Institutional Investor’s latest “rich list” in its Alpha magazine, its survey of the 25 highest-paid hedge fund managers, is out — and it turns out that these guys make a lot of money. Surprise!
Yet before we dismiss the report as nothing new, let’s think about what it means that these 25 men (yes, they’re all men) made a combined $21 billion in 2013. In particular, let’s think about how their good fortune refutes several popular myths about income inequality in America.
First, modern inequality isn’t about graduates. It’s about oligarchs. Apologists for soaring inequality almost always try to disguise the gigantic incomes of the truly rich by hiding them in a crowd of the merely affluent. Instead of talking about the 1 percent or the 0.1 percent, they talk about the rising incomes of college graduates, or maybe the top 5 percent. The goal of this misdirection is to soften the picture, to make it seem as if we’re talking about ordinary white-collar professionals who get ahead through education and hard work.
But many Americans are well-educated and work hard. For example, schoolteachers. Yet they don’t get the big bucks. Last year, those 25 hedge fund managers made more than twice as much as all the kindergarten teachers in America combined. And, no, it wasn’t always thus: The vast gulf that now exists between the upper-middle-class and the truly rich didn’t emerge until the Reagan years.
Second, ignore the rhetoric about “job creators” and all that. Conservatives want you to believe that the big rewards in modern America go to innovators and entrepreneurs, people who build businesses and push technology forward. But that’s not what those hedge fund managers do for a living; they’re in the business of financial speculation, which John Maynard Keynes characterized as “anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be.” Or since they make much of their income from fees, they’re actually in the business of convincing other people that they can anticipate average opinion about average opinion.
Once upon a time, you might have been able to argue with a straight face that all this wheeling and dealing was productive, that the financial elite was actually providing services to society commensurate with its rewards. But, at this point, the evidence suggests that hedge funds are a bad deal for everyone except their managers; they don’t deliver high enough returns to justify those huge fees, and they’re a major source of economic instability.
More broadly, we’re still living in the shadow of a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. Total catastrophe was avoided by bailing out banks at taxpayer expense, but we’re still nowhere close to making up for job losses in the millions and economic losses in the trillions. Given that history, do you really want to claim that America’s top earners — who are mainly either financial managers or executives at big corporations — are economic heroes?
Finally, a close look at the rich list supports the thesis made famous by Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” — namely, that we’re on our way toward a society dominated by wealth, much of it inherited, rather than work.
At first sight, this may not be obvious. The members of the rich list are, after all, self-made men. But, by and large, they did their self-making a long time ago. As Bloomberg View’s Matt Levine points out, these days a lot of top money managers’ income comes not from investing other people’s money but from returns on their own accumulated wealth — that is, the reason they make so much is the fact that they’re already very rich.
And this is, if you think about, an inevitable development. Over time, extreme inequality in income leads to extreme inequality of wealth; indeed, the wealth share of America’s top 0.1 percent is back at Gilded Age levels. This, in turn, means that high incomes increasingly come from investment income, not salaries. And it’s only a matter of time before inheritance becomes the biggest source of great wealth.
But why does all of this matter? Basically, it’s about taxes.
America has a long tradition of imposing high taxes on big incomes and large fortunes, designed to limit the concentration of economic power as well as raising revenue. These days, however, suggestions that we revive that tradition face angry claims that taxing the rich is destructive and immoral — destructive because it discourages job creators from doing their thing, immoral because people have a right to keep what they earn.
But such claims rest crucially on myths about who the rich really are and how they make their money. Next time you hear someone declaiming about how cruel it is to persecute the rich, think about the hedge fund guys, and ask yourself if it would really be a terrible thing if they paid more in taxes.
Continue reading the main story
701 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.
Rima Regas
is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA May 8, 2014Americans need to reevaluate their belief that Capitalism is capitalism only if it has no upper or lower bounds. The fancy that so many believe that putting any limits - call them regulations - means it's "Socialism."
I place the blame on these very rigid beliefs on the onslaught of misinformation we've been under for years, together with the decline of Humanities in our education system.
We all need to value our work, work product, and self-worth more, if we are to fix what ails us. We don't have a fundamentally bad economy. We don't have a fundamentally badly trained workforce. But we do have tens of millions of people who are willing to continue to devalue themselves in favor of a few families who are trying to cheat them of a Democracy.
Ethics is where everything breaks down. Ethics, and the reinstatement of ethics rules, is where everything begins the path to resolution.
We need more philosophers and ethicists and fewer MBA's.
mmwhite
San Diego, CA May 9, 2014Since I'm just a poor working stiff, I have to ask: if you put a big chunk of your personal income into founding a business or otherwise creating jobs...don't you get to deduct that from your income tax? So all these job creators aren't actually having to pay taxes on the money they use to create jobs - just on what is left over. That seems fair.
By my calculation, these 25 guys made an average of $840,000,000. Seems like that's more than enough money to not only create a few jobs, but pay the tax bill as well. And still have enough left over to keep you out of the poorhouse.
David
Palo Alto, Calif. May 9, 2014To simplify the tax code and make the system fairer we should increase the standard deduction to cover the cost of all basic necessities such as shelter, food, electricity, transportation, clothing, education, health care and payroll taxes. A real standard deduction might be closer to $30k per person.
Businesses pay corporate taxes after expenses like plush hotels and travel. The wealthy have deductions for discretionary costs like mortgage interest and charitable contributions to their vanity projects. The wealthy are able to deduct their taxes paid and investment interest expense.
Billionaire hedge fund managers pay the lowest rate of all as their income is treated as carried interest.
But the working poor and middle class are not able to deduct the payroll tax, sales taxes, the cost of their rent, their charitable deductions to church or temple, etc. They are given a modest standard deduction that does not even cover the cost of basic necessities.
I have been very wealthy and I have been a poor working student and I can tell you the burden of paying taxes falls far more harshly on the working poor than on millionaires. When I was assessed a 10% tax surcharge on all income made over a million dollars, I did not suffer one less glass of champagne.
But I skipped meals, health care and more to make my way through college and grad school because of taxes.
Everyone should read the Buffet rule on the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule
David Cache
Valle Crucis, NC May 9, 2014The strip mining of America continues. Hasn't it gone an long enough already. In the early 1980's I thought it preposterous that anyone would believe the supply side bunk but several of my peers bought it hook, line and sinker.
They're not in the now that's rich crowd by a long shot. When I started commenting here I took as my avatar PT Barnum, not as homage to those peers or others like them, but because it seemed to me not that there was a sucker born every minute, but because Barnum turned that phrase attributed to him by his foe into a profit center. People need to drop the instant gratification addiction that leads anyone to be a sucker and turn these people out of office and by proving them their allies wrong. It's easy.
We're not lazy moochers, we are had working people, mostly and it's time that we excelled at talking to each other about the important things, the health and well being of all American's and voted the real suckers out of office for good. They are sucking the life out of US.
While the "now that's rich" crowd is dwelling in the stratosphere of opulence the populous is getting squeezed again. And just in time for Mother's day too the crowd's henchmen are wanting to take the axe to housing assistance. "Roughly 1 million of America's mothers use housing vouchers to keep a roof over their kids' heads http://bit.ly/1obCMV7"... End that nonsense and raise the minimum wage too.
Jeremy Mott
CT May 9, 2014If Republican candidates for national office want to show their concern for "average Americans," let them make a simple commitment when they propose tax cuts for the "job-creating" rich:
If the cuts don't increase employment by (say) 250,000 jobs per month in the first 24 months after the cuts are enacted, then those cuts would become INCREASES for the next 24 months.
If Republicans believe people should take responsibility for their actions, then they themselves ought to take responsibility for enacting their own myths as if they were truth.
Jim Ryan
Friendswood, TX May 9, 2014The richest people in America should be people who have squatted double bodyweight in an officially sanctioned meet, or those who have bench pressed one hundred pounds over bodyweight. That would make as much sense as paying hedge fund managers more than we pay heart surgeons.
Elizabeth
Seoul May 9, 2014At his finest, Stephen King could not have conjured such soulless monsters as inhabit America's financial sector.
Tom Stoltz
Detroit May 9, 2014The populist narrative that Wall Street was bailed-out while Main-Street paid the bill is getting tired. The tax payers profited from TARP, despite losses at GM and AIG. The shareholders got the shellacking they deserved. Bank of America is still half the value before the crash, old GM shares are worthless, and AIG share are worth 3.5% of their pre-crash value.
Yes Dr. Krugman, the feedback loop of wealth continues to drive concentration of wealth, but can we please stop with the "Total catastrophe was avoided by bailing out banks at taxpayer expense". Yes, the tax payers had to keep the system afloat, but in the end of the day, the tax payers were made whole and the shareholders (who rightfully earned their place) took the loss. The CEOs and boards are still overpaid, but let's not confuse the issues of executive compensation with the banks.
womanuptown
New York May 9, 2014Perhaps other readers saw last night's story about the high cost of day care. That's the first thing that came to mind when I saw all those zeroes: the woman who had to quit her job at Walmart when she had a second child, the teacher who opted to stay home rather than pay $20,000 for a top-notch program, the mother who scrambles to send her child to a good program 20 minutes away although she has no car. I share this because it demonstrates for me the oblivion to which the .1 % consigns the social good. Walmart rakes in the profits and externalizes the social costs of low wages. Teachers, we are told, are "overpaid." Meanwhile the managers are still at the craps table, funded by the merely well-off and we can't even find the wherewithal to tax them for their transactions.
Donald Green
Reading, Ma May 9, 2014So what you are saying is if the 1% would pay their employees a fairer wage in comparison to their income, this would be the least expensive way of providing a livable wage. Many government programs would then be become unnecessary. Great idea!
David Blum
Cheong-ju South Korea May 9, 2014Some people have said hedge funds must have value because people invest in them. People also go to Las Vegas and spend money on slot machines, which mathematically means they'll lose money. Hedge funds are slot machines except you don't get free drinks and the return is worse.
Most of the executives making use bonuses are not innovators. I hold shares in Coca-cola. Warren Buffet is the dominant shareholder. He voted to give huge, gratuitous bonuses to the Coke executives. What the heck have they innovated? Maybe some distribution stuff but the product is one hundred years old. And mom and pop share holders like me get hammered.
The system is totally gamed, and that's why you need to band aid of taxation. Otherwise you'll have a sort of aristocracy/oligarchy. I imagine they'll invent titles like Lord Master of Wealth, and Duke of Lobbying for the Lannister family.
DR
New York, NY May 9, 2014I agree about the carried interest nonsense, but why do so few people know that President Obama raised the capital gains tax to 20% last year, and an additional 3.8% tax on investment income, for the higher income brackets.
Joseph Huben
Upstate NY May 9, 2014Silly. Every year the rich didn't pay their share the budget has been in deficit. Tax cuts have demonstrated that the rich are not job creators. The are deficit creators.
ALB
Maryland May 9, 2014Perversely, one of the biggest causes of the obscene increase in the incomes of the new oligarchs has been financial disclosure rules. This is particularly true of the CEOs of the biggest corporations. In the good old days, salary packages for these folks were hard-kept secrets. Once rules for corporations were enacted requiring disclosure of this information, every corporate board knew what every other corporate board was paying its CEO.
Why did this matter? Let's assume you're the board of directors of a widget manufacturing company. You see that your CEO is paid at the very bottom of what CEOs of other widget manufacturing companies are making. That doesn't seem fair to you (and it certainly doesn't seem fair to your CEO), so you increase his (and I do mean "his") total compensation to somewhere in the middle of the pack. The next year, another widget manufacturing CEO's total compensation is at the bottom when compared to others, and so his board of directors raises his compensation to the middle of the pack. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The excuse a board typically uses for these compensation increases is that it would be horrible -- horrible! -- to lose their CEO due to lower compensation. Only this particular CEO, with his vaunted expertise, can do the job. My answer to this foolishness is two words: "Mark Zuckerberg". At age 26, he built and ran Facebook, making nowhere near what the Masters of the Universe haul in (ditto: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs).
Peter S.
Tucson, AZ May 9, 2014I like that you used kindergarten teachers as a comparison group. I work in an elementary school, and I see what these women (they're almost all women) do, and it's harder work than you could pay me to do. Kindergarten teachers mold a couple dozen (usually self-centered) preschoolers into functioning children, as well as teaching them the ABCs and 123s. Day in and day out, for most of a year. Then a couple months later they come back and do it again with a new group of kids. Hard work, essential work, and grossly underpaid work. As opposed to hedge fund managers, whose work is not nearly as hard, not at all essential, and beyond grossly overpaid.
WW
LA May 9, 2014Isn't this how Rome fell?
Cynthia Cascante
Portland, Ore. May 9, 2014Now where did I put those the hedge shears?
wwhite
Hartsdale, NY May 9, 2014New rule: set the maximum amount of wealth that a husband + wife may transfer to another person by any means upon their death (including by means of trusts, inheritance, gifts) at $100M. The IRS would collect cash value of all assets worth more than $100M from the estate. The tax sweep calculation should include assets transferred by the husband and wife while they were alive to the extent transferred for less than fair value, other than transfers to charitable organizations. We do not allow titles in the US -- if you want to be a duke, a baron or a knight you have to renounce your US citizenship. When the game is over, collect the chips and redeal. $100M is plenty of money for the next generation, but it will not last forever. If you do not like the rule, leave, renounce your citizenship and apply for a tourist visa if you want to visit the US.
taylor
ky May 9, 2014Well, gee, can we at least tax them at the same rate as the rest of us, please please please!
Jmilbrook
Millbrook, new york May 9, 2014I don't see anything wrong with these 25 guys making all this money. This is America and if these rich guys find clients willing to pay the admittedly high fees of these rich guys, then good for them. If readers think it is so easy to start a business and make this type of money, they are free to go into the hedge fund business. The bad feelings towards these rich guys is purely a result of jealousy. It is true of course that these rich guys are probably not contributing to society in proportion to their salaries. Big deal - life is unfair.
Contrarian
Edgartown MA May 9, 2014The real issue is the carried interest loophole. Whether or not you think they deserve the high salaries, the real point is those salaries aren't taxed as if they got a paycheck from the NYT like you do. They're taxed "special". The federal tax system has determined through the carried interest loophole that their income is better than yours. Its so much better that they get to keep a larger percentage of it than you do. If you both made $50 million they would keep more. Because your income is vanilla, but their income is super dark delicious chocolate. They get up and go to work everyday and manage money and do their jobs. But because they can call their income carried interest they get to pay less in taxes. That is the real issue. That is the scandal. Drive through Greenwich CT to see the effects of what paying less in taxes can do.
William Neil
Rockville, MD May 9, 2014May I share a quote which backs up what Krugman is saying, a quote from Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century," since copies are hard to come by: It's from page 265, Chapter Seven:
" ...there is no reason why a person can't be both a supermanager and a rentier - and the fact that the concentration of wealth is currently much higher in the Untied States than in Europe suggest that his may well be the case in the United States today...what primarily characterizes the United States at the moment is a record level of inequality of income from labor (probably higher than in any other society at any time in the past, anywhere in the world, including societies in which skill disparities were extremely large) together with a level of inequality of wealth less extreme than the levels observed in traditional societies or in Europe in the period 1900-1910."
There's not much consolation in that last sentence, since this period in European history, which Piketty calls the "Belle Epoque," when the top 10% of European Society owned 90% of the capital, or wealth if you would prefer.
The middle class of that time in Europe, the 40%, owned only 5%, and the bottom 50% - the working class - also just 5%.
That's quite an achievement for us, the highest wage inequality in human history. And it sure feels like it, and the state of our "democracy" is registering it in subtle and not so subtle ways. Something has to give.
Catracho
Maine May 9, 2014why don't we tax the bejesus out of unearned income in this country so to be able to lower taxes on income that comes actually from hard work. Can anyone answer that question?
Karen
Ithaca May 9, 2014Wouldn't you love to see those hedge fund managers teach kindergarten..in a "Trading Places" scenario. They wouldn't have the fortitude, stamina or compassion. Not to mention their apparent lack of math skills.
701 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.