Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (358773)	4/10/2010 4:34:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793671

*Take the Top 400 Richest Americans from Forbes and Fortune, and set all that money aside from the rest of the GDP for the rest of the country. Since GDP is a per year thing you should reasonably set aside their annual income rather than total wealth. Their incomes are high, but it wouldn't change the GDP by a large amount. Although it is higher than I though it was. Apparently its 1.59% of all Adjusted Gross Income for 2007 ( mjperry.blogspot.com ). But adjusted gross income is the income reported in their tax returns. The GDP is something like twice as high, so say maybe .75% of the GDP. It would be interesting to see what political party has benefited the most and how much as well. Hint: Don't think you'll find it is that ole rich "republican" party….* I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you wondering how much these people contributed to the parties, how much the people left after you don't these people's contributions any more, how much the incomes of the members of each party increased if you don't count these people's incomes, or something else?