biggest part) we want to keep this country running, and taxes were instituted there to help it. The super rich ARE probably paying the most for taxes (35% of 1,000,000 is 20x more than [let's just say] 35% of 50,000). But so what, they have the most money, if I had $650,000 after paying taxes, I would still be elated. $180,000 if we want to use the $250,000, I would take that in a heartbeat. Even if I worked for it, I would want to help give others the opportunity to join me in the top 1.5%.

Touching on taxes as a burden or punishment, the super rich should be taxed because they are benefiting from the process, and should give something back. This is like chopping a forest down, and not planting any more trees, you're going to run out of forest. Like going to college and not giving money back to support the institution. I know they are already giving back, but they have the ability to give back, and if their stubborness/greedyness is causing the US to collapse, that is pretty unacceptable.

The problem with the whole "American Dream" is that it's not entirely possible, yes there are some "rags to riches" stories, but more often there are not. Most people around the poverty line do not have an OPPORTUNITY to increase their wealth, to support their family, the communities as a whole cannot afford to do anything, if you opened a shop in a community that cannot afford it, how are you supposed to thrive, or even to survive? Education is another point, many schools don't have opportunities that others have. THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. How can the super rich look down on those on the poverty levels and say "you are lazy, I was where you were and look where I am" many a couple of them came from these neighborhoods, but I bet a majority of these people came from upper middle class or middle class at the least.

Now, I don't think that ONLY the rich should be taxed, everyone who can afford it should have tax increases. Like before the great depression, we are at one of the lowest levels of taxes, and look at the condition of the nation. If the nation crumbles, even if it's not the super rich's fault, everyone is going to blame them, they need to recognize this and stop being so stubborn.

If these people can cut the deficit by 4 trillion in 10 years, why not raise taxes and cut it by another 4 trillion?

P.S. I'm not to politically savvy, so please tell me if I am percepting some element of politics wrong.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"][QUOTE="Vuurk"]

Income taxation is a punishment for success. However, sales tax and excise tax are not. Welfare programs and unemployment insurance also punish success. They are programs that provide incentives to not strive for their absolute success. People respond to incentives. It would be much more efficient, and productive for us as a country to provide incentives for success rather than failure.

leviathan91

Ah this argument. Wealth isn't transfered, it's created. And no, it's not the individual's responsibility to owe money to the population. What you described is basically the story of the hen who baked bread all by herself without the aid of her animal friends, yet her animal friends demand the food. Point is, that person became rich because they worked hard. And those who worked hard, become wealthy in their own way (not super rich but those who live an earnest life).

Besides, many of the super rich already give so much in charity and other programs that actually benefit the needy unlike the government programs that misuse the money or benefit the scum of the earth, wheather it's drug dealers or African warlords.

And if it's not a persons responsability to pay taxes to the government. Then you don't have a government that can enforce laws or provide civil liberities. And this should happen in proportion to ones wealth. IT's to the entire populations benefit that the wealthy pay more taxes. It's not a punishment, or stealing from the rich.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] That really doesn't matter. Income tax is is not a punishment for success. It's a responsibility an individual owes to the population that makes their wealth possible to begin with. There are no wealthy people without those that are not wealthy. Without people beneath them a wealthy person could never be wealthy. These people will still be wealthy, even if they pay higher income taxes. They are not being deprived of anything that will prevent them from being happy. And they still will have more money than anybody else. People should be taxed in proportion to their income. This also includes legal fees, and fines. Vuurk

Ah this argument. Wealth isn't transfered, it's created. And no, it's not the individual's responsibility to owe money to the population. What you described is basically the story of the hen who baked bread all by herself without the aid of her animal friends, yet her animal friends demand the food. Point is, that person became rich because they worked hard. And those who worked hard, become wealthy in their own way (not super rich but those who live an earnest life).

Besides, many of the super rich already give so much in charity and other programs that actually benefit the needy unlike the government programs that misuse the money or benefit the scum of the earth, wheather it's drug dealers or African warlords.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

UniverseIX

Chart predates the recent extension of the Bush era tax cuts, but I sure as heck wouldn't be too unhappy if the Obama preferred tax changes were implemented in 2013.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Chart predates the recent extension of the Bush era tax cuts, but I sure as heck wouldn't be too unhappy if the Obama preferred tax changes were implemented in 2013.sonicare

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Exactly. Also, the rich people in this country are the ones investing in research, new inventions, businesses that provide jobs for the less wealthy, etc. Planet_Pluto

I guess it depends on how you look at taxes. No one likes paying taxes. I'd rather keep every dollar that I make rather than see upwards of 35-45% of my income disappear. But I mind it less ifI know my taxes are going to things that benefit me and my country. My sister and brother-in-law live in a ridicuosly expensive neighborhood outside NYC. They pay huge amounts of property taxes as do all their neighbors. But all of them will say its worth it because the town is very nice and the school system is exceptional. They're smart enough to realize that they are investing in their community and surroundings. I want to live in a nice country, so I am content with paying taxes if I know it helps.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

How could you not be for raising taxes on somebody else?

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] nobody said they weren't :| but it's not them in of themselves. That's a ridiculous assumption.

UniverseIX

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

This whole situation is ABSURD. In middle/high school history we all read about wealth disparities in Europe when the Wealthy owned 90% of the land and the peasants worked all day and could not get ahead. I don't know why no one is seeing that we are reverting back to hundreds of years ago. Also the disparity was the highest before the first depression, and then once again right before the recession, coincidence?

The super rich, if the top 1% is to many people for you, we can take the top .5% if you really want, this is higher than the debated $250,000 a year income. Why do people see taxes as punishment or a burden? Taxes are there to help the country ideally, (we haven't been doing a great job with spending, so I think figuring out asset allocation should probably be the first part of fixing this, but it's definitely not the biggest part) we want to keep this country running, and taxes were instituted there to help it. The super rich ARE probably paying the most for taxes (35% of 1,000,000 is 20x more than [let's just say] 35% of 50,000). But so what, they have the most money, if I had $650,000 after paying taxes, I would still be elated. $180,000 if we want to use the $250,000, I would take that in a heartbeat. Even if I worked for it, I would want to help give others the opportunity to join me in the top 1.5%.

Touching on taxes as a burden or punishment, the super rich should be taxed because they are benefiting from the process, and should give something back. This is like chopping a forest down, and not planting any more trees, you're going to run out of forest. Like going to college and not giving money back to support the institution. I know they are already giving back, but they have the ability to give back, and if their stubborness/greedyness is causing the US to collapse, that is pretty unacceptable.

The problem with the whole "American Dream" is that it's not entirely possible, yes there are some "rags to riches" stories, but more often there are not. Most people around the poverty line do not have an OPPORTUNITY to increase their wealth, to support their family, the communities as a whole cannot afford to do anything, if you opened a shop in a community that cannot afford it, how are you supposed to thrive, or even to survive? Education is another point, many schools don't have opportunities that others have. THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. How can the super rich look down on those on the poverty levels and say "you are lazy, I was where you were and look where I am" many a couple of them came from these neighborhoods, but I bet a majority of these people came from upper middle class or middle class at the least.

Now, I don't think that ONLY the rich should be taxed, everyone who can afford it should have tax increases. Like before the great depression, we are at one of the lowest levels of taxes, and look at the condition of the nation. If the nation crumbles, even if it's not the super rich's fault, everyone is going to blame them, they need to recognize this and stop being so stubborn.

If these people can cut the deficit by 4 trillion in 10 years, why not raise taxes and cut it by another 4 trillion?

P.S. I'm not to politically savvy, so please tell me if I am percepting some element of politics wrong.

Vuurk

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

This whole situation is ABSURD. In middle/high school history we all read about wealth disparities in Europe when the Wealthy owned 90% of the land and the peasants worked all day and could not get ahead. I don't know why no one is seeing that we are reverting back to hundreds of years ago. Also the disparity was the highest before the first depression, and then once again right before the recession, coincidence?

The super rich, if the top 1% is to many people for you, we can take the top .5% if you really want, this is higher than the debated $250,000 a year income. Why do people see taxes as punishment or a burden? Taxes are there to help the country ideally, (we haven't been doing a great job with spending, so I think figuring out asset allocation should probably be the first part of fixing this, but it's definitely not the biggest part) we want to keep this country running, and taxes were instituted there to help it. The super rich ARE probably paying the most for taxes (35% of 1,000,000 is 20x more than [let's just say] 35% of 50,000). But so what, they have the most money, if I had $650,000 after paying taxes, I would still be elated. $180,000 if we want to use the $250,000, I would take that in a heartbeat. Even if I worked for it, I would want to help give others the opportunity to join me in the top 1.5%.

Touching on taxes as a burden or punishment, the super rich should be taxed because they are benefiting from the process, and should give something back. This is like chopping a forest down, and not planting any more trees, you're going to run out of forest. Like going to college and not giving money back to support the institution. I know they are already giving back, but they have the ability to give back, and if their stubborness/greedyness is causing the US to collapse, that is pretty unacceptable.

The problem with the whole "American Dream" is that it's not entirely possible, yes there are some "rags to riches" stories, but more often there are not. Most people around the poverty line do not have an OPPORTUNITY to increase their wealth, to support their family, the communities as a whole cannot afford to do anything, if you opened a shop in a community that cannot afford it, how are you supposed to thrive, or even to survive? Education is another point, many schools don't have opportunities that others have. THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. How can the super rich look down on those on the poverty levels and say "you are lazy, I was where you were and look where I am" many a couple of them came from these neighborhoods, but I bet a majority of these people came from upper middle class or middle class at the least.

Now, I don't think that ONLY the rich should be taxed, everyone who can afford it should have tax increases. Like before the great depression, we are at one of the lowest levels of taxes, and look at the condition of the nation. If the nation crumbles, even if it's not the super rich's fault, everyone is going to blame them, they need to recognize this and stop being so stubborn.

If these people can cut the deficit by 4 trillion in 10 years, why not raise taxes and cut it by another 4 trillion?

P.S. I'm not to politically savvy, so please tell me if I am percepting some element of politics wrong.

KungfuKitten

This makes sense. Also thanks for only taking that out of my nice long post.

In addition why can only the rich invest? I invest in companies too (my net worth is not to high as a college senior), why cant others as well?

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] they pay more than scale as we have a bracket system and the more you make the higher % you pay..... surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] nobody said they weren't :| but it's not them in of themselves. That's a ridiculous assumption.

UniverseIX

There's no denying that. Both sides benefit each other. However, that doesn't mean there should be a tax increase on the wealthy. My argument is that we should reform our tax code to be more simplified. Basically less incentives and less penalties. Also when it comes to social security, medicare, and medicaid, the things is, it's a regressive system that tends to benefit the wealthy rather than the rich. A poor man works his butt off only to see that around 15% or 25% goes to those programs. That person doesn't have that much control over his paycheck or his retirement.

And the wealthy have been doing a lot. Not only have they provided jobs and careers for others but also donated so much to charity and programs that help others. The government attempted to do so but always screws up. It has proven itself not to be a responsible entity as it was back then.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

Zlurodirom

This makes sense. Also thanks for only taking that out of my nice long post.

In addition why can only the rich invest? I invest in companies too (my net worth is not to high as a college senior), why cant others as well?

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I have a question for you sir? What is it that you think rich people do with all of their money? They invest it. What do they invest it in? Businesses that provide jobs for many individuals, new technologies that benefit everyone and increase the standard of life for everyone. If you impose extremely high taxes on the rich, then the entire economy including poor people, middle class, businesses, and government will feel the impact. Zlurodirom

This makes sense. Also thanks for only taking that out of my nice long post.

In addition why can only the rich invest? I invest in companies too (my net worth is not to high as a college senior), why cant others as well?

Obviously, it all depends on your outlook, as usual.

If you think in a collective sense and view a national community as a cohesive whole, then yes, of course, it is fair to suggest that it is the responsibility and duty of everybody in the nation to pay their fair share of taxes relative to their income. We are, of course, all 'in this together'. People claim to love their country but complain when they are asked to contribute to the maintenance of their blessed homeland. After all, most people have no grievances about contributing towards the upkeep of their own church etc.

But when viewing things on a more personal, microeconomic level, many (particularly in the USA, which is - relative to other nations - quite a conservative-minded nation) feel that it's abhorrent and unfair to tax those who have more disposable income and claim that such taxes are a 'punishment' to those that work hard. That argument has some weight to it…that I'm not denying - It sure would be a kick in the teeth to see some 40-50% of your income taxed away (as it is in Britain for those on salaries over £150,000)

Nobody likes paying tax. The sad truth is, however, that it's necessary, it serves a purpose. While some would say that it's unjust to place a tax upon the ambitiousness and efforts of the wealthy... we have to acknowledge that it's just as unjust to sustain a scenario where the less wealthy are bearing a disproportionate burden of the government's tax demands while the mega rich have their cake and eat it and don't necessarily pay their fair share through the appropriate channels, if at all.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"] Planet_Pluto

This makes sense. Also thanks for only taking that out of my nice long post.

In addition why can only the rich invest? I invest in companies too (my net worth is not to high as a college senior), why cant others as well?

Well I agree with you that there are many resources, but I think the majority of the people are not just saying "woe is me", it's a more of a lack of a chance at opportunity. If you read my post, I said that there are many communities that offer basically not opportunity. I'm not saying that they all are taking advantage of every opportunity, I'm sure some are and some aren't, but the majority cant even do this.

I agree that many people don't think they can succeed though, take sports for instance. Many people use this as a way to get out of poverty or be successful, so they spend countless hours working on this. They aren't being lazy, they really want to succeed, but only a fraction of kids become professional soccer/football/basketball/baseball etc, players. I think part of the problem is also that people don't realize what academics can do. Where I go to college, a local middle or high school is fretting between cutting teachers and spending, or sports. Now I have a classmate who is a football player and aspiring politician, and he's going there to tell them to keep sports and fire teachers, because he was one of these few people that got an opportunity to let sports help his education.

People need to realize the roads that academics opens up, I think to many are misguided or misenformed. With more money possibly people can focus less on "their ticket out of here" and more on other values? That's my thoughts.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"] I'm no economic and I don't have the numbers, but I would think that getting the wealth distributed would raise the standard of living more than putting it into investments.KungfuKitten

This makes sense. Also thanks for only taking that out of my nice long post.

In addition why can only the rich invest? I invest in companies too (my net worth is not to high as a college senior), why cant others as well?

My guess is that the rich invest a large quantity of their money, that's how Warren Buffet got rich I'm fairely sure (he pays less tax than his secretary, because he only pays taxes on his dividends), I'm pretty sure most of the self made millionaires came through the stock market or investing in real estate over the last 20 years. There are many types of investments people can make though, buying a car can be considered an investment, while purchasing a share in a company is another one. I'm fairely sure that the poor do not invest to heavily in much. I have read that 80% of the stock market wealth is the top 10%, or something like that.

I don't know how the investments will matter tot he poor either.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I have a question for you sir? What is it that you think rich people do with all of their money? They invest it. What do they invest it in? Businesses that provide jobs for many individuals, new technologies that benefit everyone and increase the standard of life for everyone. If you impose extremely high taxes on the rich, then the entire economy including poor people, middle class, businesses, and government will feel the impact. Vuurk

Why would the pie get smaller?

No. What right does the government have to tax higher those that make more money.

They set the tax rate and thus have every legal authority to do so.

They didn't necessarily do anything bad to get it.The fed is just punishing success,

Taxes aren't a punishment, they are simply the price of living in your country.

which is something that Americans should strive for if they see fit.

I'm sure everyone will just give up trying to be successful, since it's rewards will completely dissapear with a slightly higher tax rate.

And the people who think the rich should be taxed more are just being b*****, If they made that kind of money they sure as hell wouldn't want it heavily taxed.

No one wants to be taxed, and no one advocates higher taxes because they suddenly want to pay more. The cost of the country going downhill however means you will have a much harder time staying successful and less people will become successful because of it.

BATTOSAI76

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

This whole situation is ABSURD. In middle/high school history we all read about wealth disparities in Europe when the Wealthy owned 90% of the land and the peasants worked all day and could not get ahead. I don't know why no one is seeing that we are reverting back to hundreds of years ago. Also the disparity was the highest before the first depression, and then once again right before the recession, coincidence?

The super rich, if the top 1% is to many people for you, we can take the top .5% if you really want, this is higher than the debated $250,000 a year income. Why do people see taxes as punishment or a burden? Taxes are there to help the country ideally, (we haven't been doing a great job with spending, so I think figuring out asset allocation should probably be the first part of fixing this, but it's definitely not the biggest part) we want to keep this country running, and taxes were instituted there to help it. The super rich ARE probably paying the most for taxes (35% of 1,000,000 is 20x more than [let's just say] 35% of 50,000). But so what, they have the most money, if I had $650,000 after paying taxes, I would still be elated. $180,000 if we want to use the $250,000, I would take that in a heartbeat. Even if I worked for it, I would want to help give others the opportunity to join me in the top 1.5%.

Touching on taxes as a burden or punishment, the super rich should be taxed because they are benefiting from the process, and should give something back. This is like chopping a forest down, and not planting any more trees, you're going to run out of forest. Like going to college and not giving money back to support the institution. I know they are already giving back, but they have the ability to give back, and if their stubborness/greedyness is causing the US to collapse, that is pretty unacceptable.

The problem with the whole "American Dream" is that it's not entirely possible, yes there are some "rags to riches" stories, but more often there are not. Most people around the poverty line do not have an OPPORTUNITY to increase their wealth, to support their family, the communities as a whole cannot afford to do anything, if you opened a shop in a community that cannot afford it, how are you supposed to thrive, or even to survive? Education is another point, many schools don't have opportunities that others have. THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. How can the super rich look down on those on the poverty levels and say "you are lazy, I was where you were and look where I am" many a couple of them came from these neighborhoods, but I bet a majority of these people came from upper middle class or middle class at the least.

Now, I don't think that ONLY the rich should be taxed, everyone who can afford it should have tax increases. Like before the great depression, we are at one of the lowest levels of taxes, and look at the condition of the nation. If the nation crumbles, even if it's not the super rich's fault, everyone is going to blame them, they need to recognize this and stop being so stubborn.

If these people can cut the deficit by 4 trillion in 10 years, why not raise taxes and cut it by another 4 trillion?

P.S. I'm not to politically savvy, so please tell me if I am percepting some element of politics wrong.

Vuurk

No. You could take every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in the U.S. and that would only cover one-third of the deficit. Going after them is pure politics and clearly won't fix anything.

And the first thing the uber rich do when you increase their taxes is stick their money in off shore accounts and investments. So it actually has a negative effect.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] If you distribute the pie more evenly, the pie will get smaller. Redistribution of wealth is counter productive and counter efficient. Socialism doesn't work. =PVuurk

Why would the pie get smaller?

Pity very few on here seem not to know the diff between personnel taxation and corporate taxationEmpCom

Pity very few on here seem not to know the diff between personnel taxation and corporate taxationEmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"]Pity very few on here seem not to know the diff between personnel taxation and corporate taxationKC_Hokie

Honestly, I wouldn't consider the top 1% of Americans "super rich". That's more like the top 0.0001%, or about 1% of all millionaires. The traditional definition of what constitutes being "rich" has seriously devalued with inflation and currency shifts.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I have a question for you sir? What is it that you think rich people do with all of their money? They invest it. What do they invest it in? Businesses that provide jobs for many individuals, new technologies that benefit everyone and increase the standard of life for everyone. If you impose extremely high taxes on the rich, then the entire economy including poor people, middle class, businesses, and government will feel the impact. Vuurk

You seem to have socialism confused with Laissez-faire

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="EmpCom"]Pity very few on here seem not to know the diff between personnel taxation and corporate taxationEmpCom

You actually increase tax revenue with a tax decrease. JFK understood this.

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Increasing taxes on either is a terrible idea right now.KC_Hokie

You actually increase tax revenue with a tax decrease. JFK understood this.

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Increasing taxes on either is a terrible idea right now.KC_Hokie

You actually increase tax revenue with a tax decrease. JFK understood this.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="EmpCom"] Its the only practical idea right now. Cuts along with tax rises is the way forward at least in the mid term then when the economy is back on level footing things can change back. nocoolnamejim

You actually increase tax revenue with a tax decrease. JFK understood this.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="EmpCom"] Its the only practical idea right now. Cuts along with tax rises is the way forward at least in the mid term then when the economy is back on level footing things can change back. chessmaster1989

You actually increase tax revenue with a tax decrease. JFK understood this.

The income tax revenue following the Bush tax cuts actually produced all time record revenue. The neo-cons squandered it though.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The income tax revenue following the Bush tax cuts actually produced all time record revenue. The neo-cons squandered it though.nocoolnamejim

But a drop in income taxes has worked four times in the last 100 years and for both political parties.

Lowest taxes in the world? Who?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. The last thing you do in this situation is raise taxes on anyone.

You actually increase tax revenue with a tax decrease. JFK understood this.

KC_Hokie

Tranbandt and Uhlig (2009), "How Far Are We From the Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited". Read it.

Re: Bush tax cuts, opinions on the subject are mixed, but the tentative consensus is that they reduced revenue. However, the other examples you cited are valid, but not as relevant to the issue as empirical evidence.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The income tax revenue following the Bush tax cuts actually produced all time record revenue. The neo-cons squandered it though.KC_Hokie

But a drop in income taxes has worked four times in the last 100 years and for both political parties.

Lowest taxes in the world? Who?

No. You could take every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in the U.S. and that would only cover one-third of the deficit. Going after them is pure politics and clearly won't fix anything.

And the first thing the uber rich do when you increase their taxes is stick their money in off shore accounts and investments. So it actually has a negative effect.

KC_Hokie

Not sure where the research is, but the video states that the rich made 11 trillion this past year, pretty sure that's more than 1/3 of the deficit if true.

I'm still hoping to become wealthy myself so no way! :P

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

No. You could take every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in the U.S. and that would only cover one-third of the deficit. Going after them is pure politics and clearly won't fix anything.

And the first thing the uber rich do when you increase their taxes is stick their money in off shore accounts and investments. So it actually has a negative effect.

Zlurodirom

Not sure where the research is, but the video states that the rich made 11 trillion this past year, pretty sure that's more than 1/3 of the deficit if true.

There are only an estimated 400 billionaires in the U.S. today (probably fewer after today). That's accumulated wealth over years.

The math seems way off to say rich people combined made 11 trillion just in one year.