Question--how much money does the top one percent have?

[mistertrickster]

I've heard the stats that the top one percent control 42 percent of all wealth, 61 percent of private securities, more than the bottom 50 percent etc. etc.

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

But are there any sources that estimate the combined wealth in dollars?

1 Trillion?

5 Trillion?

10 Trillion?

If one could theoretically liquidate all the assets of the top 1 percent at fair market value, how much would it be?

On edit--I'm trying to get some idea of the wealth the top one percent controls compared to the national debt . . .

[SharonAnn]

1. Nearly all of it?

[Overseas]

2. More on US income inequality

Full article: http://www.alternet.org/economy/149477/why_you_should_feel_cheated%2C_deceived_and_sickened_by_america%27s_stunning_inequality%2C_even_if_you%27re_doing_well/

Why should a relatively prosperous upper-middle-class family care about inequality? There are lots of reasons, but here's the most personal one: that's our money the very rich are taking! Based on Internal Revenue Service figures, if middle- and upper-middle-class families had maintained the same share of American productivity that they held in 1980, they would be making an average of $12,500 more per year.

That bears repeating: $12,500 of my money every year to the richest 1 percent, and $600 more to pay my share of their tax cuts!

Inequality in the U.S. doesn't get the attention it deserves. Many of us brush it off, thinking, "So the rich get richer -- it's always been that way." Or we think: "I'm doing OK myself – and I want to be really rich someday, too."

The lopsided distribution of wealth in the U.S. doesn't get the blame it deserves for our budget problems, either. On the contrary, since our economic system is based on individual freedom, most of us believe in the inalienable right to make unlimited amounts of money. The thought of taking back a greater share from innovative and industrious business leaders is (shudder) "socialism."

So instead we increase sales taxes and service fees. We cut police forces and educators. We remove funding for food pantries, homeless shelters and elder assistance.

[hfojvt]

3. kind of a moot point though, since there would be no practical way to liquidate it

However, the top 400 have a net worth of about $1.3 trillion
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/forbes-400-gates-buffett-wealth-rich-list-09_land.html

If you divided that equally among the 100 million households in America it would be a mere $13,000 per household.

for more on income distribution, check this out http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/123

for income, the percentages are this

Their (the 400 richest income tax filers) share of income was just 1.59% of all income. That is way up from the .49% it was in 1995, but still a fairly small slice. In 2005, those with incomes over $10 million (and there were 13,776 such families, including the fab 400) got 5.1% of all income. A table follows

income - number - percent of income (2005 IRS data)
>10,000,000 - 13,776 - 5.1
>5,000,000 - 21,431 - 2
>2,000,000 - 84,070 - 3.4
>1,500,000 - 56,615 - 1.3
>1,000,000 - 127,925 - 2.1
>500,000 - 524,506 - 4.8 (total 18.7% to top .67% of filers)
>200,000 - 2,737,802 - 10.6 (total 29.3% to top 2.67% of filers)
<25,000 - 57,898,144 - 9.2
all filers - 134,372,678

for wealth, check out this famous site

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

[hfojvt]

4. I guess I never included total income

total AGI in 2005 was 7.4 trillion, so 5% of that is 376 billion and 2% of that is 147 billion and 18.7% (which is going to the top .67% is 1.39 trillion for an average of 1.68 million for those 828,000 households.

[mistertrickster]

5. Okay, very helpful, thanks. nt

[JVS]

6. Too much.