Hypothetical question about redistribution of wealth

[Scuba]

Assume I'm a middle-class American (assuming there's one left). My total net worth is about $40,000 or so. Or you pick a number, doesn't matter.

If a one-time "wealth tax" was passed, and every American had to put in 10% of their wealth, and then that total wealth was redistributed evenly across all Americans (e.g., everybody gets 1/300,000,000 of it), how much money would I get back?

What would my net worth have to be for me to be at the "tipping point" where I get back exactly what I put in?

This approach would absolutely fit the definition of the red flag "redistribution of wealth".

Bonus question: Would most people who show up for Tea Party rallies be "winners" or "losers"?

[MindandSoul]

1. My guess (only!). . .they would be winners. . . but they THINK they would be losers!

[Scuba]

3. Here's one calculation ...

Total net worth of all US households per http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Money/Story/STIStory_349569.html is

$51.47 trillion dollars... find another number if you like

so....

$51,470,000,000,000

divided by 300,000,000 people comes out to...

$171,566.67

therefore...

...Unless your net worth is $1,715,666.70 or higher, you would get back more than you put in. So your family of four would have to have a net worth of more than $6,862,666.67 to be "losers".

[Scuba]

10. This is wrong, please ignore... too late to edit

[MrModerate]

2. Someone inclined to do so could do the math on this . . .

I'm not that person. And while it would certainly be a "redistribution," what we have now also meets that definition -- as it must! Ever since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago or so, the irreducible requirement has been to continuously redistribute wealth so as to drive societies forward. No redistribution, no civilization.

However, that's not, IMO, where the teabaggers are coming from. For them "the rich" are in some mysterious cloud-cuckoo land to which they can only aspire if a bolt from the heavens strikes them -- winning the lottery or giving birth to a kid who's the next Jennifer Anniston, Bill Gates, or Kobe Bryant. Such mythical creatures -- on display on TV every night -- are to be slavishly admired but not expected to participate in society like regular folks.

Aside from that their only hope is to hold onto every penny they've got and make sure none goes to anyone who's less well off than them. Because obviously -- phony Christianity notwithstanding -- anyone with less than them is undeserving and should be abandoned to their fate.

And by the way, apparently god shits hospitals, roads, and policemen and such things really shouldn't need to be paid for.

[safeinOhio]

5. The fact of the matter is

they buy a lot of lottery tickets and expect to win. Another fact, the do not understand math.

[shedevil69taz]

9. If their speeling on thier signs is any indication

of their general level of education I would have to agree 100%
(yes I did that on purpose)

[BlooInBloo]

4. Find me a net worth histogram, and I'll tell you.

[rgbecker]

6. Here's some rough numbers to go by.

Total US Net Worth in 2009: About 55 Trillion. Divide that by population (Man, Woman and Child) of 350,000,000 and you get about $157,000. The median Net Worth for family (or household or each economic unit, for example each independent individual or couple) is $120,000. That is half the families have less than $120,000 and half have more. So to your example: 10% of net worth from everyone, equal amount returned to everyone.

Each American would get back $15,700 (Man, Woman and Child). If you have more than $157,000 Net Worth, you would be a "Loser".


Naturally there would be a huge shift from Americans between 40 and 70 years of age to children, younger Americans just starting out and the very old.

If you kept to the tax paying unit, of which there are about 100,000,000, things would look different. Each "Family" would receive $55,000 and the "Break Even, tipping point" would be $550,000 of net worth.

As the income level of the tea baggers is higher than average and as they have the funds to take off of work to protest, I'd guess in your hypothetical, the tea baggers would be net "losers" and in reality, in most cases already are.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0705.xls#Data!A1

[Motown_Johnny]

7. I don't think anyone is proposing that, all we want to do is "Repeal Regan's Redistribution"

All we need to do is to go back to top tax rates where they were under Nixon. Or just split the difference and have the top rate somewhere between Nixon's and Reagan's.

That Is It !!!

No "one time 10% tax" would be needed.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Depends

Are you including money in people's retirement plans, and in their homes? Since you need to be able to travel mid-week to attend a Tea Party, my guess is that most of the attendees have either home equity or retirement plans, or both.

Since a lot of sub-retirement age Americans don't have either substantial home equity, or significant amounts of money socked away in their 401K's, I'd venture to guess that the Tea Partiers would be net losers under your scenario.