Sunday, March 31, 2013

$17 Should be the Minimum Wage

Please bear with me for a couple of minutes as we hash over some basic income statistics...or not.

Back in 2007 the "median household income" was $55,438. According to a new report from Sentier Research, that's declined to $51,404 in February 2013.

If you consider that a majority of households in the U.S. (approximately 80%, the majority of which are married couples) who now have two or more incomes, for the sake of this post, we can divide the median household income by 2 to = $25,702 for a median average income per year.

But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings of the nation's 103.8 million full-time wage and salary workers was $775 by the end of last year (or $40,300 a year GROSS).

Persons employed full time in management, professional, and related occupations had the highest median weekly earnings of $1,146 ($59,592 a year GROSS)--- while those employed in service jobs earned the least with a median wage of $485 a week (or $25,220 a year GROSS). Now combine ÷ 2 = $55,906 a year GROSS.

And yet, according to the latest data from the Social Security Administration, 50% of all U.S. wage earners had a NET income of $520 a week or LESS, (or $27,000 a year or LESS ).

I've added those figures ($25,702, $40,300, $55,906, and $27,000) ÷ 4 = $37,227 a year ÷ 52 weeks = $715.90 a week ÷ 40 hours = $17.90 an hour.

$17.90 an hour is what I've given you as a statistical value for a "median hourly wage" (meaning half of all Americans earn this or less, and the other half earn this or more). Now allow me to explain why $17.90 an hour should instead be the new minimum wage (and also indexed for inflation).

First, let's examine the chart below. As you can see 40% of the entire U.S. workforce earns less than $20,000 a year --- That's 61 million working Americans.

Median wages in the U.S.

The poverty rate threshold for a family of four in 2012 was $23,681 a year before taxes (The official poverty measure in the United States is defined in terms of before-tax cash income.) A majority of poor households are single parents (51%), of which 97% are mothers, of which 69% rely on food stamps. and 50% of poor families have no air conditioning (but yes, as Fox News pointed out, most do have refrigerators), and 68% of poor single parents rely on Medicaid, of which 87% of those report not having enough to eat.

Mitt Romney's "47%" (those who need "entitlements") earns less than $25,000 a year. (Source: Social Security Administration)

Entitlements (e.g. food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) are really "wage subsidies" for large corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Many of the largest U.S. corporations, on average, have paid an "effective" U.S. corporate tax rate of only 8.1% over the last 5 years. So they haven't even been paying for their fair share of these "wage subsidies" either. But yet, they want everybody else to make these "shared sacrifices" while their profits and executive salaries have grown larger and larger, year after year.

40 years ago in 1973 (as a high school drop out) I was earning $7.50 a hour in a union sheet metal shop as a welder's helper. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' CPI inflation calculator, what I earned in 1973 would be $39.22 today (or $81,577 a year). But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for a welder in 2010 was only $17.04 per hour (or $35,450 per year).

In other words, what a skilled welder is [under] paid today at $17.04 per hour, is about what I calculated the minimum wage of $17.90 an hour should be today --- Remember, I was earning $7.50 an hour 40 years ago, and the federal minimum wage today is only $7.25 an hour.

If a business owner (small or otherwise) says they can't afford to pay their workers at least $17 an hour in 2013, then maybe they shouldn't be in business at all. Plantation owners weren't "businessmen", they were "exploiters", just like war profiteers and price gougers. Henry Ford was a businessman. Capitalism shouldn't be about personal gain at any cost to the masses; it should be shared economic prosperity for all.

CEOs shouldn't be earning 380 times more than their lowest paid employee. A CEO on the S&P 500 earns an average salary of $13 million a year. If the lowest paid worker at Wal-Mart earned $17 an hour, that's $35,360 a year, and that still goes in to $1 million 283 times. The owners of Wal-Mart (the Walton family) have already amassed more than $100 billion. How much personal net wealth do just a few individuals need before they can finally say they are "free" --- and are enjoying "free markets" --- and are participating in "free enterprise" in a "free society"? The word "free" has been more symbolic of "greed" than anything else these past 40 years...as in "free to exploit".

And yet, still they complain.

In 1988 (25 years ago), while managing a small business (a video rental store), we were paying our employees (college students) $9 an hour to work the counter --- Remember, that was 25 years ago. And that's still more than what many workers are paid by Wal-Mart and McDonald's today, who are America's two largest job creators (the federal government, which also includes the U.S. military, is America's largest job creator).

Of course, if you also included State and City employees, "government" (by a much wider margin) would employee many more people --- and would without question --- be our largest "job creator" (who, by the way, pays better wages, employs full-time, and offers much better benefits.)

But the GOP uses this fact as a "wedge issue" to divide the American workers, saying government employees are paid too much, when in fact, it's been the wages in the private sector that have paid much too little for far too long.

But it should also be noted that a single person who is earning $17.42 an hour (or more) today, will also be paying a higher tax rate that Mitt Romney will on $20 million of annual income earned from his capital gains. So I propose that the new minimum wage be $17.41 an hour (and only if you work over-time will you be in the higher income tax bracket.)

Marginal Income Tax Rates for 2013

Lottery Winners Taxed More than CEOs

If you were taking home a $520 paycheck every week and invested $1 a week for a lottery ticket, wouldn't you feel very fortunate if one day you eventually hit the jackpot for $13 million? Wouldn't you still feel grateful if the government took almost a third of it in income taxes? Of course you would, you wouldn't be greedy, you'd be "blessed".

According to the Social Security Administration, 50% of the entire U.S. workforce earns $520 a week or less (which is $27,000 a year) --- that is the "median income" --- and 50% of the workforce earns more than $27,000 a year. (The poverty rate threshold for a family of four is $23,681 a year, and is defined in terms of before-tax cash income.)

A CEO on the S&P 500 earns an average salary of $13 million a year, and they earn these type of annual salaries fairly consistently (year after year) throughout their careers. For them, it's not just a once-in-a-lifetime jackpot, it's an ongoing income.

And most of these CEOs are not taxed at the highest rate on the majority of their annual earnings. The top "marginal" tax rate is 39.6% on earnings over $450,000, but most of these CEOs are taxed at 23.8% for long-term capital gains on their stock-option grants (sometimes called "pay for performance"). Their tax rate is slightly less than someone else who is single and earning $36,250 a year in regular hourly wages, who have a tax rate of 25% (see the chart further below).

House Speaker John Boehner said, "Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It's time to cut spending."

The spending that the Republicans have been mostly focused on has been in Social Security and Medicare. The GOP won't properly fund the IRS to go after tax cheats, or urgently pursue Medicare and healthcare fraudsters, or remove any of the tax loopholes that mostly favor the rich.

But by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on just those earning $400-$450,000 a year, it was really only just a symbolic gesture, because the top marginal tax rates only affects about 377,279 Americans -- and it mostly affects regular "wages".

To put this into better perspective: In the United States a neurosurgeon must complete four years of college, four years of medical school, a one year internship, and at least five years of a neurosurgeon residency. The median pay for neurosurgeons in the U.S. is $368,000 a year.

Most people earning over $400,000 a year also receive other forms of income, such as in the form of stock-options and/or deferred interest, and they don't pay the higher marginal tax rate of 39.6%, but pay taxes on long-term capital gains, which only went up from 15% to 23.8% (which includes the newly added 3.8% surtax for ObamaCare® in 2013).

For example: Unlike the neurosurgeon who pays one of the highest top marginal rates (33%-36.9%), the CEO of a hospital or pharmaceutical company can earn millions of dollars every year with stock-options, and pay the much lower capital gains tax rate of 23.8%, which is less than a single person earning $36,250 a year, who pays a 25% marginal tax rate.

The new capital gains tax rate is still lower for CEOs like Mitt Romney than the marginal tax rates are for a single person earning just $36,250 a year --- so Warren Buffett's secretary will still be paying a greater share of her income in federal taxes than her boss. And she will also pay Social Security taxes on 100% of her income, whereas, someone else earning over $113,700 a year (such as Warren Buffett) pays no additional Social Security tax (or no Social Security taxes at all if all his income was only earned from capital gains).

Every single year, about $1 trillion a year in personal income is not taxed at all because of the "cap" on Social Security and because of the special exclusions for Medicare taxes on capital gains.

And those who gain the most from this preferential treatment of capital gains (and the "cap" on Social Security taxes), are the CEOs of those large corporations, the banks and hedge funds --- and it's the banks and the hedge funds who are also the largest shareholders (institutional investors) that primarily invest in the stocks of the largest corporations. They all go full circle with one another.

So by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and raising the limit on marginal tax rates to those earning $400-$450,000 a year, is mostly just a symbolic gesture. Out of a total of 151.4 million Americans in the workforce, 149.9 million earned less than $250,000 a year --- and 1.5 million Americans earned more than $250,000 a year...but only 377,279 Americans earned over $400,000 a year.

That was NOT the deal that the majority of Americans had wanted and voted for last November. Most had wanted something more similar to the Buffett Rule --- like taxing ALL income at 30% over $1 million a year.

Also, 65 percent of Americans wanted to raise taxes on large corporations (such as having them pay the "statutory" tax rate of 35%, rather than an "effective" rate of only 8.1%) by eliminating tax loopholes, but both parties in Congress are heading against what the majority of Americans want.

The new marginal tax rates for 2013 (Source: Forbes)

Rate Single Married /Joint Head of Household
10% $0 to $8,925 $0 to $17,850 $0 to $12,750
15% $8,925 to $36,250 $17,850 to $72,500 $12,750 to $48,600

50% of all U.S. wage earners had a net compensation of less than or equal to $27,000 a year for 2011 (this is Mitt Romney's 47%)

25% $36,250 to $87,850 $72,500 to $146,400 $48,600 to $125,450
28% $87,850 to $183,250 $146,400 to $223,050 $125,450 to $203,150
Out of a total of 151.4 million Americans in the workforce, 149.9 million earned less than $250,000 a year --- and 1.5 million Americans earned more than $250,000 a year...
33% $183,250 to $398,350 $223,050 to $398,350 $203,150 to $398,350
35% $398,350 to $400,000 $398,350 to $450,000 $398,350 to $425,000
39.6% $400,000 and up $450,000 and up $425,000 and up

...but only 377,279 Americans earned over $400,000 a year.

Just 406 Americans earned $20 to $50 million a year (e.g. Mitt Romney, etc.) and paid 15% or less for capital gains taxes last year.

And only 93 Americans (and the wannabe "King Makers", such Las Vegas Sands billionaire Sheldon Adelson) earned over $50 million a year.

The top 1% prefers to reference their earnings as "investment income" (which the IRS classifies as "unearned income"), as though this income was somehow more privileged than ordinary "hourly income", and so therefore, should be taxed less. "We're entitled to be taxed less because we're the job creators." (In China perhaps.)

A forty-four-year-old Passaic New Jersey man (Pedro Quezada) just won $338 million from the Powerball Jackpot after "investing" in a lottery ticket. Pedro came to America 26 years ago from the Dominican Republic and worked in a factory until 2006, when he opened his own small business (a bodega, a convenience store specializing in Hispanic groceries). Pedro claimed a lump-sum payment worth $221 million, netting about $152 million after paying about $69 million in taxes (about 31%).

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, can cash out that same exact amount ($221 million) from his stock-option grants and owe 23.8% in taxes (20% for capital gains with the 3.8% ObamcsCare® surtax) --- and pay about $52 million in taxes (netting about $168 million after taxes).

I'm no tax attorney but, if Pedro Quezada had held on to his winning ticket for one full year before cashing in his $1 "investment", could he have also claimed his $221 million as a "long-term capital gain" and paid much less in taxes?

Lottery winners like Pedro Quezada will make that kind of money only ONCE in their entire life, but some CEOs make these kind of salaries year after year after year after year...

Apple's Tim Cook can keep about $17 million more of his windfall than Pedro Quezada can, because of special tax breaks for capital gains (personal income acquired through the sale of stocks, gold, real estate, fine art, deferred interest, etc.)

"Don't talk back Aunt Maggie! He likes to fire people --- and then keep their pensions!"

* This was also posted at the Daily Kos

Saturday, March 30, 2013

What ever Happened to Wall Street & Tax Reform?

All polls show that members of Congress are indeed voting on issues that are most favorable to their wealthiest campaigns contributors, and are ignoring most other opinions of the majority of their constituents, except for on the wedge issues.

The majority of Americans want campaign finance reform. Most Americans want Citizens United overturned. The majority of Americans also want the federal election laws changed. And they don't want limitations placed on voting rights (such as restricting the days and hours for voting). And they also want to stop the manipulation of congressional gerrymandering of state districts. And most Americans would like to change the way the electoral college decides our elections.

The majority of Americans want federally funded elections with limitations on campaign donations, so that politicians can be more beholden to the voters, rather than to special interests who contribute unlimited sums of money to SuperPACs. The majority of Americans want unrestricted and honest democracy, knowing that when they vote, their votes really will matter.

The majority of Americans want "wedge issues" (e.g. same-sex marriage, immigration reform, gun safety laws, etc.), just like every other important piece of congressional legislation, to be voted on separately, in "up-and-down" votes on the floors of the House and in the Senate, and not filibustered by one lone anonymous obstructionist, or amended to other important legislative bills that are pending in Congress. The voters have a right to witness what their elected representatives are voting on, either for or against, rather than have them hide behind legal and procedural gimmicks that members of Congress think might save their seat in the next election cycle. The American people want them all on the record. (The Senate recently passed a budget for the first time in four years that had more than 500 amendments.)

Americans also want Congressional reform. They want an end the "revolving door policy", where members of Congress who usually vote on issues that mostly favor the largest corporations and banks, can't later go work for those same corporations and banks after they leave public office. Most Americans want the lobbying on K Street to be very reformed, so that the people's opinions also matter.

But members of Congress (in both political parties) benefits from the current status quo, and so therefore, have steadfastly refused to make any of these changes that most Americans want. The only thing Congress has managed to reform was to put very slight restrictions on themselves for the insider trading of stocks (and that was only because of a public outcry, rather than because it was the right thing to do). How can the American people ever get the members of Congress (in both political parties) to reform themselves?

And the majority of Americans also want to reform our banking system and Wall Street. But for most members Congress, those places must seem so dark, so corrupt, and so evil --- that even our bravest elected representatives refuse to visit those places --- especially in broad daylight. They are all very well aware that these people, those with so much wealth and power, can also be very ruthless, and sometimes, even dangerous.

And too much money in the hands of the wrong person, such as an apathetic psychopath, can be utterly horrific, because items on the psychopath checklist include a grandiose sense of self worth and a lack of empathy -- characteristics that are, unfortunately, rewarded in our society. As to our population, a proportionate number of those who fall into this category can be found in the corporate boardrooms, on Wall Street, and on the floors of our Congress.

Rather than fully implementing and enforcing the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the politicians in Congress have only been more willing to compromise on ideological wedge issues, more so than on the more serious economic matters, such as reforming the tax code, or creating jobs that pay a living wage, or compromising on raising the minimum wage --- issues that actually affect the vast majority of ordinary American lives on a daily basis.

And like Congress, the corporate mainstream media also seems perfectly willing to spend more time and energy on the wedge issues as well. Why haven't they and Congress been more focused on the major (and still ongoing) problems with jobs and the economy?

The attention that's been focused on same-sex marriage, immigration reform, and gun safety laws are all well and good, and these issues should be debated, and new laws should be passed, if that's what the majority of the Americans want. But why can't our Senators and Representatives chew gum and walk down the halls of Congress at the same time?

And lately, when members of Congress do listen to the public's opinion, and when they do compromise with each other in Congress, it's usually just on the wedge issues, on policies that don't have any affect at all on the financial industry, a corporation's bottom line, or the take-home-pay of a CEO after capital gains taxes are deducted.

A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle, who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage, are now coming around to support it. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years, with 58 percent of Americans in favor.

A significant number of elected officials, who had once been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens, are now talking about "charting a path" for them. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements. Recently a deal was announced, a temporary guest worker program that would grant up to 200,000 new visas every year for low-skilled workers (which, after reading the details, this blogger is against).

Even a few politicians, who are staunch gun advocates, are now sounding more reasonable about background checks. Polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the gun-show loophole. (And why not? By law, we all have to register our cars, apply for a driver's license, and buy auto insurance --- even though we have a Constitutional right to access the highways and byways of the land, although sometimes there are certain restrictions and requirements.)

Most politicians seem to have a keen sense of the "tipping point" when it comes to public opinion, and many now support equal marriage rights, immigration reform and gun safety. The exception though is their stance on Wall Street reform and taxes, where public opinion never seems to matter.

Before January's fiscal cliff deal, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $250,000. But the deal Congress had made raised that to $450,000. That was NOT the deal that the majority of Americans had wanted.

Only the CEOs of large corporations and banks earn that kind of money, but a great portion of their salaries are paid as stock-options and taxed at the much lower rate as capital gains. So raising that limit was mostly just a symbolic gesture. That was NOT the deal that the majority of Americans had wanted and voted for last November; they wanted something more similar to the Buffett Rule.

And most Americans weren't particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They've been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages. That was NOT what the majority of Americans had voted for, or wanted, or expressed as their opinions in poll after poll after poll.

Recent polls show that Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes, NOT by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal. Instead, they've been busy with passing more anti-abortion laws, repealing ObamaCare© and placing more restrictions on voter's rights.

And 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations (such as having them pay the "statutory" tax rate of 35%, rather than an "effective" rate of only 8.1%) -- but both parties in Congress are heading against what the majority of Americans want.

Also, half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street's twelve mega-banks, which currently controls 69 percent of the banking industry. But our elected representatives don't want to touch Wall Street. Even the White House believes that the banks are too big to fail and too big to prosecute. Most Americans want to see a few CEOs on Wall Street tried for their crimes against the American people.

Why are our politicians so sensitive to public opinion on wedge issues such as equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns -- and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on jobs, minimum wages, tax reform, Wall Street reform, and the entire economy as a whole?

Robert Reich thinks "it's perhaps because gay marriage, a path to amnesty and any form of gun control doesn't threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or financial regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation's finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms --- alarm bells that, in turn, sets off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election."

Our politicians seem to be remarkably impervious to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes, but seem to feign blindness, ignorance, incompetence, or weakness when approaching problems that the majority of the population wants addressed.

And as far as the media (cough-cough)...now we have David and Charles Koch trying to purchase the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, and the Los Angeles Times -- and Rupert Murdoch, who not only has News Corp, also wanted to buy the Los Angeles Times. He once admitted that he would personally involve himself in the editorial process "if he had to". That's all we need, rich ultra-conservative billionaires controlling ALL our lame-stream news.

Robert Reich's post tells of two political scientists who had recently polled a group of Chicago multi-millionaires and found that their biggest concern was budget deficits and government spending (not unemployment). These wealthy individuals were also far less willing to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare.

They also opposed initiatives to increase spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level. They also had more and greater access to members of Congress because of generous political donations.

So who are these politicians really representing? We already know, and we've known for a very long time.

Members of Congress are indeed voting on issues that are most favorable to their wealthiest campaigns contributors, and are ignoring most other opinions of the majority of their constituents, except for on the wedge issues.

* This was also posted at the Daily Kos

Friday, March 29, 2013

War with North Korea Can Create American Jobs

According to a report by the official North Korean Central News Agency, North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un convened an urgent operation meeting of senior generals, signed a rocket preparation plan, and ordered his forces on standby to strike the U.S. mainland, South Korea, Guam and Hawaii.

Does this mean that good-paying manufacturing jobs in China, South Korea and Taiwan might one day return to the U.S.?

Forbes said, "There is an important reason why many U.S. companies open stores, build factories and hire people overseas: That’s where the sales are. If a company outsources jobs to another country, that’s 'off-shoring'. However, companies can also build stores or factories in foreign countries and hire the people who work there. That’s also 'off-shoring', but it isn’t necessarily 'outsourcing'. Those are company employees, both American and foreign."

But when a U.S. company builds factories overseas to manufacture their products using cheaper labor (rather than exporting their products from the U.S. to consumers overseas) they are creating 'demand' by enabling foreign workers with an income, who in turn use other services and products from other U.S. companies, such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart

U.S. manufacturers have self-perpetuated this economic cycle of 'demand' overseas to increase their company's bottom line to offer ever greater returns to their shareholders --- who are mostly large institutional investors (banks, hedge funds, private equity firms, etc.), and more often than not, the corporate executives themselves with stock options.

The U.S. spends $700 billion a year in "defense spending" on the best military power in the world, which has become more like a private police force for U.S. corporations operating overseas --- defending "U.S. interests" and not the Homeland or the American people per se.

So when we buy foreign-made products in Wal-Mart (out of economic necessity, because of their lower prices), we aren't only just contributing to the suppression of wages domestically, but we are also contributing to the economies and treasuries of foreign countries --- and American workers are being taxed in the U.S. to support the defense of those "U.S. interests" overseas.

If North Korean leader Kim Jong Un makes good on his promise, is it really worth the cost to U.S. taxpayers (of which 50% earn less than $27,000 a year) defending corporate America's interests overseas, especially when we have such high unemployment, stagnant wages, and growing poverty here at home --- just to protect U.S. corporate profits that are earned and un-taxed overseas?

But if we do go to war with North Korea, just like with all other U.S. wars (with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan) there should also be a war profits and excess profits tax on the wealthy and these American multi-national corporations to pay for the war --- and our government should not further burden the American workers with protecting the interests of companies who don't protect the interests of the American workers.

Instead of spending such a vast amount of our nation's resources defending "democracy" abroad and nation building overseas, we should spend more time defending democracy at home and building here.


While Congress has been forcing austerity on the working and middle class, their F-35 joint strike fighter — which has a price tag of more than the entire sequester combined — will most likely be saved from cuts.

The F-35 joint strike fighter, which was affectionately named the “Fiasco 35,” has been a disaster since production began in 2001. With a price tag of $1.5 trillion, the costliest weapons system and the single most expensive item in the 2013 Pentagon budget has yet to fly a single combat mission.

The F-35 is the perfect example of the massive waste and abuse throughout the Pentagon budget. But it’s just one example. The Pentagon budget is full of pork, and with over 50% of all discretionary spending going to the Pentagon, we know there are savings to be had.

Large portions of theF-35 joint strike fighter are being outsourced to manufacturing partners around the world.

It is outrageous that working and middle class families are being asked to make do with less, while Lockheed Martin, their lobbyists and allies in Congress protect profits and wasteful projects.

Sometimes public pressure works. Back in 2009, USAction/TrueMajority led a successful campaign to defeat the F-22, another plane we couldn't afford and didn't need. Now thry're back again to take on the F-35.

Either send them on a mission to North Korea, or use the savings to help Americans at home.

KFC Fires Homeless Woman

A Tupelo Mississippi woman hired earlier this month by a KFC was fired Monday after the franchise owner discovered she’s homeless.

Eunice Jasica has been staying at the Salvation Army lodge since early December after losing her job, her car and her home.

The nonprofit organization requires its residents to seek employment daily and, upon finding it, to pay for lodging and start saving for a place of their own. Jasica said she had been job hunting for months and was relieved to find work on March 11 at the KFC on North Gloster Street.

A document signed by that location’s general manager on March 12 confirms Jasica had been hired to perform “prep work” and would receive a paycheck every two weeks. But when Jasica reported for duty Monday, franchise owner Chesley Ruff withdrew the job offer upon learning she lived at the Salvation Army.

“He told me to come back when I had an address and transportation,” Jasica recalled. “But how am I supposed to get all that without a job?”

Ruff signed a letter the same day stating he couldn’t employ her “due to concerns of lack of residence and transportation” and that she could reapply when her circumstances change.

On Thursday, though, Ruff said he’d only used the homeless excuse to protect Jasica from the real reason he declined her services: She has no prior food-prep experience and seemed too elderly to lift the 40-pound boxes involved in kitchen work.

Jasica is 59 years old and had worked 27 years as a bus driver and also did security for Bloomingdale’s. She attends classes at Itawamba Community College when she’s not job hunting.

“I was trying to spare her feelings, I guess,” Ruff said. “I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, but I know it was stupid.”

KFC operates more than 5,200 restaurants nationwide and follows all applicable employment laws, but its independent franchisees make their own hiring decisions, said KFC Corp. spokesman Rick Maynard.

Mississippi is an at-will employment state. That means the employer or employee can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason as long as it doesn’t violate anti-discrimination statutes based on factors like race, age, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability.

Under the law, Ruff had the right to terminate Jasica’s employment based on her lack of a permanent residence but not, for example, because of her age. Ruff said he never terminated Jasica, though, because she hadn’t yet been hired. The document signed by the store’s general manager says otherwise. The general manager would not comment.

Although he refused to employ Jasica, Ruff has hired homeless people in the past. Among them was Scott Kohlman, a felon who came to Tupelo after his release from prison. Kohlman, who was homeless, had worked at Ruff’s KFC for several months and even became a manager, according to Salvation Army Maj. Sue Dorman. His story also had appeared in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.

Kohlman did not return a call for comment Thursday.

“Over the 20 or so years I’ve been in Tupelo doing business,” Ruff said, “I have helped people before.”

That’s why his refusal to employ Jasica shocked Dorman. She said she called Ruff after seeing his letter Monday and was told simply that it’s company policy not to employ people lacking stable housing or transportation. Ruff never mentioned concerns about Jasica’s ability to lift heavy boxes or her lack of food-prep work, Dorman said.

“I was ticked,” Dorman said. “She’s one of those that’s really trying hard. She doesn’t want a hand-out.”

This week’s incident is a first for the Salvation Army in Tupelo and for similar agencies operating throughout Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, said the organization’s three-state divisional spokesman Mark Jones.

Jones called the situation “disheartening.”

ORIGINAL SOURCE

Carla Hesseltine of Just Cupcakes (www.JustCupcakes.Net)

Just Cupcakes is an upscale cupcakery at Hilltop and Town Center in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The website says, "Gourmet cupcakes baked daily in our jewel-box Hilltop shop - fresh, high quality works of art that are delicious and sure to make you smile."

Carla Hesseltine, the owner of Just Cupcakes, was on Fox News last night complaining about the prospects of raising the minimum wage, even though she has no legal obligation to offer healthcare to her employees (she doesn't have enough employees to fall into the ObamaCare mandate).

She says she has "razor thin margins" in her business budget. Is she surviving on less than her minimum wage workers? Does she qualify for food stamps? When I ran a small business 25 years ago I paid my workers at the video rental store $9 an hour, and I never starved.

Some small business owners use the same excuse as the big business owners, that paying their employees a fair and living wage will keep them from investing and expanding their business. The owners of Wal-Mart don't need to expand or become any wealthier. Henry Ford paid his employees a fair wage and Ford has invested and expanded for 100 years.

Carla Hesseltine also serves on Congressman Scott Rigell’s Small Business Advisory Board (He's a Democrat who voted for raising the minimum wage.)

Show me your mortgage and tax returns Carla, and I'll decide if you can afford to pay your workers a little bit more. Otherwise, I wouldn't be mixing politics with business. Some people might not want your cupcakes after seeing your appearance on Fox News last night.

P.S. --- I just loooooooooooooooooooooove cupcakes, but I can't afford them as often as I'd like while surviving on food stamps :(

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Social Security Disability Media Lies

Just like with a lawsuit, anybody who has a Social Security number (and who has also paid Social Security taxes for a given length of time) can also file a Social Security disability claim (SSDI); but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever be awarded anything --- and most often they aren't.

As an example: In 2011, under President Obama, only 35.4% of all SSDI claims were awarded. Ten years earlier in 2001 under George W. Bush, 46.1% were awarded.

But if you only watched Fox News, you'd never know that. You might think that anyone who wanted to, could go on the government dole --- and that it's very easy to do. Not true.

The NPR published an article saying, "In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed...Every month 14 million people now get a disability check from the government."

Not true. It's not 14 million, it's only 10 million, and that's only if you included dependent children. It's currently 8.8 million if you only count disabled working-age people. If you included retired persons, it's over 55 million.

The Center for Economic Policy Research recently critiqued the NPR's article about disability, disputing their reasons and claims, saying "While the segment had many interesting stories, and presented useful background, it got some of the basics wrong." (That was an understatement.)

Arthur Delaney at the Huffington Post had earlier co-authored a great piece saying, "Some members of Congress have begun leveling accusations that rising enrollment in Social Security's disability insurance program is evidence of growing American dependence on the government, and even a 'slave' mentality."

Arthur saw the NPR article and e-mailed me, knowing my personal situation and that I'd also be interested. He and I are both disputing Bill O'Reilly's claim, who had once said, "So why has the disability rate increased more than 100 percent? I'll tell you why. It's a con. It's easy to put in a bogus disability claim. Right now President Obama and the Democratic Party lead the league in entitlement spending and promoting a nanny state philosophy."

Mister O'Reilly was 100% wrong on all of his bogus claims.

In his email Arthur had extrapolated that "the original NPR story made it seem like all people have to do is raise their hands to enroll in SSDI. I know from the data that more than 60 percent of all initial claims are denied, and from conversations with disabled people, the process is also a hassle."

Which I know all too well from my own personal experience. The process is very time consuming, sometimes taking years to complete --- not to mention the slew of forms and documentation that is needed to process a disability claim (I often complained about the Paperwork Reduction Act, just like the VA is currently having problems with in processing their claims.)

After I first went online to file my initial SSDI claim in January 2011, I was eventually sent to see three Social Security doctors for medical evaluations. Then after a few months I received two separate written denials for two written appeals on my initial claim. It was only then did I get a local lawyer for an appeals hearing before a judge in 2012.

Months later I was denied again. Then I contacted Binder and Binder, who is now representing me in an Appeal to Counsel. If I lose there, the last step is district court. The government is not just "giving away free money" under Obama's administration --- the Social Security Administration makes it very difficult. It's almost as though they suspect that most claims are bogus (and that's very hard on people like myself, who are trying to survive on a ZERO income and food stamps).

But multi-millionaires like Bill O'Reilly and John Stossel on Fox News are telling their viewers that "millions of Americans are just leaving their jobs to go on Social Security disability" (which only pays an average of $1,111 a month). No Bill, they are NOT voluntarily leaving their jobs with a HOPE of going on the government dole to earn 50% less than they would have with honest wages.

In Arthur Delaney's article at the Huffington Post he refers to a report from the Congressional Budget Office that says the rise in America's ranks of disabled stems from an aging population, a surge in women workers...and a terrible economy in which disabled people can't find jobs.

He also points out that there are actually LESS younger workers applying for SSDI, and that it's mostly because of an aging population that we have an increase in claims --- and so, it's because of the demographics alone, and that we should also expect more SSDI claims in the future, but not necessarily just because of high unemployment.

The number of people who are receiving Social Security benefits did not "skyrocket" under Obama, although SSDI CLAIMS have risen since the recession. But the number of people who are actually being AWARDED SSDI benefits is no greater number (either as a percentage or as a total) under Obama than under any other President (except under Ronald Reagan, when claims actually decreased).

And it's not necessarily just BECAUSE of high unemployment that more Social Security disability CLAIMS are being filed, but also (and mostly) because of the aging demographics of our workforce. Not to mention, we also have a much higher population than when Jimmy Carter was our President (we now have 100 million more people). Let's look back at the last 30 years that Chana Joffe-Walt wrote about for the NPR:

There were 2,861,253 American receiving SSDI benefits when President Jimmy Carter left office --- but only 2,830,284 working-aged Americans were receiving SSDI benefits when Ronald Reagan left office (that's 30,969 LESS than when Reagan first entered office). Only 381,000 SSDI claims were awarded under Reagan, for an average of only 47,625 a year.

That number jumped to 637,499 SSDI claims that were awarded under George H.W. Bush (An average of 159,374 a year), up a whopping 90.1% annual average (or 81.6% in actual claims awarded) since Ronald Reagan. There were 3,467,783 working-aged Americans who were receiving SSDI benefits at the end of George H.W. Bush's 4 years in office.

1.6 million SSDI claims were awarded under Bill Clinton (An average of 196,818 a year), up 19% a year from George H.W. Bush. There were 5,042,334 working-aged Americans who were receiving SSDI benefits at the end of Bill Clinton's two terms in office.

Then there were 2.4 million SSDI claims that were awarded under George W. Bush (An average of 298,108 per year), up 34% a year from Bill Clinton. There were 7,427,203 working-aged Americans who were receiving SSDI benefits at the end of 2008.

Now we've had 1.4 million SSDI claims that were awarded under Barack Obama over his first 4 years (An average of 350,148 per year), up a mere 15% a year from George W. Bush. --- although Obama still has 4 years left in office).

But still...there aren't 14 million as the NPR claimed...and it's not up 100% as Bill O'Reilly had claimed. And the sky isn't falling either.

Of course most of us already know that Bill O'Reilly doesn't want his taxes going up, and that he's only pushing his ideological agenda of less government spending in a growing (and older) population, while cutting taxes for the increasing richer "top one percent" (like himself). And Bill O'Reilly's claim of disability awards rising 100% is just as bogus as anything else we've ever heard from him.

Currently 8,827,795 working-aged Americans receive SSDI benefits as of Obama's first term in office. You can go here for all the data I collected with direct links to the original government sources.

As an aside: It's also worth noting that just by BEING long-term unemployed can also exasperate a pre-existing condition --- and people who once stood on their feet for 8 hours a day and did manual labor for many years, can develop muscular atrophy that prevents them for doing the work that they were previously qualified to do.

I was laid off in 2008 and a few months later I was experiencing sever muscle cramps in my arms and legs, and it wasn't until then did I realize I had atrophy, in conjunction to the arthritis in my neck and back. By that time I had already gone past my "point-of-no-return".

To the unemployed: Exercise and stay in shape! When I was working my work was my exercise. Unlike Bill O'Reilly, I didn't just sit behind a desk and shuffle talking point memos.

When you're hired to do a job, you have to hit the ground running. No employer is going to allow you to gradually reacclimatize yourself physically into the work environment. You'd first need some serious physical therapy before applying for a job. So keep fit if you get laid off.

The Congressional Budget Office had said, "In the aftermath of the recent severe recession, applications for DI benefits reached a historic high, exceeding 2.9 million in calendar year 2010." (Note: They used the word "applications", not "awards".)

But remember...just like with a lawsuit, anybody can FILE a Social Security disability claim, but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever be AWARDED anything.

So in conclusion, either Bill O'Reilly is just an uber-rich con artist and a liar, or an ignorant and incompetent "journalist". But you can stop crying now Bill. There's no need to worry, you'll still be a very rich man when you die.

Google "Bud Meyers Social Security" for more articles.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Too Few Jobs for Population Growth

Almost three years ago in 2010 the New York Times wrote "It will take at least eight more years to create the 8 million positions lost during the recession. And that does not even allow for population growth."

As of 2011, 18 million Americans had at some point received federally funded extended unemployment benefits (up to 99 weeks, hence the term "the 99ers").

Now in 2013, according to the government's own statistics, it still, might take another 8 years to get the reported U-3 unemployment rate down to pre-recession levels.

But in truth, I suspect that the real unemployment rate will be a permanent economic condition --- at least until a great many of my fellow Baby Boomers have become deceased...maybe by 2040.

October 2009 - Unemployment 15.2%, 15.9 million unemployed

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8.7 million jobs were lost between the start of the recession in December of 2007 and early in 2010 --- just several months before the reported U-3 unemployment rate had "officially" peaked at 10.2 percent.

That was when 15.7 million Americans were reported as unemployed (Currently the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the unemployment rate as 7.7 percent with only 12 million unemployed).

The "net" new jobs created since that time, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is about 5.4 million --- which is just shy of the 6 million young Americans who have graduated from high school and college since then --- so job growth has not kept pace with natural population growth.

But we are on pace to create 8 million jobs in 8 years....but still, what happened to the 8.7 million people who were originally laid off?

All the numbers show a very dismal picture. The reported U-6 unemployment rate is at 14.3 percent with 22.3 million Americans out of work. Of those, 4.8 million have been unemployed for 6 months or longer (40.2% of those reported unemployed). But because the government no longer tracks the unemployed after one year*, it doesn't include millions of others who have been out of work.

* Since 1994 the long-term unemployed ("discouraged workers" who have been jobless for more than one year) have been excluded from all government data. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics did report in October 2010 that 4.5 million Americans were unemployed for one year or longer (and made up 31 percent of all those who were reported unemployed).

Coincidentally, also in 2010, millions of Americans who were laid off in late 2008 and early 2009 had exhausted all 99 weeks of their unemployment benefits. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics claims they don't use this data to calculate the unemployment rate --- they use a household survey. At their website they explain:

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance...but some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households."

If you have ever been contacted by the government for this survey, please contact me. I have as yet, over the past 4 years, found ONE PERSON who has ever been contacted for this survey. I once calculated that there were 8 million "99ers" who were not counted at all by the U.S. government (they were swept under the rug).

Last month 236,000 jobs were created nationally. That was much ballyhooed by the administration, but at that rate it will take 8 more years to get back to full employment.

In Las Vegas where I live, the unemployment rate is still 10.2% -- which is what the national average was back in October of 2009 --- when Las Vegas was once at 15.1%. Although, casino owners such as Sheldon Aldelson have done phenomenally well since the recession. (Current rates for other U.S. metropolitan areas can be found here.)

A fellow 99er informs me: "In New Jersey, where the state's unemployment rate is at 9.5%, we have 442,737 people unemployed, while only 2,600 jobs were created in the last month. At that rate it will take over 14 years to get everyone back to work."

But of all those jobs created in the private sector, more and more of them are part-time jobs. Compared with December 2007, when the recession officially began, there are 5.8 million fewer Americans working full time. In that same period, there has been an increase of 2.8 million working part time. Do the math.

Today in March 2013 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 8 million Americans work part-time. And on top of that, going forward ObamaCare could create even more part-time jobs for employers who want to dodge healthcare plans.

If you include both part-time workers (who want full-time work) and people who have gave up looking for jobs (but want to work), that puts the U-6 unemployment rate at 14.3 percent.

But millions of unemployed Americans are no longer counted in the U-6 rate anymore. The government had once categorized them as "discourage workers" and claimed they had given up looking for work; so after one year, they are no longer even included in any of unemployment numbers, not even in the U-6 rate.

As you can see from the chart below from ShadowStats.Com, the actual number of people who are unemployed in the U.S. is much higher than the "politically reported" U-3 rate...and it's actually getting higher, which the government's "participation rate" only confirms.

In 1983 the U.S. population was almost 234 million, now in 2013 it's over 315 million. The labor force participation rate (the percent of the U.S. population that is employed) is at a 30 year low. This excludes those that are not counted in the participation rate --- such as those who are receiving Social Security retirement or disability benefits, those in mental heath facilities or interned in hospitals, and those who are incarcerated in our prison system. And it also excludes "discouraged workers".

And besides just population growth, job growth hasn't been keeping up with corporate outsourcing either. And H-1B VISAs and J-1 guestworker programs haven't helped either.

Our leaders (both Democrats and Republicans) have been cheering on the new labor force in Asia because the corporations that donate money to them are making record profits with foreign labor.

Four years ago in the middle of the Great Recession, representatives of many of the nation’s most powerful corporations attended the 2009 Strategic Outsourcing Conference to talk about how to send more American jobs overseas.

Conference organizers had polled the more than 70 senior executives who had attended the conference about the behavior of their companies in response to the recession. The majority said their companies increased outsourcing.

And another question that was asked of the executives found that the top reason for companies to outsource American jobs was to “reduce operating costs” (and not because Americans lacked job skills).

Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that “U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.”

Furthermore, a Wall Street Journal analysis showed, “Thirty-five big U.S.-based
multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas.”

According to a report on outsourcing by Working America, “Manufacturing employment collapsed from a high of 19.5 million workers in June 1979 to 11.5 workers in December 2009, a drop of 8 million workers over 30 years. Just imagine what the unemployment rate (and the labor participation rate) would be like today with those 8 millions jobs.

Manufacturing plants have also declined sharply in the last decade, shrinking by more than 51,000 plants, or 12.5 percent, between 1998 and 2008. These stable, middle-class jobs have been the driving force of the U.S. economy for decades and theses losses have done
considerable damage to communities across the country.

Large corporations such as Apple, which conducts all of its manufacturing on foreign shores, and Nike, which subcontracts all of its footwear production to independently owned and operated foreign companies, lead the trend.

Private equity firms (such as Bain Capital and the like) have increased the pressure to cut costs by any means necessary, leading to more overseas outsourcing.

Labor costs are the main driver of corporations sending jobs overseas, but foreign countries’ costs are increasing compared to the United States.

According to a 2012 survey from Duke’s Fuqua School of Business, nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated labor cost savings as one of the three most important drivers leading to overseas outsourcing. The Duke survey found that “only 4 percent of large companies had future plans for relocating jobs back to the United States.”

No matter how you look at it, things are still very bad, especially for the "50 and over" crowd (the Baby Boomers) who were laid off during the recession and are still unemployed.

Maybe one day the U.S. might be the next emerging market, and then U.S. companies might start hiring U.S. citizens again --- if they can ever eliminate the U.S. federal minimum wage.

* Also posted at the Daily Kos

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Nike: Nookie, Cash, and Tax Shenanigans

Nike has been accused of having a history of using sweatshops and utilizing child and slave labor -- just like Apple and many other U.S. corporations do to manufacture and market their products in "emerging markets". Nike, like all others, has denied these charges and claims they have no control over these offshore factories. But this post is not about that; it's about Nike's manipulation of their stocks, the U.S. tax code, and our democratically elected politicians --- all to enrich Nike's corporate officers --- those who have no control over the sweatshop factories, but control almost everything else.

Nike's profits have recently leaped a whopping 55%, reporting a fiscal-third-quarter profit of $866 million --- compared to $560 million a year earlier. Nike had revenues in excess of $24.1 billion in its 2012 fiscal year (ending May 31, 2012).

The Wall Street Journal reports that Nike's growth was (again) impressive in the North American market, where sales have jumped 18%. Sales were also higher in Europe and emerging markets.

"The U.S. business [Nike] continues to be just phenomenal,” said Paul Swinand, a Morningstar analyst. But he added that “for real long-term growth to be solid, it has got to come from China and emerging markets.” As of last year, this multi-national corporation has been the "job creator" of more than 44,000 people - worldwide.

Last September Bloomberg reported Nike's announcement of an $8 billion, four-year program to repurchase shares of its class B common stock. The company already had a $5 billion share-buying authorization that was to be completed during the fiscal second quarter of 2013.

“Repurchasing our shares is a prudent use of our cash,” Nike's Chief Executive Officer Mark Parker said in a statement. “This new share repurchase program demonstrates our continued confidence in Nike’s strategy to generate long-term profitable growth and strong cash flow, and reflects our commitment to delivering value to our shareholders.”

It's worth noting that Nike's CEO is also a shareholder. Mark Parker's compensation totaled $35.2 million for Nike's 2012 fiscal year ending May 31 --- and was more than 200 percent higher than his $11 million compensation in fiscal year 2011.

Parker's compensation includes stock awards (the major boost in his salary). Some forms of these stock options are also tax deductible. Facebook will receive a tax refund of nearly $430 million as a result.

The Nike board of directors had granted Nike's CEO a $20 million restricted stock unit "retention" award, even though Mark Parker has already been "retained" (employed) at Nike since 1979.

Last November Nike raised its quarterly dividend on their stock by 17% and announced a two-for-one stock split. Nike has returned more than $14 billion to institutional shareholders (including Nike's corporate executives) through dividends and share buyback plans over the last 11 years.

Because a "share repurchase" (stock buyback) reduces the number of shares outstanding, it increases earnings per share and tends to elevate the market value of the remaining shares. When a company repurchases shares, it will usually say something along the lines of, "We find no better investment than our own company".

MarketWatch describes stock buybacks as "corporate givebacks" to shareholders, since the reduced supply of available shares can boost a stock’s price. They report that, so far this year, $69 billion worth of buyback authorizations are making this the third-best year for buybacks since 1999.

So when a CEO like Nike's Mark Parker says they're "delivering value to our shareholders", they are also delivering value to themselves. These corporations are cash mills for the executive officers, who often sit on multiple boards and move from one company to another --- successfully extracting money while legally avoiding taxes.

Even though Nike is already an extremely successful business, to create jobs in Oregon, it had to first be guaranteed by the state's politicians that it wouldn't change Nike's favorable corporate tax structure. Nike pressed for a 40-year tax deal, and Yahoo reported that Nike got a 30-year deal.

Economic blackmail is often used by major U.S. multi-national companies. They threaten to move their operations out of state, or even out of the country, if they don't get special tax breaks --- with domestic jobs always being held as the hostages. Patriotism has no borders for a multi-national company. Their CEOs and executives are loyal to no one.

A Citizens for Tax Justice report shows that ten companies (including Nike) indicated in their financial statements that most of their foreign earnings have never been taxedanywhere. The statements the companies filed with the SEC reveal that if they ever did bring their foreign profits back to the U.S., they would pay the full 35 percent U.S. tax rate, which is how we can surmise that no foreign taxes were ever paid, because they would have been offset any U.S. taxes.

Last June Nike reported that Nike's fiscal fourth quarter revenues were $6.5 billion, the largest revenue quarter in Nike’s entire history --- and their revenues for all of fiscal 2012 were up to $24.1 billion. Nike also reports their "effective" U.S. corporate tax rate as between 25.5 and 26.1 percent (not the statutory rate of 35 percent).

READ: Which Fortune 500 Companies Are Sheltering Income in Overseas Tax Havens

READ: Nike, Microsoft and Apple Admit to Offshore Tax Shenanigans

* Full Disclosure: I use the term "Nookie" in the title of this post for two reasons: to describe how the U.S. workers and taxpayers are getting screwed by companies like Nike, and to get the reader's attention. Yet people, even poor people, continue to spend too much money on these rubber-soled shoes , that only cost pennies to manufacture. Why? Are "status symbols" really worth so much? And are a pair of shoes worth killing for?

Monday, March 25, 2013

20 Americans Have Over $500 Billion Dollars

America's 20 Richest People Have Over ½ Trillion Dollars
# People Collective Net Worth Company Source
 3  $ 96.9 Billion Microsoft
2 $ 62.0 Billion Koch Industries
4 $107.1 Billion Wal-Mart
3 $ 51.0 Billion Mars ( Candy)
2 $ 40.5 Billion Google
6 $174.7 Billion Other
20 People $532,200,000,000 Billion

<<< Total

Imagine the dimensions of a football field stacked 5 feet high with $100 dollar-bills. That's $500 billion dollars. 20 people could buy 2,000 Boeing 747s. (Although Boeing has only built 1,458 747's since 1989.)
Rank Name Net Worth Age Residence Source
1
Bill Gates
$66 B 57 Medina, Washington Microsoft
2
Warren Buffett
$46 B 82 Omaha, Nebraska Berkshire Hathaway
3
Larry Ellison
$41 B 68 Woodside, California Oracle
4
Charles Koch
$31 B 77 Wichita, Kansas diversified
4
David Koch
$31 B 72 New York, New York diversified
6
Christy Walton (& family)
$27.9 B 58 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
7
Jim Walton
$26.8 B 65 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
8
Alice Walton
$26.3 B 63 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
9
S. Robson Walton
$26.1 B 69 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
10
Michael Bloomberg
$25 B 71 New York, New York Bloomberg LP
11 Jeff Bezos
Jeff Bezos
$23.2 B 49 Seattle, Washington Amazon.com
12 Sheldon Adelson
Sheldon Adelson
$20.5 B 79 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos
13 Sergey Brin
Sergey Brin
$20.3 B 39 Los Altos, California Google
13 Larry Page
Larry Page
$20.3 B 39 Palo Alto, California Google
15 George Soros
George Soros
$19 B 82 Katonah, New York hedge funds
16 Forrest Mars, Jr.
Forrest Mars, Jr.
$17 B 81 Big Horn, Wyoming candy
16 Jacqueline Mars
Jacqueline Mars
$17 B 73 The Plains, Virginia candy
16 John Mars
John Mars
$17 B 76 Jackson, Wyoming candy
19 Steve Ballmer
Steve Ballmer
$15.9 B 57 Hunts Point, Washington Microsoft
20 Paul Allen
Paul Allen
$15 B 60 Mercer Island, Washington Microsoft