How do the wealthy pay for things?
"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who ""dislike"" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations." "While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that ""regular"" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes." I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.
Right, just like computers are only available to the upper class.  In reality, the wealthy would just be the initial market.  As their demand causes supply increases/cost innovation, prices will inevitably fall (and philanthropy almost certainly rise), which would make the enhancements available further down the economic ladder, which cycles the process again. I got that notion from Max Kaiser, his ideas about that are mostly about interest rate apartheid - banks and rich people get money at zero interest, we pay 9, 10, 30%.  I think it involves everything from how we are seen in the eyes of the law to assuming risk, etc.  We are expected to play by the rules and they are not. The 'uber' rich because they take chances that others aren't willing to. They also are rich because they make products people like.   Take for instance Apple [or whatever smartphone/computer brand your so privileged to own] ,like them or not they make a great product (determined by the market). If the market didn't like it (Microsoft Zune) then it'll fail.   As for the risk aspect, starting a business takes a TON of risk, and only after much strife and hardships can a business have potential to reach great heights. You think starting Popeyes's was easy? You think franchising is easy? Absolutely not!  You sit there in your privileged high-horse saying the rich should pay because they make something you like and helped to succeed. It's like wanting something for free.   Buy phone -&gt; Others buy phone -&gt; Complain about the rich and vote for UBI -&gt; Get extra $ you wouldn't have gotten otherwise-&gt; Spend that extra $ on the next years phone And rich person is more likely not to choose subpar government services when they can choose something else. Meaning if the were allowed to opt out of this monopoly service provider they would. Meaning the only ones who want government services is those who want someone else to pay for it for them. "Most well-off people have investments which they have held for long periods of time, often of very substantial value such as a large part of a company.  They also have influence on legislators and officials through various social contacts, lobbyists, and contributions.  They managed to convince these law makers to offer a lower tax on income derived from sales of such investments.  The fig leaf covering this arrangement is that it ""contributes to the growth of economy by encouraging long-term investment in new enterprises.""" The prices we pay for goods and services is set by our level of income because we have a huge choice of price levels from luxury to economy class and DIY. This was true of rent and mortgage payments before the real estate bubble. There is still some choice though from a tiny house or trailer to a mansion. None of these are one set demand decided by someone else as with land value tax. Many people like where they live and want to stay there. Those people create a cross generational community. Land and homes must be affordable and we should have as much freedom about what we do with our homes as possible. Exactly. People don't seem to realize that a lot of the things they take for granted as being provided by the government were more than adequately provided by private charities until the government stepped in and 'fixed' things...or else they do get it but sweep it under the rug and mumble something about 'its more efficient this way' to justify intruding on the private affairs of others. This is why the founding fathers hated democracy -- the Athenians had no concept of rei publicae. People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class. "The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers).  Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and   dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already   has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock   dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term   capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the ""mega-rich"" are hedge fund   managers ""who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to   classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain   15 percent tax rate."" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned   by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a   high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit)   would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly   well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than   $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but   remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest   people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent   would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the   first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45   percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall   tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income   would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll   taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent   in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated,   given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make   between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal   taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis   from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of   Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower   capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar." "Partly I suspect this is selection bias. You say you see so many luxury cars go by. But if you're looking for them, you're going to notice them. Have you calculated the actual percentage? Do they make up 50% of the cars that pass a specific point in a specific period of time? Or just 10% if you really counted? You say you live in Baltimore county, Maryland. That's a relatively wealthy area, so I'd expect the percentage of luxury cars to be higher than the national average. You'd likely see considerably fewer in the backwoods of Mississippi. That said, some people who own luxury cars can't really afford them. I'm reminded of a wonderful TV commercial I saw recently where a man is showing off all his material goods, he talks about his big house, and his swimming pool, and his fancy car, with a big smile on his face, standing tall, and generally looking proud and happy. And then he says, ""How do I do it?"" And suddenly his expression changes to complete despair, he slumps down, and says, ""I'm in debt up to my eyeballs."" It turns out to be a commercial for a debt-counseling service. Some people put very high value on owning a fancy car and are willing to sacrifice on other things. If having a big fancy car is more important to you then, say, having a nice house or the latest computer or a big screen TV or dining out more often or going on more expensive vacations or whatever you have to give up to get the car, well, that's your decision. Personally I don't care much about a fancy car, I just want something that gets me where I want to go. And I've always figured that with an expensive car, you have to constantly worry about getting in an accident and damaging or destroying it. If you put your money into a big fancy house, at least houses rarely collide with each other. Personally, I make a nice income too. And I have a $500/month mortgage and zero car payment because I drive a 2003 pickup that I bought with cash. But I have two kids in college and I'm trying to get them through with no debt, that's where all my money is going." The rich pay more in taxes. It would be hard to cut taxes in a way that *didnt* help the rich. I'm more concerned with what it does for the middle and lower classes. I don't care that much if it helps the rich.  EDIT: Okay, so let's say you give the top third of the population (by income) a 1% income tax cut. The middle third got a 5% cut, and the bottom third got a 10% cut. In dollar value, the rich are still getting a larger cut, simply by virtue of how much they pay in taxes.  Someone made a point about property tax. Speaking very generally, poor people rent and rich people own. So a property tax inherently benefits the wealthy, because they own more property. Certainly any kind of corporate or capital gains cut would benefit the wealthy, since they own the corporations and are more heavily invested. Even a sales tax cut would benefit the wealthy more than the non-wealthy, simply because they spend more money.  But what frustrates me is how hung up people get on the fact that something is good for the wealthy, (such as with the headline of OPs article) as if we should actively try to avoid helping anyone rich. As I stated above, I don't care that it helps the rich, as long as it's helping the rest of us, too. And if the rich are getting a bigger benefit than I am by virtue of being rich, I'm not bothered, because I can do math. Those billionaires are often billionaires because they make it their job to take my hard earned money, which I give them willingly, and make it worth more than inflation in fifty years so that I can retire with dignity, comfort and peace.  If you tax the hell out of that then people are either not going to do it, or it will be prohibitively expensive to do so, meaning that the 401(K) system makes less money.  Also, wtf did the rich people do to deserve to be punished? "This article is also light on sources. It overstates inherited wealth. People who work with rich people know the saying ""shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations"". There is a proclivity of rich descendants to squander their fortune, which totally negates a majority of this article. In sum, this article and news source insists on itself" First of all, it's not the 1% that run things. It is more like the 0.1%. They run things because they run the government, not because they cannot be challenged in the market.   We should expect the courts to be less corruptible because their proceedings take place in public, whereas the Executive bureaucracy and most of the Congressional machinations occur behind closed doors. Deals are made that we have no knowledge of. That is where the 0.1% operates. They are as afraid of the light of day as vampires.   There is usually a cycle of wealth that lasts three or four generations unless that cycle is interrupted by collusion with the government. Europe's rich stayed rich because they became the government. Their thefts were sanctified by making them nobility and protecting them with the state.   Look at the makeup of Obama's inner circle. It is the banking nobility. Those banks and banksters would all be broke now if they had not harnessed the government to steal from thee and me to give to them.   Small government that debates everything in the open will not protect the very rich. Without government protection their wealth will return to the general pool in three generations. Some good answers already, but let me add a TL:DR version. Brokers work like a special type of bank account where you can deposit or withdraw money. The major difference is that they also give you the ability to buy/sell investments with the money in your account which you can do by either calling them or using their website. Important: Many investments you will make through a broker(e.g. stocks) are not insured against losing value like the money in your bank account.